Will Old XP Applications Run on Windows7?

N. Miller · External Since: Apr 03, 2006 Posts: 51

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:17:51 -0700, Todd wrote:

> When you get past two weeks, you are out of the woods.

I am approaching two years.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

SC Tom · External Since: Jan 27, 2009 Posts: 178

"Todd" wrote in message
> On 09/18/2011 11:04 AM, N. Miller wrote:
>> However, in an enterprise environment, there appear to be any number of very
>> expensive, specialized applications which are problematic. So I suppose it
>> is easier on the home user than the enterprise user. I priced one accounting
>> package, on the suggestion of my mother's tax accountant. Ouch! $399.00 for
>> software I'd only use once a year? I don't think so!
>
> Wait till you hit packages that cost over $100,000.00 that don't
> run on Vista/7.
>
> Home computers running vista/7 with x86 seems more stable than the
> x64 ones to me, but that is only anecdotal. The main pain-in-the-neck
> I come across is the constant crash and roll back. It undoes all the
> configuration I have done for the customer. Here is a tip for you,
> Make four restore points after you configure a Vista/7 computer.
> That way when it rolls back on you, it will catch your configuration.
> And, you won't have to constantly reinstall the print drivers,etc..
> When you get past two weeks, you are out of the woods.
>
> -T
>

If your customers are having that many problems with Vista and/or Windows 7, then maybe you should consider teaching
them how to avoid what they are doing wrong. I have a number of people that I've helped set up Win7 on their PC's and
laptops, and have not seen near the problems that you have. Most of the ones I've helped are computer novices (some of
them even more of a senior than I), and they do make mistakes, but nothing like your customers must be doing. Granted,
these are all home users, but some are running home offices from their computers, and still have few or no problems.

I have a few XP programs that I run on my Win7 32-bit Home Premium Gateway laptop that came originally with Vista, and
have had no problems doing so. Not sure if all the programs on my XP box would run on it, but someday I just might get
the time to do the double upgrade and find out Smile

--
SC Tom

Todd · External Since: Sep 14, 2011 Posts: 32

On 09/18/2011 04:51 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2011, Todd wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> Hysterical and based on nearly everyone's experience
>> with Vista/7.
>
> "Nearly everyone", eh? Cite your statistics, please.

http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+sucks

Do you work for M$ marketing?

David · External Since: May 14, 2006 Posts: 56

I'm the OP, sorry for the delay!

Thank you all for your replies -- you have given me insights into the range
of your experiences, which is what I was hoping for.

Sorry for not including specific examples of the programs in question.
Most of them are pretty esoteric so I thought that the specifics wouldn't
be of much interest. But if anyone has had any experience with any of them
on Win7, I would be pleased to hear about it. Here are ten of them:

MS Office 2003 Student&Teacher Edition
Adobe PhotoShopElements v.4
Forte Agent Newsreader v.2.0/32.646
Power Basic Compiler v.3.5 (Including many programs I have written)
Powersim Constructor v.2.51
MS Project v.4.0
TurboCAD v.4.x
National Instruments Circuit Design Suite (Multisim) v.10.0.1
Garmin World Map v.3.01
OziExplorer v.3.95.4q

Thank you again,
David

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:24:26 +0700, David wrote:

>Following multiple crashes, I have had a terrible time trying to rebuild my
>XP system. That is history that I won't belabor here, but it is the
>reason for my following question, as I am reluctantly starting to consider
>alternative solutions.
>
>If I were to start over from scratch, with a new Windows7 O/S, how much
>trouble should I expect to get my old applications to run? They were all
>running fine under XP, even though some of them go back as far as Win95.
>
>Do you think "Run in Compatibility Mode" would help, or is this dreaming?
>
>Thank you very much for your thoughts,
>David

Todd · External Since: Sep 14, 2011 Posts: 32

On 09/18/2011 08:55 PM, David wrote:
> MS Office 2003 Student&Teacher Edition
> Adobe PhotoShopElements v.4
> Forte Agent Newsreader v.2.0/32.646
> Power Basic Compiler v.3.5 (Including many programs I have written)
> Powersim Constructor v.2.51
> MS Project v.4.0
> TurboCAD v.4.x
> National Instruments Circuit Design Suite (Multisim) v.10.0.1
> Garmin World Map v.3.01
> OziExplorer v.3.95.4q
>
> Thank you again,
> David

Hi David,

Unless you want to start over (upgrade all your software), just
stick with XP. Everything will run twice as fast and it will be
far more stable.

