Apple got it right, Microsoft got it wrong

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19

Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.

When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
Yellowbox for backwards compatability.

Three guesses what Microsoft will do.

-----yttrc

--
http://www.yttrx.net

Stephen Fairchild · External Since: Sep 26, 2004 Posts: 167

yttrx wrote:

>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>
> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>
> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>
> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>
Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless they don't
want it to work without a forced upgrade?
--
Stephen Fairchild

B Gruff · External Since: Jun 17, 2004 Posts: 1639

On Thursday 28 September 2006 00:13 yttrx wrote:

>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>
> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>
> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>
> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.

"It's the E.U.'s fault"!

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, yttrx
<yttrx.DeleteThis@yttrx.net>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:13:31 GMT
<vADSg.71$jb3.21@fe12.usenetserver.com>:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>
> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>
> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>
> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrc
>

Nothing. Smile

Firefox Beta 2 apparently malfunctions after
a Vista restart, which probably has everyone very happy --
except the actual users.

(Firefox 1.5.0.6 is in the "works" category. Hopefully
just a tweak somewhere in the Beta 2 code, but there's
no way for me to know. Since 1.5.0.7 is out a retest
may be in order.)

http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Software_Compatibility_List

--
#191, ewill3.DeleteThis@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?

Larry Qualig · External Since: Nov 11, 2005 Posts: 1106

[H]omer wrote:
> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
> > yttrx wrote:
> >
> >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
> >>
> >> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
> >>
> >> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
> >> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>
> In defence of Microsoft:
>
> Both major Mac OS transitions were fundamentally different to the XP ->
> Vista transition. OS9 -> OSX was a switch to a completely different
> platform core (UNIX/Darwin), and 0SX-PPC -> OSX-Intel was an
> architecture switch. It was handled well by API and bytecode emulation,
> but that isn't really the kind of changes we're seeing with Vista.

Exactly. Vista is supposedly an updated/newer version of the base OS
and (in theory at least) should be able to run existing apps without
the need for any sort of translation or emulation. If the underlying
API's function the way they did previously then apps that are written
to those API's should "just work."

MS has done the equivalent of a "yellowbox" in the past. One example
would be when NT and 32-bit versions of Windows needed to run 16-bit
apps those 16-bit apps ran in something called "Windows on Windows"
(WoW) which would provide the underlying 16-bit subsystem for those
apps and translate the calls to the proper Win32 counterparts. The same
now happens when you run a 32-bit app on 64-bit Windows. There is a
"yellowbox" like 32-bit subsystem that runs the 32-bit apps and
translates the calls to the native 64-bit OS.

> A big stumbling block for older apps on Vista, seems to be the security
> component UAC (User Access Control), and AFAICT this is similar in many
> respects to SELinux, which has caused a few incompatibilities under
> Linux for the same reasons.

Could be... I don't know what the problem is with those apps.

> With each passing day, SELinux policies are being refined to included
> more and more applications, and the framework is in place for developers
> to create and distribute their own policy files (applied by e.g. %post
> scripts by RPM).
>
> I see no reason that something similar shouldn't happen on Vista, with
> the same old exception of proprietary Abandonware of course, which now
> has one more thing precluding its use.
>
> >> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
> >>
> > Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless they don't
> > want it to work without a forced upgrade?
>
> From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
> development model does not seem very professional.
>
> --
> K.
> http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
>
> .----
> | L.A. town is falling down, while the ground moves around.
> | We won't let it get us down; we're Californians!
> `----
> - Animaniacs ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKcgTnfoM9Q )
>
> Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
> 07:42:11 up 102 days, 7:59, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.02

[H]omer · External Since: Apr 21, 2006 Posts: 2134

Stephen Fairchild wrote:
> yttrx wrote:
>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>>
>> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>>
>> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
>> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.

In defence of Microsoft:

Both major Mac OS transitions were fundamentally different to the XP ->
Vista transition. OS9 -> OSX was a switch to a completely different
platform core (UNIX/Darwin), and 0SX-PPC -> OSX-Intel was an
architecture switch. It was handled well by API and bytecode emulation,
but that isn't really the kind of changes we're seeing with Vista.

A big stumbling block for older apps on Vista, seems to be the security
component UAC (User Access Control), and AFAICT this is similar in many
respects to SELinux, which has caused a few incompatibilities under
Linux for the same reasons.

