Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

Vista Incompatibilities


PC_LOAD_LETTER
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't even burn DVDs with Nero. I burn audio and data CDs with Nero and that's pretty much it.

That pretty much makes you a minority. I mainly burn data DVDs myself. Blank CDs are no cheaper then DVDs anymore anyways.

There is no way in hell I'm paying 30 bucks for a single freaking HD disc... o_O

Actually, they're already down to ~$15 (Verbatims can be had for $13 by the unit, including shipping). Give it a couple years and they'll likely be about 5$, which is not bad considering the capacity: about 6 or so single layer DVDs, which is already worth a couple bucks, or about 3 or so of the pricier double layer DVDs. Drives by then will likely be under 100$ too. I'm definitely looking forward to it.

It doesn't make Nero any less compatible anyways. Actually, I'd like to see if a nero 3 or 4 versions out of date (at the time) would have ran on XP when it came out too (that would be Nero v2).

Edited by crahak
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Only because the list is being restricted to an unnecessarily small number of programs by overzealous rule-setting...

Seriously, the rules for this list basically say "Only list programs that are compatible with Vista, that aren't". Programs that just worked fine in XP but don't work in Vista can't be "mentioned", or at least aren't "eligible" for the list... yet would probably make up a much longer list.

Not everyone buys the latest and "greatest", but still expect it to work with an operating system whose job is to "run programs". Stuff that works with XP often works fine in 2000 as well, and that's a version back. So if you want an honest compatibility list, you shouldn't be limiting it to the latest version of programs (especially when "newer versions", like Nero, are whole separate products), and "on the shelf" programs. Just work on listing programs that, simply, aren't compatible. What's so damning about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, the rules for this list basically say "Only list programs that are compatible with Vista, that aren't". ..

You said it buddy!

I think people are running into problems when they upgrade and find their old programs incompatible in Vista rather than fresh new Vista installs. Thus, those who upgrade are the ones creating all this uproar.

So, it wouldn't be reasonable to restrict programs to those after Vista RTM'd. Of course, those programs written prior to Vista would most likely work in XP only and per chance in Vista under compatibility mode.

Edited by spacesurfer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only because the list is being restricted to an unnecessarily small number of programs by overzealous rule-setting...

Seriously, the rules for this list basically say "Only list programs that are compatible with Vista, that aren't". Programs that just worked fine in XP but don't work in Vista can't be "mentioned", or at least aren't "eligible" for the list... yet would probably make up a much longer list.

Not everyone buys the latest and "greatest", but still expect it to work with an operating system whose job is to "run programs". Stuff that works with XP often works fine in 2000 as well, and that's a version back. So if you want an honest compatibility list, you shouldn't be limiting it to the latest version of programs (especially when "newer versions", like Nero, are whole separate products), and "on the shelf" programs. Just work on listing programs that, simply, aren't compatible. What's so damning about that?

Why are you using vista them? :blink:

FYI there are tons of programs in both 2000 & xp which require compatability mode to be run, this isn't just a vista thing.

and why b***h about anything newer than nero 6 working when nero has been a coaster burner for sometime compared to free cd/dvd burners around which do a much much better job.

if your going to complain about older software not working on newer software, stop upgrading windows!

in my experiance, epson's print cd is a pain to get working in vista, but once your used to having to set the tray to manual and click some extra things its no biggie, ... oh Sonic R doesn't work in vista (but it doesn't work in XP either)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only because the list is being restricted to an unnecessarily small number of programs by overzealous rule-setting...

Not at all.

You try to run programs 3 or 4 versions out of date, and are surprised they don't run (actually, spacesurfer got it to work). That's EXACTLY the same as saying Nero 2 doesn't work on XP (3 versions out of date at the time of release) and such. Over 99% of apps that run on XP also work on Vista as-is. Besides, CD burning apps have been notorious to need upgrades to work with almost any OS (early Roxio versions were real bad for that). In fact, most apps even used to require upgrades to work with newer burners! And nevermind all the technology changes that happened in the underlying tech (different ASPI layers, ASAPI, SPTI, and various proprietary methods).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you Vi$ta lovers forget is that it costs good money. For that money, a normal user would expect everything to work right out of the box, not to bring more restrictions and bloat. So when you try to push Vi$ta onto us, you'd better donate us a free copy, or else you're just Micro$oft's pimp$ (I say this out of general principle).

Since this topic is about incompatibilities, just ask anyone who works with audio production what has Vi$ta brought to him (with moving the audio drivers out of kernel mode). Yeah, even the regular sound card drivers have enormous problems. It would be OK if this was justified by... what was the reason, you say? To satisfy Hollywood companies? Common...

