Would anyone like some platform-independent software?

hear hear

That statement makes you look so ignorant of technology, its not even funny.

Making a platform-independent software isn't even possible. That's like saying you can build a car that is chassis independent.. you pretty much MUST know where you base level is..

I think you mean cross-platform.

Platform-independant is a pipe-dream.

@ rijp....if dutch, add 'over' in front of your sig, meaning your repeated punchlines are suitable for the (grey) bin.....comment on the article rather than throwing empty wisecracks.

As to the ACT....look at the last few fixes they distributed creating coexistance issues...rather than MS testing, they defray the responsibility on the client community, which is worth a smile, as they will be doing a better job at punching holes the Vista programmers would not even see with 20/20 vision.

lol

How else, is MS and the rest of the market going to make any $$ unless we upgrade to new apps?
I agree that the future is 64 bit...but the apps will be slow at first in coming until there is a base of 64 bit pc's out there.

: - )
AGenT_SmiTH

isn't must pc sold nowaday is 64bit? all the dual core are.

why should there be any compatibility problems? doesn't microsoft make both OS's, XP and Vista? i'd think they'd know what is necessary to make old programs work.
oh yah, this is the company that came out with windows me, oh and media center :p

yes, but they don't make EVERY program written for windows. Its not for the OS, its for the current applications you use.

How can MS know every program you currently have installed? Maybe you have some 16-bit programs that won't work with Vista.

Vista is more geared toward 64-bit and future support rather than backwards compatibility. They are trying to wean people off the 16 bit apps.

So no XP and Vista won't be the same, anymore than 98 was the same as 2000/XP.

Well put.

i don't want to see another OS9 - OSX screw up, even though 10 is better, lots of people were upset their programs stopped working.

i don't see why they can't run some compatability program in the background for legacy apps, there can't be that many functions that differ, run a stripped down XP emulator in the background...apple can.

in fact, apple could run windows through an emulator on a powerpc chip.

i think microsoft has other ideas in mind for not running all legacy apps. ummm...like maybe more control over what happens with their OS.

"They are trying to wean people off the 16 bit apps."

why? is there something wrong with them? do they not meet microsofts standards for worthy apps?

"why? is there something wrong with them? do they not meet microsofts standards for worthy apps?"

Why? Because the 16-bit compatibility layer slows *everything* down.

What's wrong with them? You mean besides being 16-bit, right?

Does it meet MS standards for worthy apps? Gee, they're dropping support for them bit, by bit (no pun intended). Whaddaya think, genius?

I pray for the OS9-OSX days in the MS camp. One of the main reasons XP is slower than it could be is continued support by MS for outdated applications and technologies. Without all that compatibility crap in there, Windows would be downright snappy.

I'm all for supplying a "emulator" for backwards compatibility...so long as it's 100% optional.

Genius is a little strong for my already inflated ego, but thanks anyway.

a 100% optional emulator would be a great idea, and would make the transition easier. but i think it's going to be left up to hackers to make it. sorta the way the apple/x86/windows hack worked.

*"They are trying to wean people off the 16 bit apps."

why? is there something wrong with them? do they not meet microsofts standards for worthy apps?*

Yes, they aren't as robust, can't do as much, single threaded, can't support higher level of memory requirements, and they are optimized for the old hardware, and can't be upgraded to support the better hardware, that's why 32-bit is better. So yes, there is something wrong with 16-bit. That's why they moved to 32-bit, and now moving to 64-bit.

Its not that the programs quit working its that people didn't READ before they upgraded to the new OS. The fact that the apps quit working, wasn't Apples fault, there is NEVER a necessity to run on the new platform. If you WANT to move, that's fine. That was user choice, not company forced.

Fine, people can run apple in an emulator, you can run Old Dos apps under Windows too, you still want to use DOS? emulators (like OS upgrades) still have to conform to standards, and eventually that emulator won't do the trick.

Legacy apps. OK, you are obviously not a programmer, and you don't understand the technical reasons behind software, but I am not going to explain it.

Suffice to say, there are very good reasons for upgrading the software. Security is one the biggest reasons. MS isn't pushing the market, people like myself are pushing MS to created a more robust OS to take advantage of newer features, that have been outgrown in Legacy apps.

There is a reason they are called "legacy". Look up the definition of legacy, that unto itself should be reason enough.

"Genius is a little strong for my already inflated ego"

I hereby nominate this for Biggest Understatement of the Year. ;)

lol, nice.
but i think Microsoft is way ahead of me in the nominations. ;)

They might be in for a few vaporware awards, right behind Duke and the Phantom, but I don't believe they've made any major understatements lately.

Unless Bill got caught saying somethig like,

"Vista...it's this OS thing, ya see?"

I ran the tool and it said my version of Firefox wasn't compatible with Vista. It also suggested I should use only IE 7. :D

Are you running the latest RELEASE of Firefox, or a BETA? Many add-ons will say the same thing, that's not a Vista problem. They code for programs that they can account for, they obviously won't know what beta impact it will have, so they only make it compatible with RELEASED versions.

Vista itself isn't even finalized, so don't get all excited that some apps won't be compatible.

NICE!! this will be so helpful for me since i dont plan on upgrading my hardware that has the "built for win2000/me" tag on it still! LOL

I will warn you, having begun testing the betas myself over the weekend... Vista's support for hardware that old is pretty limited, and unless you've got 512MB of RAM or more, it is most likely going to crawl. Disabling all the animation effects improves things significantly, but you are well advised that you should check for hardware support before upgrading.

True.

But the hardware supported in Beta is no indication of what hardware will be supported upon release. I wouldn't expect to see anywhere near the amount of hardware support we'll see in the retail release until RC1, at least.

And as for it being sluggish....it's beta. :)

I'm using a 1.5GHZ at home, runs Vista fine with a 128MB vid-card and the Aero interface turned off.

We've been through this before...

Windows 2000 brought a significant change in the hardware driver model, which meant... new drivers. Unfortunately, it was months _after_ the release of Windows 2000 before all the hardware manufacturers released drivers I was interested in. Given that MS has (wisely, IMO) established a more strict process for certification of drivers for Vista, I suspect that this time around it will be even worse.

Yet another reason NOT to upgrade depsite what Vista may offer.

I signed up for the ACT 5 Beta in January. And, Ive yet to see anything to download on connect for it..

Here too, Nothing to download

Its a PIM. Why do you need to download? This is the reason why BETA is a risk, you are TESTING.

wow ...