Should Microsoft Protect Our Investment In Windows Software?

[ulTRAX]

When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP which I
thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my OEM
video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.

So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable ones.
NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I’m not
yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.

So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.

 

[Malke]

ulTRAX wrote:
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP which I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I’m not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.
>

No, it is not reasonable. You are a grownup. Use the operating system
that works for your programs, hardware, tasks. Do the research ahead of
time and make an informed consumer choice.


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]]

Its always a hit and miss, you can't alway have it all. By the way, the
latest version of NERO 7 with all updates applied is suppose to be
compatible with Windows Vista. As for other software, the only
recommendation is to also check for patches and updates which is not a
guarantee. Windows Vista includes a Upgrade Advisor which you could have
used to determine if your apps were ready before deploying Vista.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E...E3DB!9709.entry
"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:B5BCBB52-2F12-4686-AAD5-762D357C3A75@microsoft.com...
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one. to XP which
> I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my
> OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable
> ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I'm
> not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won't work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.
>

 

[ulTRAX]

I suppose your suggestion would make sense if one had the time to research
the topic.... But not everyone does. My old XP PC died and was not worth
fixing. I do web design and had to get back on line ASAP so I bought a Vista
PC concentrating more on researching PC specs. I never would have thought MS
would have been SO disdainful of protecting consumer's investments in Windows
software as it has been with Vista. Am I wrong? Please provide examples from
other radical changes in OS… say from ME to XP. My experience was that not
only was XP a true UPGRADED OS but it DID protect my investment in Windows
software. Bottom line is after 10 months Vista STILL seems like a beta
release. It’s just not ready for primetime.

If need be I have an XP disk and may “downgradeâ€Â… and I do find it
interesting that MS is now offering “downgrade rights†to some Vista users so
they can move back to XP until Vista is truly ready. How’s THAT for a sign of
confidence.


"Malke" wrote:
> No, it is not reasonable. You are a grownup. Use the operating system
> that works for your programs, hardware, tasks. Do the research ahead of
> time and make an informed consumer choice.

 

[Alias]

ulTRAX wrote:
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP which I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I’m not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.
>

Reasons MS released the Vista Virus:

1. MS Greed
2. Hardware makers' greed
3. Software makers' greed
4. OEM computer makers like Dell and HP's greed

They do not, as is evidenced by your experience, WPA, WGA and DRM care
what you think nor how much money you lose.

Sick of this? LinuxUbuntu has all the programs you list above (except
Registry Mechanic, which isn't necessary) and more, all FREE, including
the operating system that you can install on as many computers as you
like. Go to www.ubuntu.com and download it and burn it to a CD and run
the CD to make sure it recognizes all your hardware. Or, you can order
the CD and they will pay the postage for you to get it.


--
Alias
To email me, remove the word "shoes" from my email address

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message ulTRAX
wrote:

>I suppose your suggestion would make sense if one had the time to research
>the topic.... But not everyone does.

Sure. I had the same problem when I went out and bought a sports car, I
didn't find out until later that it only had two seats and my family of
four didn't all fit at once.

Sure, if I had time to research the topic I'd have known, but I'm just a
consumer, why should I have to think?

 

[ulTRAX]

>"DevilsPGD" wrote:
> Sure. I had the same problem when I went out and bought a sports car, I
> didn't find out until later that it only had two seats and my family of
> four didn't all fit at once.
>
> Sure, if I had time to research the topic I'd have known, but I'm just a
> consumer, why should I have to think?

Thanks for a response that ventures into the nonsensical. In your view
there's NO difference between trying to find out whether Vista is compatible
with thousands of programs and knowing that sports cars ALWAYS come with two
seats.

Do any of the fanatical Vista defenders intend to make an intelligent
response to my original post? So far the only intelligent response is from MS
itself which has admitted in offering so-called "downgrade rights" back to XP
that Vista does NOT protect the investments in software that consumers have
made.

 

[ulTRAX]

One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's part
that there were going to be many problems with "older" software. To date I've
found it essentially worthless. As for Nero I've moved on to Nero 8.