Every Windows NT version promised taking drivers out of user mode (and managed to do that, but not fully) with promises of stability, but brought only inconvenience.

Another thing. If learning the user interface from start isn't an incompatibility, I don't know what is.

Security? That was Micro$oft's fault in the first place, with every Window$ version full of holes like a Swiss cheese. And they try to remedy that how? By restricting user's access to everything? Viruses will find another way in, but the user will remain $crewed.

And blaming incompatibilities on driver's manufacturers isn't helping either, because with that you're just blowing wind in Micro$oft's sails who want to extort money from signing every 64-bit driver.

And if Nero has gone the bloat way, there's no reason others (Micro$oft) to follow it.

I'll stop now, because this post has gone into the not-desired direction (and I have lots more to say), but it was intended as a response to the "Vi$ta-pushers" (I can understand when someone works for M$ and feels as his duty to defend his job and I respect that, but when someone wants to pursuade others to part with their good money for some not-so-obvious benefits, it's suspicious - at least for me, I can not see any benefits that Vi$ta brings that are worth the money).

And I hope no harm will be done to this innocent post of mine 'cause I think it's valid response to the issues raised above. :D

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my experiance, epson's print cd is a pain to get working in vista, but once your used to having to set the tray to manual and click some extra things its no biggie, ... oh Sonic R doesn't work in vista (but it doesn't work in XP either)

Great, that's one more program I haven't yet even tried in Vista yet that's required by my day to day "life". Epson Print CD doesn't work right? UGH! I sure hope there's an update for that. Of course, first I hope I can find my driver CD that even has Epson Print CD on it...

And by the way, no, I absolutely NEVER touched the compatibility settings in XP, in all the years I'd been using it. It never fixed anything, mainly because almost nothing (except ancient Win3.x programs I wouldn't've expected to work anyway) was broken.

(edit: Epson Print CD is a program that comes with Epson printers, allowing you to, well, do what I bought the printer for - print directly onto CDs. And yeah, the printer is "Vista era")

Edited by Volatus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you Vi$ta lovers forget is that it costs good money. For that money, a normal user would expect everything to work right out of the box, not to bring more restrictions and bloat. So when you try to push Vi$ta onto us, you'd better donate us a free copy, or else you're just Micro$oft's pimp$ (I say this out of general principle).

That doesn't make sense. We like an OS, and it works just fine for most people. Similarly, you like XP, and XP did cost money too, and you didn't give people copies, but that doesn't make you a "Micro$oft's pimp$". C'mon now... That's a double standard if I've ever seen one. Besides, we're not pushing Vista on anyone here, just debunking the common myth that basically nothing works.

If learning the user interface from start isn't an incompatibility, I don't know what is.

Hardly anything changed. The start menu is shown differently (just like going from 9x or 2k to XP did). And the control panel stuff is shuffled around (ditto). By that standard, XP is incompatible. You make it sound like people have to learn to double click all over again. It's not nearly as drastic as say, the windows Win 3.11 to Win 95 change was, and people adapted to that just fine.

And blaming incompatibilities on driver's manufacturers isn't helping either

It's THEIR OWN FAULT. Who else are we supposed to blame for it? Some kind of universal scapegoat that we should blame should anything go wrong for any reason? Like when a computer BSODs because of buggy drivers, who do people blame? Yep, "teh evil evil M$!" Exactly the inverse than what you say -- hardware makers had a free ride for far too long, they can BSOD your box every 5 minutes, and all people will say is "Windows sucks! *#$#@$%$ Microsoft!"

because with that you're just blowing wind in Micro$oft's sails who want to extort money from signing every 64-bit driver.

But, their x86 drivers suck just as much so there's truly no excuse. And Comodo will sell them a signing certificate for $80/year, I hope Epson can afford that! Besides, NONE of the signing money goes to Microsoft, no matter who you get your cert from, so how's that extortion? The certs have a purpose: so you can tell for sure who made that driver/binary (you'll have to prove your identity before they issue you a cert).

On a side note, the latest Epson print CD works with Vista, and older versions can be made to work (pick tray 2 manually, you might have to use XP's drivers - thank Epson for that!)

Edited by crahak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of software incompatibilities that I've dealt with comes from software that's coded poorly - writing files to places where a program has no business being (Filezilla and XML settings comes to mind). Microsoft has been telling devs for years - put your configuration files in Application Data where they belong, not in the program's directory.

The only other problem I have is with Notebook Hardware Control. That program seems to lock up my whole system from time to time (can't pinpoint why), but the developer hasn't made any attempt to make the software Vista compatible, nor has he updated it in over a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of software incompatibilities that I've dealt with comes from software that's coded poorly - writing files to places where a program has no business being (Filezilla and XML settings comes to mind). Microsoft has been telling devs for years - put your configuration files in Application Data where they belong, not in the program's directory.

