Vista Incompatibilities

[GrofLuigi]

Attempt to get back on topic:

If you're running HDTach in compatibility mode, you're measuring compatibility mode, not your actual hard disk speed!

And the biggest source of incompatibility: prohibition to write to %programfiles% for regular users - Microsoft promoted that until XP. Hell, they even promoted .INI files in Windows3X - you can't expect every time Microsoft changes their mind to blame it on others!

GL

[CoffeeFiend]

If you're running HDTach in compatibility mode, you're measuring compatibility mode, not your actual hard disk speed!

That got me wondering. So I just compared 2 passes of HDTach 3, on each the original exe in compat mode and the byte patched one (still no word from mods about the pic and/or patch), and the results were virtually identical (peak speed varied by about 5, random access is the exact same, average read varied by 0.2). The curves look much the same too, peaks as high/low, and it drops just the same near the end of the disk.

So I don't think it really changes anything.

Edit: Oh well. No one says anything, so I'll just risk it then! Hopefully it doesn't say "Group: banned" by my username tomorrow morning

Again, NOT illegal: it does NOT bypass any protection code/licensing/serial checks or such, it's merely for interoperability/to circumvent restrictions for use, which is deemed as acceptable by US Judges

Pic (version check in WinMain):

So either @ 0x1139 change 0x05 for 0x06 (makes it work with NT 5.x and 6.x), or @ 0x113A change 0x76 for 0xEB (makes it work with NT 5.x and over). Then it'll run on Vista & Win 2008 not in compat mode (and you can see it basically makes no difference in speed)

Edited June 26, 2008 by crahak

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

the Ctrl+Alt+Del thing was a minor annoyance for about 10 seconds until i figured out Ctrl+Shift+Esc was unchanged

I won't talk about stuff that runs on XP but doesn't on vista, because you imply we must only list software released the day after tomorrow.

I imposed that restriction so this thread didnt get flooded with "OMG Oregon Trail (linked for the kiddos) doesnt run on Vista! -see that proves Vista is incompatible with every thing ever made!1" type posts. (For the record though it works fine though)

if you have a recent program that is legitimately incompatible, please share it. but if the manufacturer has addressed the issue in a newer (free or lowpriced) version and you just refuse to upgrade, I cant categorize that as an incompatibility. However, Volatus may be pleased to see that I have added Nero 6 to the list after I discovered that there was a version released after the Vista RTM date which according to the rules, makes it subject to the list. Technically, it could be argued into the "Works, but with problems" category but as I stated before, modern versions of nero are pretty much crap and not worth the effort of arguing.

GrofLuigi, i also added a bit about the HDtach compatibility issue

as for the comments that Vista has too much extra junk in the trunk, yeah i have to agree. I replace IE with FF, WMP with VLC or more recently GOMPlayer, WLM with Pidgin, Burning Software with ImgBurn, RDC with MRemote, Disable defender, firewall, readyboost, sec center, sidebar, problem reporting and UAC and Im good.

[Volatus]

Don't get me wrong... I do most of my burning (primarily DVD copies) with ImgBurn as well. I've even been known to create an image from Nero or any other program, just to burn it with ImgBurn. I've even run ImgBurn on a computer without a burner, to get additional information about the drive, or just for the fact that ImgBurn can eject AND insert the tray (I needed that once, too). And ImgBurn is 110% Vista compatible. ImgBurn just is a really clunky "solution" for making data and audio CDs and DVDs, so I rely on Nero for that. I also hate all the extra and useless crap that comes with it.

SERIOUSLY. DO WE NEED "NERO DESKTOP SEARCH"?! >-( (haet)

So yeah, I agree, Nero (as a package) sucks. But "Nero Burning ROM" is pretty much the best at what I need to get done. Unless someone has an alternative that isn't "programmed in mom's basement for shareware plz"...

Edited June 26, 2008 by Volatus

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

Nero Portable Edition FTW.

Anyway, my new RAM's in, and since i found the same PQI i had, i thought why the heck shouldn't i run all 6GB. They don't seem to cooperate though, i've been struggling all night to get them going at a half-decent frequency but still nothing.

Vista 64 coming in today. Hope i'll get this **** memory sorted out.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Th3_uN1Qu3

[Volatus]

Here's a new one.