>"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
> Its always a hit and miss, you can't alway have it all. By the way, the
> latest version of NERO 7 with all updates applied is suppose to be
> compatible with Windows Vista. As for other software, the only
> recommendation is to also check for patches and updates which is not a
> guarantee. Windows Vista includes a Upgrade Advisor which you could have
> used to determine if your apps were ready before deploying Vista.

 

[Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]]

Upgrade Advisor is not an excuse, its essential in helping the end user
upgrade or migrate to Windows Vista smoothly.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E...E3DB!9709.entry
"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:0DB38AA1-A36A-46A9-891E-7064CFB01FE3@microsoft.com...
> One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's
> part
> that there were going to be many problems with "older" software. To date
> I've
> found it essentially worthless. As for Nero I've moved on to Nero 8.
>
>>"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>> Its always a hit and miss, you can't alway have it all. By the way, the
>> latest version of NERO 7 with all updates applied is suppose to be
>> compatible with Windows Vista. As for other software, the only
>> recommendation is to also check for patches and updates which is not a
>> guarantee. Windows Vista includes a Upgrade Advisor which you could have
>> used to determine if your apps were ready before deploying Vista.
>
>

 

[CB]

"ulTRAX" wrote:

> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP which I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I’m not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.


ulTRAX,


I am not a fanboy or Microsoft apologist. However, you should direct
your dissatisfaction toward the responsible parties. Your investment in
Windows software is protected by Microsoft updates and the ongoing research
conducted by the software engineers. It is your investment in third party
software that should be protected and it seems these third party software
vendors simply don't care enough about their customers to keep the software
updated and compatible. These vendors had a very long time to make their
products compatible with Windows Vista and they chose not to do so.
Let us assume you have a horse, and you use your horse to pull a
round-wheeled cart. You then go to a cart factory to buy a cart only to find
that all the carts have square wheels. Are you going to blame your horse
because it can't properly pull the square-wheeled cart. Place your blame
where it really belongs.
Have a nice day.

C.B.
>

 

[Richard Urban]

Why respond? You have your opinion. You won't be happy till some agrees with
you and I will not.

You blew it by not researching your purchase. Before I installed Vista I
pretty much knew "exactly" what would work and what would not.

I think that Microsoft should do as Apple did. Create a whole new O/S with
***NO*** backward compatibility. Then we would finally be rid of all the
antiquated "baggage" that causes the majority of system problems - all in
the name of backward compatibility.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:2740407D-C66C-4C4F-B82C-C797BC6D6D97@microsoft.com...
> >"DevilsPGD" wrote:
>> Sure. I had the same problem when I went out and bought a sports car, I
>> didn't find out until later that it only had two seats and my family of
>> four didn't all fit at once.
>>
>> Sure, if I had time to research the topic I'd have known, but I'm just a
>> consumer, why should I have to think?
>
> Thanks for a response that ventures into the nonsensical. In your view
> there's NO difference between trying to find out whether Vista is
> compatible
> with thousands of programs and knowing that sports cars ALWAYS come with
> two
> seats.
>
> Do any of the fanatical Vista defenders intend to make an intelligent
> response to my original post? So far the only intelligent response is from
> MS
> itself which has admitted in offering so-called "downgrade rights" back to
> XP
> that Vista does NOT protect the investments in software that consumers
> have
> made.
>

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message ulTRAX
wrote:

>>"DevilsPGD" wrote:
>> Sure. I had the same problem when I went out and bought a sports car, I
>> didn't find out until later that it only had two seats and my family of
>> four didn't all fit at once.
>>
>> Sure, if I had time to research the topic I'd have known, but I'm just a
>> consumer, why should I have to think?
>
>Thanks for a response that ventures into the nonsensical. In your view
>there's NO difference between trying to find out whether Vista is compatible
>with thousands of programs and knowing that sports cars ALWAYS come with two
>seats.

All sports cars come with two seats. Some come with more.

It is your responsibility to ensure that a product you purchase is
suitable for your needs. Microsoft goes a step further and offers a
refund on retail purchases, in case you discover after the fact that
your purchase is unsuitable.