Indeed! LOTS of such programs won't work under XP if you're not an admin either, which has been a VERY common issue for quite a while in any big environment where we don't just make everyone a local admin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, you like XP, and XP did cost money too, and you didn't give people copies, but that doesn't make you a "Micro$oft's pimp$". C'mon now... That's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

Just this one, not to bog the thread down... Although I have answer for all the other points raised, but let's not turn this into another bashing...

Who said I liked XP? XP was also imposed onto me (by cutting off driver support and/or Adobe's insane requirements for photoshop/premiere). Now I didn't particularly like the 9X line either, because it was primitive - not really an OS, just a graphical shell over DOS.

So what do I like? nLited 2000 or XP - that's close to perfection. :)

Yeah, the old school - OS is an OS (Operating System), not everything including the kitchen sink. If I need a program for a speciffic task, I'll install it separately. All in one solutions can never be better than specialized programs - and I won't tolerate 'good enough'. :) But with Vi$ta (and partially with XP) I have no choice - I have to install everything (vLite isn't quite there yet i hear - I haven't tried it because, of course, I don't have Vi$ta). :D

As for prefetching and indexing - what if all that work goes to waste? What if I never use that program Windows was prefetching for me or never open that document it was giving me on a platter? Or if I simply chose to reformat? That's so inneficient - that's BLOAT. I like my Windows to do what I tell it to do, not the other way around.

OK, I got carried away again, let's not even touch phoning home and 'unbelievable restrictions'... Maybe open another topic (but I always say: why bother, who understands - understands.... And that's why Vi$ta lovers continue to amaze me - so much energy wasted trying to deny something that's so obvious...)

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you can stop prefetching and indexing in vista as you could in XP. However, that doesn't change the fact that it churns the hard drive out of nowhere when it feels like doing that, just that it does it less often.

My biggest GUI gripes with it are that they totally mashed up the menus and killed the "ctrl alt del brings task manager" thing we've been all used to for years. Also it likes to turn off Aero when i use my TV Tuner. And since the ONLY reason i installed vista is for Aero (i installed it for DX10 actually, but realized it isn't worth crap...), XP + WindowBlinds FTW.

Also, it's slow. And as you can see in my sig i'm not trying to run it on 10 years old hardware. On my machine, XP is INSTANTANEOUS. I'd expect vista to be the same, but no, it isn't. It's got that sluggish feeling to it, even if it gets 800 more points in 3DMark06 than XP does. And you say drivers are still optimized for XP... Well, at least ATi drivers aren't anymore. When i had my 8600GT i used to get higher scores in XP though.

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. :lol:

As for restrictions, i didn't get any, ever. I run a furtherly tweaked version of eXPerience's TinyVista (fits on a CD!), and it had UAC turned off by default, and also it makes you admin by default. I like that. :D However, i'm getting 4GB of RAM tomorrow and i'll have to install a full-blown x64 vista besides my TinyXP x32 which i'll probably keep as my main OS even if it won't see all the memory. Let's see how that turns out...

Edited by Th3_uN1Qu3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

killed the "ctrl alt del brings task manager" thing we've been all used to for years

Yes, I still find that one annoying. The thing with 2k & XP was, there was the screen where you can lock your computer that can be shown when you do ctrl-alt-delete OR the task manager... Now ctrl-alt-del brings up the former, and the latter is ctrl-shift-esc. I think it's a good idea overall because you can bring up the one you want, but hitting ctrl-shift-esc... 3 buttons at once, spanning 6 rows of keys (and the gap above the row with numbers), all with your left hand, isn't quite as easy/doesn't feel as natural. I tend to lay my thumb across ctrl & shift (never had to do that before) and hitting escape with my middle finger (longest finger, easier to reach). Doesn't feel quite right... (well, you can use ctrl-shift on the right hand side, but I just don't really think about them keys on the right side).

It shouldn't be that slow on such a machine though. It's somewhat faster than my box, and everything is instantaneous on it.

Either ways, this topic is off on a tangent. This is about apps that aren't compatible (so far only a couple).

Edit: Was missing a f in "shift" (keyboard batteries low), got censored :lol:

Edited by crahak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using Ctrl+Shift+Esc for years... I always tell people not to use Ctrl+Alt+Del because it was never designed to bring up Task Manager.

That's one good thing in Vista, that it's actually bringing the correct functionality (the lock screen) back to usage, and teaching people to use Ctrl+Shift+Esc :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...