I build about eight to ten custom computers a year. I
have only had one customer ask for W7 (ever). It took her a
year and now she is back to XP. She was really excited about
W7 too. She really wanted the latest stuff. 10 times as
stable and twice as fast. It took about a year of crashing and
other W7 nonsense to wear her down. Now, everything works.

If you decide to go with W7, there is a alt.windows7.general
group with a lot of helpful folks on it. I see XP, Vista,
W7 running side by side all the time -- it is my profession.
If you get a chance to see it, you will be really pissed.

HTH,
-T

Nil · External Since: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 67

This is addressed to David, in order to counter the FUD being spread by
Todd...

On 19 Sep 2011, Todd wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Unless you want to start over (upgrade all your software), just
> stick with XP. Everything will run twice as fast and it will be
> far more stable.

It will not be necessary to upgrade "all your software." As with any OS
change, it's a good idea to check with the vendor to see if the
software will run. Most packages that run in 32-bit XP will just as
well in 32-bit Windows 7.

> I build about eight to ten custom computers a year. I
> have only had one customer ask for W7 (ever). It took her a
> year and now she is back to XP. She was really excited about
> W7 too. She really wanted the latest stuff. 10 times as
> stable and twice as fast. It took about a year of crashing and
> other W7 nonsense to wear her down. Now, everything works.

Windows 7 is just as stable as XP, maybe even more so. My XP, Vista,
and Win7 boxes rarely crash for any reason. If they do, it's usually
due to failing hardware. The OS is very reliable and almost never
crashes on its own.

> If you get a chance to see it, you will be really pissed.

If you get a chance to see it, you will soon adjust to it and will
carry on being just as productive as before.

Nil · External Since: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 67

On 18 Sep 2011, Todd wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> Wait till you hit packages that cost over $100,000.00 that don't
> run on Vista/7.

That's the software vendor's problem, not Microsoft's. And it's up
to the vendor's corporate client to make sure their users run their
expensive business application of a qualified platform. That's not
Microsoft's problem, either.

> The main pain-in-the-neck I come across is the constant crash and
> roll back. It undoes all the configuration I have done for the
> customer.

I've never seen that happen. If you set those machines up, I can
only assume the problem is due to you. It's not a general Windows 7
issue.

Nil · External Since: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 67

On 19 Sep 2011, Todd wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> On 09/18/2011 04:51 PM, Nil wrote:
>> On 18 Sep 2011, Todd wrote in
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>
>>> Hysterical and based on nearly everyone's experience
>>> with Vista/7.
>>
>> "Nearly everyone", eh? Cite your statistics, please.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=vista+sucks
>
> Do you work for M$ marketing?

I knew you wouldn't be able to do it. I just wanted to let you hang
yourself with your own rope. Good job!

N. Miller · External Since: Apr 03, 2006 Posts: 51

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:51:19 -0700, Todd wrote:

> Unless you want to start over (upgrade all your software), just
> stick with XP. Everything will run twice as fast and it will be
> far more stable.

I'd recommend sticking with Windows 3.1 on MS DOS 6.22. All of these years
and it has become super stable. And damned near anything written for any PC
over 15 years old will run without a hitch! Sad

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Ken Springer · External Since: Aug 25, 2011 Posts: 23

On 9/19/11 9:08 AM, N. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:51:19 -0700, Todd wrote:
>
>> Unless you want to start over (upgrade all your software), just
>> stick with XP. Everything will run twice as fast and it will be
>> far more stable.
>
> I'd recommend sticking with Windows 3.1 on MS DOS 6.22. All of these years
> and it has become super stable. And damned near anything written for any PC
> over 15 years old will run without a hitch! Sad

I can do this!!!!! LOL!!!!