 

[John]

Technology is always changing. Technology is changing for the better.

If you accept those two assumptions then it's impossible for any company, be
it Intel or Microsoft, to always have a more technologically advanced
product that works with older technologies.

Many poeple plan on their computer hardare lasting 2 or 3 years before the
new technology makes changing necessary. I think major operating system
software is on a similar timetable. So when I buy hardware or software, I
know it has a useful life of maybe 3 years. It's like knowing your car has a
useful life of 5 years or 150,000 miles. Nothing is forever.

"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:B5BCBB52-2F12-4686-AAD5-762D357C3A75@microsoft.com...
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one. to XP which
> I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my
> OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable
> ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I'm
> not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won't work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.
>

 

[Charlie Tame]

I think we agree that MS cannot be responsible for everything, but
considering that XP did so well with compatibility I think it is only
logical to assume that MANY people will expect that to continue, simple
because MS in the past have devoted so much effort in exactly that
direction.

Many replies you got seem to be from people who are "Enthusiasts" and
they both follow and understand the progress of an OS... they are not
"Ordinary" users, so it is logical also that they adjust their
expectations to suit their ongoing experience. This will not usually
agree with that of someone like yourself who spends < 24/7 following
developments.

Also, some have been in the Beta program and it is easy to forget that a
newcomer to an OS can get caught out by simple things that have simply
moved.

There is no excuse for answering your comments with derision, and no
excuse for criticizing the fact that your expectations were that
Microsoft would have continued to pursue the same compatibility path
they had historically followed.

I didn't see any major ad campaign that warned of such issues, I did see
one that emphasized "WOW".

The compatibility tool proved about worthless here, Vista didn't work on
any of my personal machines without some hardware upgrades that (of
course) cost money. This was not a problem for me, I expected that, but
the fact remains that both machines I decided to upgrade passed the
assessment and didn't work. Again, I didn't particularly bother about
this because I expected that result, but I have testing options far
exceeding those of the ordinary user with just one machine and faced
with "Upgrade or not" as a pretty crucial decision.

Have you tried the MS virtual machine so you can actually run XP inside
of a Vista host, maybe some of your stuff will work there but of course
you will have to install a copy of XP - which IMHO they should offer a
free license for just this purpose to anyone experiencing compatibility
issues.

(How is it they can write a VM that allows XP and compatible programs to
run pretty easily but cannot add this layer in the package)



ulTRAX wrote:
> One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's part
> that there were going to be many problems with "older" software. To date I've
> found it essentially worthless. As for Nero I've moved on to Nero 8.
>
>> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>> Its always a hit and miss, you can't alway have it all. By the way, the
>> latest version of NERO 7 with all updates applied is suppose to be
>> compatible with Windows Vista. As for other software, the only
>> recommendation is to also check for patches and updates which is not a
>> guarantee. Windows Vista includes a Upgrade Advisor which you could have
>> used to determine if your apps were ready before deploying Vista.
>
>

 

[Bruce Chambers]

ulTRAX wrote:
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP which I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable ones.


It shouldn't have been. Is "plan" a word you refuse to use?


> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I’m not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.
>

Well, if you'd spent a few minutes doing the normal product research a
responsible consumer does before buying a new product, you'd have known
which were compatible and which were not before changing your OS.


> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software?


No, of course not! Why should Microsoft be expected to protect you
from the consequences of your own decisions and actions? We already
have far too much of a nanny society, and you want Microsoft to do your
thinking for you?


> Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.
>


No, what we expect is for adults to behave as adults and think before
they act, and to accept responsibility for their own choices or lack of
forethought .


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Bruce Chambers]

ulTRAX wrote:
> I suppose your suggestion would make sense if one had the time to research
> the topic.... But not everyone does.


B*****it! What a sorry cop out.


> My old XP PC died and was not worth
> fixing. I do web design and had to get back on line ASAP so I bought a Vista
> PC concentrating more on researching PC specs.


Why, if you're a web designer, would you have ignore such a key
consideration (it's certainly much more important than hardware specs)as
the operating system of application compatibility? Sounds like you're
in the wrong line of work, to me.