With each passing day, SELinux policies are being refined to included
more and more applications, and the framework is in place for developers
to create and distribute their own policy files (applied by e.g. %post
scripts by RPM).

I see no reason that something similar shouldn't happen on Vista, with
the same old exception of proprietary Abandonware of course, which now
has one more thing precluding its use.

>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>>
> Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless they don't
> want it to work without a forced upgrade?

From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
development model does not seem very professional.

--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged

..----
| L.A. town is falling down, while the ground moves around.
| We won't let it get us down; we're Californians!
`----
- Animaniacs ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKcgTnfoM9Q )

Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
07:42:11 up 102 days, 7:59, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.02

billwg · External Since: Aug 15, 2006 Posts: 393

yttrx wrote:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>
> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>
> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>
> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>
They will fix the compatibility issues, silly. They always have.

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

[H]omer <spam.DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:

>>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>>>
>> Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless they don't
>> want it to work without a forced upgrade?
>
> From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
> development model does not seem very professional.
>

Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only one thing:

They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take one
programmer to solve.

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 879

On 2006-09-28, [H]omer <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>> yttrx wrote:
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>>>
>>> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>>>
>>> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
>>> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>
> In defence of Microsoft:
>
> Both major Mac OS transitions were fundamentally different to the XP ->
> Vista transition. OS9 -> OSX was a switch to a completely different
> platform core (UNIX/Darwin), and 0SX-PPC -> OSX-Intel was an

Microsoft has needed just this sort of transition for a long,
LONG, LONG time. They needed to do this back in 1993.

[deletia]

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

yttrx RemoveThis @yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:

> [H]omer <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
>
>>>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>>>>
>>> Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless they don't
>>> want it to work without a forced upgrade?
>>
>> From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
>> development model does not seem very professional.
>>
>
> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only one thing:
>
> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take one
> programmer to solve.

Conjecture.

Although I do agree with your general point : too many attacking a
problem is rarely a good thing. Things rarely get done by committee.

yttrx · External Since: Sep 09, 2006 Posts: 1246

Hadron Quark <qadronhuark RemoveThis @geemail.com> wrote:
> yttrx RemoveThis @yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>
>> [H]omer <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>>>>>
>>>> Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless they don't
>>>> want it to work without a forced upgrade?
>>>
>>> From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
>>> development model does not seem very professional.
>>>
>>
>> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only one thing:
>>
>> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take one
>> programmer to solve.
>
> Conjecture.

Its a fact, actually.

>
> Although I do agree with your general point : too many attacking a
> problem is rarely a good thing. Things rarely get done by committee.

And thus, we have windows.

-----yttrx

--
http://www.yttrx.net

Roy Schestowitz · External Since: Jun 26, 2005 Posts: 24199

__/ [ B Gruff ] on Thursday 28 September 2006 00:58 \__

> On Thursday 28 September 2006 00:13 yttrx wrote:
>
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>>
>> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>>
>> When Apple was faced with this sort of conundrum, they simply invented
>> Yellowbox for backwards compatability.
>>
>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>
> "It's the E.U.'s fault"!

*LOL*

Well, to be honest, I am more 'concerned' about what will happened to
backward compatibility when Vista received it's long-overdue 60% codebase
'makeover'. Backward compatibility must be just one among various reasons
for ever-going procrastination. Microsoft (Windows in particular) is
essentially trapped.

Remember: the beast is no longer maintenable and it is not secure. While no
considerable feature cannot be added (e.g. WinFS), security issues arise
very frequently and they are difficult to fix (due to the former factor).
This leads to flakiness, fixes that introduce the need for another fix,
which requires another...

I am extremely optimistic with regards to Linux. It's not only because Linux
makes huge strides every week, but also because Windows is becoming
increasingly messed up rather then be rejuvenated. How long can this go on?
The last straw has already broken many people's back. And word of mouth has
an exponential nature as it spreads. A colleague of mine is migrating to
Ubuntu Linux this day and this afternoon I found out that another has given
it a try. The perception has changed completely and it's seen as an
acceptable alternative, and more.