It's incompatible with my way of life. The way I browse and manage files, the streamlined data organization I've become accustomed to in XP. The lack of a functional status bar in Explorer. The lack of detailed information on appropriate files - like a description of EXE and DLL files, unless I go to Properties. The omission of proper navigation buttons (like, you know, "Up") in favor of collapsing (and therefore useless) "path buttons" in the address bar. The inability to access "Downloads", say, from the common My Documents folder. The lack of ability to customize so-called "favorite places" on the dialog boxes. There's much more, but I haven't come up with it yet...

Needless to say I think I may soon be going back to XP on my desktop supercomputer. Performance is the least of my complaints - actually, the performance of Vista (after vLitening out about 4.5gb of useless bull) is almost better than XP. Although I noticed that Photoshop takes longer to load - quite noticeable since it only takes about 1.5 seconds on XP. Maybe I'll try XP 64 this time around. I hate the WOW64 system though... bloat, bloat, bloat. Not quite as bad as Vista though.

But the fact is, my way of life worked with XP - and no, XP didn't create it (it helped, though). I am, of course, using the latest version of my way of life. And my way of life was "on the shelf" so to speak, when Vista RTMed. I was even using Vista shortly after, too. It sucked then... amazingly, it sucks now.

edit: I can also confirm that Epson Print CD 1.4 and lower don't work properly. Epson doesn't provide updates (or even a downloadable version...!), so the version that came with your printer is the version you're stuck with, so if you have a version that doesn't work, you're screwed. 1.5 works, but 1.5 has a goofy DLL error that Epson should have fixed (they didn't include a certain DLL file in their installation). You can get 1.5 through warez channels, but we all know the policy on warez... (the issue with Print CD <=1.4 is that it doesn't detect the printers under Vista, and you have to do a Manual Print and set the correct settings yourself - and hope it works...)

Edited July 1, 2008 by Volatus

[CoffeeFiend]

That's not a program at all (still not many of those), so completely off-topic, but anyways.

The lack of detailed information on appropriate files - like a description of EXE and DLL files, unless I go to Properties.

Actually, unlike XP, you don't have to use the status bar. You can use columns made specifically for that, like "copyright", "product name", "product version", etc (and many other very useful ones for other tasks). And this way, you see the infos for every single binary at once.

The omission of proper navigation buttons (like, you know, "Up") in favor of collapsing (and therefore useless) "path buttons" in the address bar.

Proper as in "the old way"? Being the old way doesn't make it proper. But hey, if you can't figure out the breadcrumb navigation (it's not useless at all), and that alt+up arrow doesn't work for you, then you can look into small addons like QTTabBar which will give you the old buttons (and more if you want), and tabs in explorer.exe too if you want that.

The inability to access "Downloads", say, from the common My Documents folder.

There isn't a "My Documents" folder on Vista (it's just a junction). It's rather C:\Users\YourUserName\Documents, and on most installs, the downloads go to C:\Users\YourUserName\Downloads. Actually, you can even make a shortcut to it in the "favorite links" section at the top left of explorer.exe -- a big time saver compared to XP (just grab the Downloads folder, and drag it to the favorite links area, done).

The lack of ability to customize so-called "favorite places" on the dialog boxes.

You can. The customizations you make to that in explorer.exe also show up in common dialogs. BTW, them links are stored in C:\Users\YourUserName\Links -- feel free to add/remove some this way too. It works just the same.

Although I noticed that Photoshop takes longer to load - quite noticeable since it only takes about 1.5 seconds on XP.

The main cause I have seen for that, is the default printer not being online (PS' fault actually). This might not be your issue though, just saying.

Edited July 1, 2008 by crahak

[Volatus]

Well, that sure smashes, and at least improves on, a couple of issues...! I had tried the standard intuitive measures to edit the favorites area, like right click, Open Folder (like in the quick launch bar of XP, no longer in QL of Vista) and that sure wasn't my first guess. Cool!

The breadcrumb navigation would be massively more useful if it would allow one to actually "drop down" the extended list. When browsing a folder that branches off the desktop, there's no way to go higher than C:\Users\Yourname\Desktop, although it should be possible to browse back to "Yourname" at least (since most of your data is now stored there, not in "My Documents" which was previously, you guessed it, accessible from the desktop). To navigate, I've even had to manually BACKSPACE a part of the path to get back out of it! Ugh! The other problem is that when you browse a deeply nested folder, the parts that are too long are simply erased from the trail, so you can't just jump back to C:\ in one click. Quite an annoyance...

