this article is a little funky and or fishy with the numbers...and something that will get outdated easily...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305

I started way back in the time DOS with a TI 994A... the whole 16 KB's of system memory and you needed a tape recorder for storage. We even managed to create a few games on it.

Computers have come a long way since then, I've seen all of the OS's DOS; Win 3.0/3.1, Win 95 (I own two versions A and C), Win 98/98 se (I own one of each) ME (I own the upgrade), Windows NT (I own NT Server), Win 2000 Pro/Server (I own one of each), XP Pro (I own one), Vista Ultimate, (I own the Upgrade).... I was hoping for a little more in the line of WOW with the graphic interface. I had been running XP Pro with Window Blinds/StarDock (Full Purchased Ver) So I did not realize it but I pretty much had everything that Vista was offering with the Wow effects... although there is certainly more then just the graphics to consider. I am running an AMD Dual Core 4200 on an ASUS board with 1 Gig of Ram - 256 MB Radeon X1300 PCI-E - 309 Gigs of hard drive. This all runs the new OS very well... not to say the upgrade did not come with out problems, Roxio had problems, I had to upgrade from a 128 Radeon 300/550 PCI-E video card, and one 3 year old HP Laser printer I could not get a driver for.

I am satisfied with the upgrade over all I'd give it a 7.8 out of 10, I would like to have seen a little more with the interface. I personally love playing around with Window Blinds and Stardock... there are some very nice interfaces to choose from - even a Mac if you wanna pretend!

If this doesn't work with Promise Technologies, you're going to have a hell of a time using it with many home servers. I don't know of any OS or software that works "flawlessly." That means no errors in the code. This is Microsoft we're talking about.

This may go on my system in 2008, but not before.

Assuming you're talking about their storage controllers, that'd be a 3rd party driver issue.

Check out the Vista HCL.

It looks like quite a few of the Promise controllers are good to go:

http://winqual.microsoft...amp;cid=&sv=promise
(IE only)

Live Messenger still doesn't work with Vista, so I guess I'll come back in about a years time to see how it has progressed.

Definitely not mainstream computing yet!!!!

Live Messenger works flawlessly in Vista Home Premium ...

Live Messenger works fine with Ultimate.

You can't be talking about Windows Live Messenger because it works perfectly on Home Premium, Business and Ultimate as far as I've seen.

thats great for an operating system that has only been out for 1 month, i dont understand what people are complaining about.

Has anyone considered that the cost of doing this is in the 5 digits? Would you rather add a headcount for a small biz, or get some logo on your box that people don't care about? Clearly, vendors don't feel as if this program is going to cost them the number of sales that would make up for the cost. Let's not also overlook the huge list of requirements and programming that is needed to meet the Certified level.

Unless I was a F500 co, I'd pass on this and work on more important things - like making sure my product *works* on Vista.

"Of the 787 listed, 103 are Microsoft's own products, indicating few software developers have completed the logo process."

What this did NOT say: "Microsoft only made Vista to work with 787 products." This clearly explains what I have been trying to say all along: Vista does not break programs--programs are designed for Windows XP, and the program vendors don't ready them for Vista in time.

Guess I will be like the rest of the PC world and wait a year to intergrate to Vista.

XP works fine on all of my computers

Just as with W95 to WXP. We could use W95 apps on WXP, though not certified still ran and eventually became WXP certified. And no...it is NOT the OSes or it's maker that is responsible for making sure some 3rd party program works flawlessly...that is up to that 3rd party company.

Meanwhile in the competition world...those who don't want to test and develop their apps for Vista, will find their competition having done so, and will steal the market share. As has already happened in past OSes...and just will.

The devs haven't completed their process...but will.

Wndows XP has a "program compatability" feature that lets us use olderwith older software. I'm not sure if VISTA has that same option. If not, then I'm not interested now, not next year and maybe not ever...

Thats why our company won't switch to vista.

EVER!

"Thats why our company won't switch to vista.

