So, I have to ask, where is the line on backwards-compatible expectations drawn? Is it rational to expect a piece of hardware from a decade ago to work in a brand new operating system? I suppose you can make that argument for very specific types of hardware that have either no replacement or are so specialized that it makes no monetary sense to replace it. But a scanner is not that kind of equipment; even Epson hasn't supported that model for several years...
I think even just using a scanner (or printer) as an example is flawed. On every new Windows version scanners (and to a lesser extent printers) always fall by the wayside. I remember getting a near-brand new scanner from a friend because when he upgraded to XP that thing stopped working and there were no further updates in sight.
On the other hand, you can't (and MS can't) use that argument, or at least apply use it to hand-wave all backwards compatibility issues. It makes bugger all difference to me that Vista now supports 77.000 pieces of hardware and runs 98 of the top 100 enterprise applications because if it doesn't run this particular application I use or work with this particular hardware part then it's all for naught.
I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. Personally I think it's high time MS rebooted the whole Windows line like they did with the original NT where they said: keep using Windows 3.1 if you must but here's Windows NT 3.1 if you want to sample the future; backwards compatiblity be damned. But that's me. If your company absolutely needs a DOS application to make money (and it doesn't want to train its employees on VMs) then you can't really fault them for dissing Vista (or whatever) but you can, as you did, point and laugh at their outdated applications/hardware.
The same thing goes for "software compatibility". I've had zero software compatibility issues, but perhaps it's because I'm not trying to use a piece of software written in 1992 for Windows For Workgroups 3.11?
I've been using Vista (64) roughly since March and exclusively with SP1 and I've had software compatibility problems. The latest of which was just yesterday when I tried reinstalling MGS2, which is a Feb 2003 game. Game goes black because Vista no longer has hardware sound acceleration. Long story short, I had to install the (once illegal, now legal) tweaked Creative Alchemy drivers because my lappy has a Realtek HD chip. This was actually my first compatibility problem with a game, in this respect Vista is impressive, especially when I compare it to NT4 and 2000. An application example: WinRAR's file properties Archive sheet doesn't work on Vista 64. Here's another: Visual Studio 2005 craps out when I create a new solution. Googling MS's own forums I saw dumbstruck MS employees. Finally a solution: have to change
every single Registry hive and manually add the Administrator account (yes I'm forcing administrator, I'm not a 10 year old) to the full permissions for it to work. Yes, that's after installing the Vista specific fix for VS2005. I could go on.
And the same goes for "OMG it uses memory and harddrive space!!!". Yes, it uses memory for disk cache. Yes, it uses extra drive space for "shadow copies" of not only operating system files but even previous versions of your personal documents. But somehow, I really didn't miss the 7GB of space on my 750GB drive at home; perhaps I'm not sensitive enough?
7GB? 750GB? My lappy has a 232gb (real ones) drive. Right now the Windows folder is using 14.7GB (and I made a point to delete all previous System Restore backups before counting this). That's just the \Windows folder. I know Vista has stuff in \ProgramData and a bunch of other folders. Since it's a lappy with 3gb of ram include another 3gb for the page file and another 3 for the hybernate file. And worst of all is this is a vLited installation with SP1 already "slipstreamed". There are no backed-up pre-SP1 files here and I removed Speech Support (650mb), Tablet Support (700mb) and Language Files (1gb) from the installation media. If I hadn't I suppose I'd be in 30gb land right about now.
There are things that can be better with Vista; I very much like the idea of making it far more "modular" so I don't have to install every single accessory app it thinks I need.
I'd agree if there was actually an end-user benefit. They componetised Vista to allow easier production of more SKUs, that's all. Thank goodness for nLite and vLite.
UAC was a good concept, but was very poorly implemented. And I'm still waiting for the day when a driver install really doesn't need a reboot -- I guess we are getting closer, but we're still not there yet.
Nevermind drivers, whatever happened to no (or at least much fewer) reboots after Windows updates?
Seriously, operating systems are a religion to some people. Apple is kicking ass and taking names, which means they're doing something right. And while Vista may not be popular with all the fanboys, it's still a "good" OS.
Despite my criticisms above, I actually consider it a pretty good OS once you know how to workaround some of the annoyances (Force admin - it makes Vista a lot more usable as long as you know what you're doing). It has a few must-have features like pervasive instant search, file transfer dialogue boxes with the damn remaining time on the title, not a stupid % like in XP (seems like a tiny change but what does it mean to me that a file is 50% done? If it's a small file that's great but if it's a 2gb file looking at the taskbar tells me nothing at all - in vista a quick glance tells me immediately if I should get myself a cup of tea); another huge time savers are saved searches and stacking. So I'm not downgrading to XP on my lappy. OTOH, my desktop is never getting Vista. That's my games machine and Vista is too damn bloated for that. Might as well save some money and go directly for Vienna, a beta is bound to be around the corner right?