The point there is simply that MS did a botched up job of making those new locations accessible. They half-kept the old thought of preventing people from seeing their profile folder (e.g. not going higher up than the desktop folder when browsing the desktop - same in XP), while making it essential - like the downloads folder. There's my beef.

And this is probably for another topic that'll just be destined for the trash can anyway... >.<

edit: The fact that I would have to actually keep specific, context sensitive columns like those for EXEs, open at all times, is still a deal breaker. That's merely a workaround, since those columns were also present in XP. Vista's explorer offers no intuitive replacement for that missing information... hell, people can no longer even hover over an icon - a trojan, for example, disguised as a text file - and see that it's actually an application. Fugly.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Volatus

[CoffeeFiend]

Yes, the breadcrumbs nav isn't perfect. As for branching off of the desktop, I'm not quite sure. I haven't opened a link that locked me in there yet. To get to most of my stuff (documents, downloads, etc), I tend to mainly use a quick launch shortcut -- not by clicking on it, but by hitting windows key + the number of the quick launch icon (yes, no need to even click those darn things anymore!), which just brings me to c:\Users\MyUserName\ -- everything at my disposal by hitting 2 keys Then if you want to go to your desktop, press D, enter, and you're there (ok, 4 keys total), and it does let me get out using the bread crumbs nav.

And yes, you can't go back to the root of a drive from a very deep path using bread crumbs nav in one click, but the up button didn't do that either. Quickest way IMO, is pressing alt-d to land in the address bar, and typing c:\ [enter] (yes, I do use the keyboard LOTS!) - or just using alt+up arrow a few times. But yes, it could be improved for sure.

[S.SubZero]

Vi$ta Vi$ta Micro$oft's pimp$ Vi$ta Micro$oft's Window$ $crewed Micro$oft's Vi$ta-pushers M$ Vi$ta

...

All of this has nothing to do with the original po$t.

---

I have one obscure codec that won't work in WMP11 in Vista. My old screen capture software (the last freeware FRAPS) also doesn't seem to work in Vista.

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

Another one for you.

The ADPCM codec in vista isn't compatible with a lot of older games that worked fine under XP, and copying the XP files in Vista doesn't solve the problem either. Why oh why did they have to update something that hadn't been changed since 1994??? I'm seriously thinking of installing XP x64 and dumping Vista for this reason, along with a few more quirks that are minor yet that i can't get used to.

Edited July 4, 2008 by Th3_uN1Qu3

[Volatus]

To the above:

I can understand why they did away with the ancient audio management system, they did so for good reason - all drivers since AC'97 have been "hacking around" the Windows audio system and merely providing emulation for older programs. It all just worked together so seamlessly.

What I can't justify is why Microsoft in their infinite idiocy (ffs, the status bar bug) couldn't add a simple emulation subsystem for older applications, perhaps making it an optional add-on or the like. *shakes fist*

[Th3_uN1Qu3]

To the above:

I can understand why they did away with the ancient audio management system, they did so for good reason - all drivers since AC'97 have been "hacking around" the Windows audio system and merely providing emulation for older programs. It all just worked together so seamlessly.

Uh, didn't you contradict yourself here? But it DID work seamlessly in XP.

What I can't justify is why Microsoft in their infinite idiocy (ffs, the status bar bug) couldn't add a simple emulation subsystem for older applications, perhaps making it an optional add-on or the like. *shakes fist*

They probably didn't do it because they made Virtual PC free. And there is the compatibility mode, which unfortunately is nothing more than a joke.

[S.SubZero]

The ADPCM codec in vista isn't compatible with a lot of older games that worked fine under XP

What are some games that this directly causes not to run in Vista?

[Volatus]

To the above:

I can understand why they did away with the ancient audio management system, they did so for good reason - all drivers since AC'97 have been "hacking around" the Windows audio system and merely providing emulation for older programs. It all just worked together so seamlessly.

Uh, didn't you contradict yourself here? But it DID work seamlessly in XP.

No, what I meant there is that the "hacking around" in XP worked so seamlessly. It only appeared that nothing had chanced since 1994 because all that stuff was still being emulated in the background. It's only in Vista that they said "Eh, I'm lazy, time to delete that old stuff".