> I never would have thought MS
> would have been SO disdainful of protecting consumer's investments in Windows
> software as it has been with Vista.


You've got the cart before the horse. Why are you blaming Microsoft
because the makers of your legacy applications failed to take intoi
account the development of new operating systems.


> Am I wrong?


Completely and utterly.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[ulTRAX]

P*ss off Richard. Thanks for proving that Vista fanatics are just as arrogant
as MS itself. No I didn't have any real choice. I had to stick with Windows
hoping to protect my Windows-based skills and my software investment. I also
had no choice but to get back on line ASAP. I went from trying to chkdsk /r
bootfix my old HD, to trying to reinstall XP (disk could not be read), to
trying to salvage data, to deciding whether it was worth buying a new HD or a
new PC, to researching specs and running around checking prices, to buying a
new PC in 3 days. I happened to get a great deal on a Vista PC and I grabbed
it.

One can't know of MS's former determination to protect legacy software and
NOT think it would also be a priority in Vista. That you think this
expectation is unreasonable is ridiculous. What's unreasonable is your notion
that MS should just start from scratch and abandon any commitment to legacy
software/device. Actually I bet Apple and Linux would LOVE that. The dynamics
that keep so many of consumers stuck in this proprietary vendor lock-in would
be sprung open.

> "Richard Urban" wrote:
> You blew it by not researching your purchase. Before I installed Vista I
> pretty much knew "exactly" what would work and what would not.

 

[ulTRAX]

Thanks Charlie.... you seem to be a voice of sanity here compared to all the
Vista Jihadists.

"Charlie Tame" wrote:

>
> I think we agree that MS cannot be responsible for everything, but
> considering that XP did so well with compatibility I think it is only
> logical to assume that MANY people will expect that to continue, simple
> because MS in the past have devoted so much effort in exactly that
> direction.
>
> Many replies you got seem to be from people who are "Enthusiasts" and
> they both follow and understand the progress of an OS... they are not
> "Ordinary" users, so it is logical also that they adjust their
> expectations to suit their ongoing experience. This will not usually
> agree with that of someone like yourself who spends < 24/7 following
> developments.
>
> Also, some have been in the Beta program and it is easy to forget that a
> newcomer to an OS can get caught out by simple things that have simply
> moved.
>
> There is no excuse for answering your comments with derision, and no
> excuse for criticizing the fact that your expectations were that
> Microsoft would have continued to pursue the same compatibility path
> they had historically followed.
>
> I didn't see any major ad campaign that warned of such issues, I did see
> one that emphasized "WOW".
>
> The compatibility tool proved about worthless here, Vista didn't work on
> any of my personal machines without some hardware upgrades that (of
> course) cost money. This was not a problem for me, I expected that, but
> the fact remains that both machines I decided to upgrade passed the
> assessment and didn't work. Again, I didn't particularly bother about
> this because I expected that result, but I have testing options far
> exceeding those of the ordinary user with just one machine and faced
> with "Upgrade or not" as a pretty crucial decision.
>
> Have you tried the MS virtual machine so you can actually run XP inside
> of a Vista host, maybe some of your stuff will work there but of course
> you will have to install a copy of XP - which IMHO they should offer a
> free license for just this purpose to anyone experiencing compatibility
> issues.
>
> (How is it they can write a VM that allows XP and compatible programs to
> run pretty easily but cannot add this layer in the package)
>
>
>
> ulTRAX wrote:
> > One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's part
> > that there were going to be many problems with "older" software. To date I've
> > found it essentially worthless. As for Nero I've moved on to Nero 8.
> >
> >> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
> >> Its always a hit and miss, you can't alway have it all. By the way, the
> >> latest version of NERO 7 with all updates applied is suppose to be
> >> compatible with Windows Vista. As for other software, the only
> >> recommendation is to also check for patches and updates which is not a
> >> guarantee. Windows Vista includes a Upgrade Advisor which you could have
> >> used to determine if your apps were ready before deploying Vista.
> >
> >
>

 

[ulTRAX]

> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> No, what we expect is for adults to behave as adults and think before
> they act, and to accept responsibility for their own choices or lack of
> forethought .