I've got an old Compaq Presario with Xerox's Tabs interface, and a copy
of Norton Desktop! : Very Happy

:

FWIW, I've never stumbled across a calculator I've liked better than the
one that comes with Norton Desktop.

Would like to find a copy of HP's Wave too.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 6.0.2
Thunderbird 6.0.2
LibreOffice 3.3.3

Mayayana · External Since: Aug 20, 2011 Posts: 47

| I knew you wouldn't be able to do it. I just wanted to let you hang
| yourself with your own rope. Good job!
|

It is a bit of a cheap shot to say "cite your statistics".
That's asking the other person to convince you about
a complex issue with "objective" proof. A lot of it is in
personal experience. One of the most common things I
hear is that Win7 is a big improvement over Vista. Yet
they're nearly identical. But there are three big differences
that cause people to think that Win7 is much better:

* With Vista the mainstream media, which receives a lot
of MS advertising money, was "polite". By the time
everyone was complaining the media finally thought it was
safe to criticize Vista. Win7 has been slow out of the gate,
especially in the corporate market, but it only has to be
"at least better than Vista" to seem good.

* Win7 has UAC turned down a bit, which makes it seem
less annoying.

* Vista/7 is stunningly bloated. When Vista came out
the hardware wasn't up to the job. (Which included a
shady deal between Intel and MS. Intel had a load of
boards with a particular chipset (915?) they wanted to
use up. Those boards couldn't handle Aero. Thus Windows
Basic and Windows Premium were born. Vista Basic was
installed on the old boards and sold on "budget" PCs,
which got people very confused. After all, why did I buy
this new PC if not for the snazzy new, semi-transparent
techno-kitsch of Aero? Smile

If you want "objective proof" you can start here:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2008-11-18/tech/29994947_1_windows...sta-jim

By the time Win7 arrived, hardware had caught up.
Cheap PCs are coming with 4 GB of RAM and quad-
core CPUs. Of course the system seems snappy!

If you want "statistical proof" then look up the
statistics on sales. But watch out. Statistics lie,
especially when it comes to coprorate claims about
tech sales. Business has been very slow to
adopt Vista/7. With XP Microsoft began a trend
toward increasing bloat that meant older PCs were
often not updatable. One had to buy a new PC to get
new Windows. But why buy a new PC? It's just going
to do the same job as the old PC. Microsoft was
presumably trying to support their business hardware
partners by accelerating forced obsolescence, but it
backfired. With XP the SOHo market stopped updating
altogether until they needed a new PC. With Vista/7
the corporate market did the same. You can find all
sorts of "objective statistics" about Microsoft's
amazing sales figures, but they refuse to break down
those figures into copies actually sold to customers
vs copies "pre-sold" to Dell, HP, etc. One can still buy
a Dell version of XP at online software stores. I don't
know how it all works behind the scenes, but I'd guess
that Dell gets a good deal in exchange for making massive
orders, which allows MS to say, "Look! Everyone loves
our new product! 80 million sold last week!".

user · External Since: Aug 09, 2006 Posts: 180

Per Todd:
> I build about eight to ten custom computers a year. I
>have only had one customer ask for W7 (ever). It took her a
>year and now she is back to XP. She was really excited about
>W7 too. She really wanted the latest stuff. 10 times as
>stable and twice as fast. It took about a year of crashing and
>other W7 nonsense to wear her down. Now, everything works.

Last year I had the misfortune to sit next to a contract
developer who had purchased a new Window 7 or Vista (can't recall
which) laptop.

She was on the phone for literally *hours* on end with Dell
trying to resolve all the OS-specific issues with her development
environments.