EVER!"
--------------------------------------------
Unless you are the big Kahuna of that "company" the word "EVER!" coming from you holds about as much weight as a feather in a wind storm.

You likely failed history class I'm guessing, because that is exactly what everyone said when Windows 95 came out.

"I'm never switching to that Windows 95 garbage!! Any OS that requires more than 2MB of RAM is bloated!!!"

I am not kidding, this was what hundreds of computer geeks were saying along with the "IT" folks. Ask some of the oldschool folks in this forum and they'll back me up on that--Windows 95 was a big change that seemed so big that nobody wanted it.

Same for Windows 2000. In fact, some hard-headed (or non-profit) organisations still use NT 4.0 to this very day. Your company will use a newer Windows if it is around for another 4 years, I assure you.

I was around in '95 and I never recall anyone saying that. If only Vista was as exciting as Win95! At least I didn't have to spend an entire day tweaking all the crud and bad UI out of Win95. Plugin and customization software devs are going to make a mint with this Vista turkey.

For one example, check out how much better this guy designed the Vista Start Menu!

I made it work once on a 386DX-33 w/ I80387 co-processor and 4MB RAM + an MFM hard drive

you want pain? That's pain. heh

"Thats why our company won't switch to vista.

EVER!"

Famous last words.

You must have a lot of free time on your hands.

ROFLMAO.

Wow.

That hurts just thinking about it.

We had a few 486's running it, but I don't think we ever even considered attempting to get a 386 up on it.

You sir, are a glutton for punishment.

Windows NT 4.0 officially cannot run with less than 12MB of RAM on an 80486DX-33MHz processor--but I got it to install with 8MB of RAM. I find it hard to believe you managed on a unit with only 4MB of RAM--that'd be impossible...or so I thought...

"I was around in '95 and I never recall anyone saying that."

Hmm--well I've also heard that here in the south we're practically a different culture group, so maybe it was just the locals who thought that. Remember the Internet was practically unheard of at the time (yes technically it was there and yes IE 16-bit edition had come out, but nobody where I grew up had heard of it yet), so there was little I heard in the media about Windows 95 except through word of mouth.

Windows 95 was initially criticised for the 'huge' RAM requirements initially, I assure you, because at the time right before its release, MOST PCs came with 80486 processors that only came with 4MB of RAM (some 8MB), and Pentium PCs were still almost a $600 price premium that nobody felt they needed at the time.

Every time change comes about people will complain. I am certain that, for example, 64-bit operating systems will be forced upon us withen the next ten years, because Windows will require 2GB if not 4GB of RAM. Hence, we will upgrade due to the 4GB limitation of the x86 architecture. Don't be surprised when "Windows Eight" comes along and has no option for a 32-bit flavor!

He's a tinkerer. The guy wrote his own BBS, for pete's sake.

I imagine, he's quite masochistic enough to have done that.

That was the great thing about computers back then. With enough determination, a soldering iron, and the right parts, you could do damn near anything.

God, I feel old now....

I should have better qualified that statement. I ran Windows 95 on that rig. I didn't have access to NT4 at that time to play with it.

If I had it I would have attempted it.

I recall running workstation 3.5 on similar hardware, but I think it had more RAM.

Yeah, I'm old too; bleh.

As for the BBS, it's morphed quite a bit since you last saw it. It makes for a bad a** (encrypted) restricted multiuser communications platform and shell complete w/ API. Doors are just for fun. It can be used to build a massive multiuser applications platform.

ssh to bbs @ www.fewt.com and see.

Every thing there (except the old door games) including the bot is all spun with the PhotonBBS API (The API needs a better name).

I may wrap it into perl modules and submit it to CPAN eventually.

Sometimes, but that was long ago. ;-)

I had heard it about 98 and ME, but not 95.

When 98 came out I switched to Linux, and stuck there until XP SP1, but now I'm back on Linux.

It sucks way less than it used too, but then again I still use XP in a VM also so meh.