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<k8VSg.80521$y34.17498@fe11.usenetserver.com>,
yttrx.RemoveThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>> yttrx.RemoveThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>
>>> [H]omer <spam.RemoveThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless
>>>>> they don't want it to work without a forced upgrade?
>>>>

>>>> From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
>>>> development model does not seem very professional.
>>>
>>> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only
>>> one thing:
>>>
>>> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take
>>> one programmer to solve.
>>
>> Conjecture.
>
> Its a fact, actually.

Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
other people. Smile

It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can remember.
When a project runs into trouble managements solution is invariably to
throw more people at it. Without exception, in my experience, that is
the worst action possible.

--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

rgc.TakeThisOut@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) writes:

> begin risky.vbs
> <k8VSg.80521$y34.17498@fe11.usenetserver.com>,
> yttrx.TakeThisOut@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> yttrx.TakeThisOut@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>>
>>>> [H]omer <spam.TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Three guesses what Microsoft will do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poke holes here and there until everything works again unless
>>>>>> they don't want it to work without a forced upgrade?
>>>>>
>
>>>>> From a bystander's POV, I must admit Microsoft's workflow and
>>>>> development model does not seem very professional.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only
>>>> one thing:
>>>>
>>>> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take
>>>> one programmer to solve.
>>>
>>> Conjecture.
>>
>> Its a fact, actually.

I agree : to a degree. And I'm not sure if I even mean to put
"conjecture" where I did in my reply.

There are many approaches were round robin attack on a problem can reap
benefits. "Extreme programming" is one such.

>
> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
> other people. Smile

>
> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can remember.
> When a project runs into trouble managements solution is invariably to
> throw more people at it. Without exception, in my experience, that is
> the worst action possible.

Nearly always the case, yes.

--
Anyone who thinks UNIX is intuitive should be forced to write 5000 lines of
code using nothing but vi or emacs. AAAAACK!
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands, especially
Emacs.)

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2610

In article <87lko3pnua.fsf.DeleteThis@geemail.com>,
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> There are many approaches were round robin attack on a problem can reap
> benefits. "Extreme programming" is one such.

Steve Yegge had some interesting things to say about that a couple days
ago:

<http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/09/good-agile-bad-agile_27.html>

--
--Tim Smith

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Culley belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> yttrx.DeleteThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> yttrx.DeleteThis@yttrx.net (yttrx) writes:
>>>> Microsoft's problem is and has been for some time, one and only
>>>> one thing:
>>>>
>>>> They throw 1000 programmers at an issue that should, at most, take
>>>> one programmer to solve.
>>>
>>> Conjecture.
>>
>> Its a fact, actually.
>
> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
> other people. Smile

>
> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can remember.
> When a project runs into trouble managements solution is invariably to
> throw more people at it. Without exception, in my experience, that is
> the worst action possible.

Find yourself a copy of Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-Month", where he
talks about why that is the case.

--
Boot your Windows operating system in a virtual machine on Linux
It's safer.
-- http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

John Bailo · External Since: Apr 25, 2005 Posts: 2319

yttrx wrote:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>
> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.

Of course, you could say that zero microsoft software runs on (native)
Linux.

--
Texeme Construct

JEDIDIAH · External Since: Sep 24, 2004 Posts: 879

On 2006-09-29, John Bailo <jabailo RemoveThis @texeme.com> wrote:
> yttrx wrote:
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=19
>>
>> Surprise, a bunch of apps that run on XP do not run on Vista RC1.
>
> Of course, you could say that zero microsoft software runs on (native)
> Linux.

A great deal of it does actually.

Wine is no more un-native than xlib or gnome is.

--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<pdmdnewHicOqYIHYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
Linonut <linonut DeleteThis @bone.com> writes:
>
> Find yourself a copy of Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-Month", where
> he talks about why that is the case.

That was mandatory reading when my 1st employer sent their new
graduate intake on a 3 month course at Essex uni more years ago than I
care to remember. Smile

--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

Stephen Fairchild · External Since: Sep 26, 2004 Posts: 167

Roy Culley wrote:

> Kernighan was once asked what was the most difficult piece of SW he
> had developed. His reply was awk. Why? Because he wrote it with 2
> other people. Smile

>
> It has been the bane of SW development for as long as I can remember.
> When a project runs into trouble managements solution is invariably to
> throw more people at it. Without exception, in my experience, that is
> the worst action possible.
>
I agree either have 1 person doing it or 20+.
--
Stephen Fairchild