I've been sticking with XP just because it works, Vista/7 don't
offer me anything new that I want or need, working XP has become
imprinted on my lower brain stem like tying my shoelaces,
Microsoft keeps moving the furniture around in new releases - and
I don't need the lost hours trying to find out where everything
is.

So far, my admittedly-non-technical reasoning seems to be holding
up.

I guess eventually I'll build or buy a new box that supports only
7 and not XP.... and I'll bite the bullet.... but until then....
--
PeteCresswell

Todd · External Since: Sep 14, 2011 Posts: 32

On 09/18/2011 11:43 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2011, Todd wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> Wait till you hit packages that cost over $100,000.00 that don't
>> run on Vista/7.
>
> That's the software vendor's problem, not Microsoft's. And it's up
> to the vendor's corporate client to make sure their users run their
> expensive business application of a qualified platform. That's not
> Microsoft's problem, either.

Actually it is M$'s problem, especially when the liars at M$ marketing
state that Vista was the most compatible and tested operating system
ever. M$ marketing did not state that only "our" software (except M$
Money) will be compatible, everyone else's will have to be modified.

>
>> The main pain-in-the-neck I come across is the constant crash and
>> roll back. It undoes all the configuration I have done for the
>> customer.
>
> I've never seen that happen. If you set those machines up, I can
> only assume the problem is due to you. It's not a general Windows 7
> issue.

You lack the field experience that I do.

-T

Todd · External Since: Sep 14, 2011 Posts: 32

On 09/18/2011 11:35 PM, Nil wrote:
> The OS [Vista/7] is very reliable and almost never
> crashes on its own.
>

WHAT A CROCK OF MANURE!

Thai Guy · External Since: Sep 16, 2011 Posts: 7

--->
> On 19 Sep 2011, "Mayayana" wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> It is a bit of a cheap shot to say "cite your statistics". That's
>> asking the other person to convince you about a complex issue with
>> "objective" proof.
>
> All he has to do is provide some credible evidence that "nearly
> everyone" had to buy all new application software, finds Windows 7
> to be "an absolute pain in your neck", has a problem with Windows 7
> crashing and losing all configuration. I've worked with lots of Win7
> systems, and they are all quite stable and none of them suffer from
> the problems he describes. Some people have problems, of course, but
> those are usually due to hardware problems or to running old software
> the conflicts with Vista/Win7's security features. Many of those
> problems can be worked around.
>
> People forget the furor over XP when it was introduced and they had
> to make the adjustment from Windows 9x. It was like pulling teeth,
> but most people eventually adapted and went on with the business at
> hand.
>
> XP is good, too. I like it.

I have three Windows 7 machines. They stay on 24/7 and have a good UPS
connected to them. Between them, they run software that runs the gamut
of Windows 98 through Windows 7. Some of the software had been updated,
but those that weren't/couldn't are now run under Win7's Virtualization.
If that didn't work, then I use Virtual PC and an installation of
whatever OS the particular software desired at the time. I currently
run DOS, Windows 3.11, WinNT 4.0, Windows 2000, and XP/XP Pro under
Virtual PC.

My machines have never given me a moment's pause. They have always
updated properly, have never stall, and just keep ticking along. I had
to re-boot occasionally - usually due to an update - but never to solve
a problem. If this is a statistic, then have at it.

Nil · External Since: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 67

On 19 Sep 2011, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> I've been sticking with XP just because it works, Vista/7 don't
> offer me anything new that I want or need, working XP has become
> imprinted on my lower brain stem like tying my shoelaces,
> Microsoft keeps moving the furniture around in new releases - and
> I don't need the lost hours trying to find out where everything
> is.
>
> So far, my admittedly-non-technical reasoning seems to be holding
> up.
>
> I guess eventually I'll build or buy a new box that supports only
> 7 and not XP.... and I'll bite the bullet.... but until then....