I find your double standard hypocritical in the extreme. I don't see you
applying it to MS itself. You want Microsoft to have made the decisions NOT
to make software compatibility a priority... to release an OS before it was
ready... yet deserve immunity from all criticism when consumers are stuck
with hundreds of dollars of incompatible software DESIGNED TO RUN ON WINDOWS.

So Spanky, if that’s your position… why not post here DEMANDING Microsoft
NOT offer downgrade rights to consumers/businesses that find too many
compatibility problems with Vista. Tell MS to tell these ingrates who got
stuck with a goddamn beta version masquerading as a ready-for-market OS that
it’s THEIR fault for not researching how fatally flawed Vista was before they
bought it.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Not at all sure about the sanity

I happen to think you posted some valid and interesting comments that if
anyone should be interested in then Microsoft should be. I found it hard
to locate some info prior to installing Vista, despite being an MVP for
a while my work is not directly in the IT field any more and so I don't
pick up info in the course of my work, I get it in my own time the same
way most users do. When time is limited, as it has been for me, there is
enough confusing and contradictory info out there to waste many hours
discovering what works and what doesn't. For most ordinary users who
would spend far less time than I, it is only reasonable to assume that
they will make certain assumptions based on past behavior of suppliers.



ulTRAX wrote:
> Thanks Charlie.... you seem to be a voice of sanity here compared to all the
> Vista Jihadists.
>
> "Charlie Tame" wrote:
>
>> I think we agree that MS cannot be responsible for everything, but
>> considering that XP did so well with compatibility I think it is only
>> logical to assume that MANY people will expect that to continue, simple
>> because MS in the past have devoted so much effort in exactly that
>> direction.
>>
>> Many replies you got seem to be from people who are "Enthusiasts" and
>> they both follow and understand the progress of an OS... they are not
>> "Ordinary" users, so it is logical also that they adjust their
>> expectations to suit their ongoing experience. This will not usually
>> agree with that of someone like yourself who spends < 24/7 following
>> developments.
>>
>> Also, some have been in the Beta program and it is easy to forget that a
>> newcomer to an OS can get caught out by simple things that have simply
>> moved.
>>
>> There is no excuse for answering your comments with derision, and no
>> excuse for criticizing the fact that your expectations were that
>> Microsoft would have continued to pursue the same compatibility path
>> they had historically followed.
>>
>> I didn't see any major ad campaign that warned of such issues, I did see
>> one that emphasized "WOW".
>>
>> The compatibility tool proved about worthless here, Vista didn't work on
>> any of my personal machines without some hardware upgrades that (of
>> course) cost money. This was not a problem for me, I expected that, but
>> the fact remains that both machines I decided to upgrade passed the
>> assessment and didn't work. Again, I didn't particularly bother about
>> this because I expected that result, but I have testing options far
>> exceeding those of the ordinary user with just one machine and faced
>> with "Upgrade or not" as a pretty crucial decision.
>>
>> Have you tried the MS virtual machine so you can actually run XP inside
>> of a Vista host, maybe some of your stuff will work there but of course
>> you will have to install a copy of XP - which IMHO they should offer a
>> free license for just this purpose to anyone experiencing compatibility
>> issues.
>>
>> (How is it they can write a VM that allows XP and compatible programs to
>> run pretty easily but cannot add this layer in the package)
>>
>>
>>
>> ulTRAX wrote:
>>> One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's part
>>> that there were going to be many problems with "older" software. To date I've
>>> found it essentially worthless. As for Nero I've moved on to Nero 8.
>>>
>>>> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>>>> Its always a hit and miss, you can't alway have it all. By the way, the
>>>> latest version of NERO 7 with all updates applied is suppose to be
>>>> compatible with Windows Vista. As for other software, the only
>>>> recommendation is to also check for patches and updates which is not a
>>>> guarantee. Windows Vista includes a Upgrade Advisor which you could have
>>>> used to determine if your apps were ready before deploying Vista.
>>>