There is a use for every OS, if there wasn't then they wouldn't exist. Right?

heh

You lost me after "...since you last saw it". Then the migraine showed up.

Though I did see the word Door a few times. Always a good sign. :p

The way we go on about 'em here, you'd think it was "Air V2".

Part of the fun here is that some programs look like they run, but cause of how MS screws with the system, they either run headless or don't run properly.

For example, Hamachi runs, including as a service, but it won't let you actually configure it unless you stop the service and restart it, which makes Vista pop up a box that tells you that there's a program trying to get your attention, and gives you a weird 'desktop' with just the Hamachi window showing. However, whether or not you see the Hamachi window, it does work...

PeerGuardian however, appears to work, but doesn't do anything at all. Nothing monitored, nothing blocked. The SafePeer plugin for Azureus still seems to work though, probably because it's just a text blacklisting...

As a side note, I have managed to crash most of my apps at one time or another on Vista. Some of the crashes would probably still happen on XP, such as the 'Crash IE7 when it tries to connect to Web Remote Desktop' bug. Others, like the games with incompatability in Vista with DirectX 8/9 (they work in DirectX 7 mode), are Vista bugs, pure and simple.

Vista was interesting to test, but when I bring my computer to its knees to the point where it doesn't work at all again, it's going back to XP... should take another few months at the current rate. :) I have a high tolerance for OS pain.

Why is it Microsoft's fault again that Windows XP applications simply do not work on Windows Vista? Since the way that you explain how "MS screws with the system" has been relatively the same since Beta 2 nearly a year ago, how come these manufacturers can't make updates well in advance to work with Vista?

Laziness, money, and resources. Nobody wants to look like they are losing profits for any reason, and the only way for them to "look good" is to have problems that they can immediately blame on someone or something else. If Norton spent all their resources last year working with Microsoft to ensure Vista compatibility, they'd have less net profits and we would jump down their throats.

It appears that the media has become the Big Brother we feared our government has/will become.

Well, Microsoft wrote all of the APIs that developers used to write Windows software. Can't blame them that Microsoft changed the entire framework, and they didn't have enough time to test products (~5 years development before release to vendors right?) before releasing to the public.

I know that I had to change some of my stuff to work in Vista, and it was written in VB .NET using v2 of the framework (read: supposed to be portable).

I had to wrap it in an installer so Vista wouldn't regard it as a rogue app and play some other code tricks because path locations changed (my documents etc).

Go figure.

I think the very public nature of the dev of Vista has really hurt them. Not that it's their fault; everything they do is an open book. So much was juggled and tossed out as can be expected, it gave the impression of instability and the media (in all its forms) ate it up like frenzied piranha at every chance. A lot of companies, it seems, took the 'let's wait until the last second to be safe' route.

In some cases though, MS really did wait until the last second to give final details on some of the lower-level stuff. My sister works with Real on Rhapsody and a lot was delayed because of this. And I mean really delayed within a month or so of Vista final being stamped as ready to roll.

I think both of these things have created a slow uptake. It will recover just fine though i bet - Vista's too good an OS - it's no Millennium. There was a lot of screaming when XP came out too and now look, we all don't want to part with it.

Geeze. I wonder how in the heck my PC hasn't crashed and burned over the past few months, especially considering that only 1 application (other than Office 2007 / IE7) that I use is on the list. Clearly the lists are meaningless drivel, nothing more, nothing less.

Agreed. All but one XP app I have works fine on Vista. Just wish Vista wasn't so fat and slow. XP seems so lean now.

I'm running Vista Home Premium, and have found very few programs that WON'T work with Vista. They might not be Vista certified, but they still work just fine. If you right click your program icon and run as administrator, it will work, with few exceptions. I have been a software tester for four years and have about 200 registered utilities on my pc. I have only been running Vista for three weeks, but the only programs I have that won't work with Vista, are TuneUp Utilities and DFX...so far.