That's similar to how I approach it, too. I don't upgrade the hardware
or OS until such time as the computer won't do something I ask it to. I
probably wouldn't upgrade an OS just for the sake of upgrading, unless
it's on a spare system, just to check it out. My 6-year-old main system
is still XP, and it works fine. I figure I'll get another year and a
half out of it, then I'll decide whether to upgrade the OS. I run one
application that I think will also require an upgrade - everything else
should run as is.

When my friend's XP system died about 6 months ago, I built him a new
one from the ground up, With Win7. We did our research and found that
one application needed to be upgraded, all else worked without a hitch.
It's been stable as a rock ever since. His old XP system would
bluescreen if you looked it crosseyed.

Nil · External Since: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 67

On 18 Sep 2011, David wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> MS Office 2003 Student&Teacher Edition
> Adobe PhotoShopElements v.4
> Forte Agent Newsreader v.2.0/32.646
> Power Basic Compiler v.3.5 (Including many programs I have
> written) Powersim Constructor v.2.51
> MS Project v.4.0
> TurboCAD v.4.x
> National Instruments Circuit Design Suite (Multisim) v.10.0.1
> Garmin World Map v.3.01
> OziExplorer v.3.95.4q

You should check with the software vendors. They would know best.

I know Office 2003 and Agent work fine. Agent 2 may be one of those
that needs to be installed in a location other than \Program Files, as
it writes user data to it's own installation folder rather than the
user data area.

SC Tom · External Since: Jan 27, 2009 Posts: 178

"Nil" wrote in message
> On 19 Sep 2011, "Mayayana" wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> It is a bit of a cheap shot to say "cite your statistics".
>> That's asking the other person to convince you about
>> a complex issue with "objective" proof.
>
> All he has to do is provide some credible evidence that "nearly
> everyone" had to buy all new application software, finds Windows 7 to
> be "an absolute pain in your neck", has a problem with Windows 7
> crashing and losing all configuration. I've worked with lots of Win7
> systems, and they are all quite stable and none of them suffer from the
> problems he describes. Some people have problems, of course, but those
> are usually due to hardware problems or to running old software the
> conflicts with Vista/Win7's security features. Many of those problems
> can be worked around.
>
> People forget the furor over XP when it was introduced and they had to
> make the adjustment from Windows 9x. It was like pulling teeth, but
> most people eventually adapted and went on with the business at hand.
>
> XP is good, too. I like it.

Ah yes, when XP stood for "X-tra Painful." Don't forget that Windows NT stood for "No Thanks." And that Windows Me
should have been named "Windows Not Me." And how could we possibly forget that hybrid, Window CEMeNT ("Hard as a rock
and dumb as a brick")? There are always things like that when a new(er) OS comes out. Smile

--
SC Tom

Thai Guy · External Since: Sep 16, 2011 Posts: 7

--->
> On 09/18/2011 11:35 PM, Nil wrote:
>> The OS [Vista/7] is very reliable and almost never crashes on its
>> own.
>>
>
> WHAT A CROCK OF MANURE!
>

My goodness! You certainly are outspoken. A simple "we have our
differences" would have sufficed.

Todd · External Since: Sep 14, 2011 Posts: 32

On 09/19/2011 01:21 PM, Thai Guy wrote:
> --->
>> On 09/18/2011 11:35 PM, Nil wrote:
>>> The OS [Vista/7] is very reliable and almost never crashes on its
>>> own.
>>>
>>
>> WHAT A CROCK OF MANURE!
>>
>
> My goodness! You certainly are outspoken. A simple "we have our
> differences" would have sufficed.

Thai,

The information provided by Nil to the OP is very bad. I am
trying to tell the truth about the product so that the OP
will make an informed decision. "very reliable" is complete
disinformation! "almost never crashes"? I have folks call
me all the time over the constant crashing! Nil statements
are indigenous and down right false. He is misleading
the OP. For what reason, I can not fathom.

XP is a much better choice for the OP's software. Unless,
as I have stated, he wants to do a lot of upgrading and
wants his computer to run 1/2 as fast as XP.

Nil is trying to harm the OP for his own personal agenda.
So, no. My remark, although harsh, was appropriate.

-T