Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verte
It would be naive specifically because, these products worked on the previous version of Windows, which Microsoft have access to the source and manuals of. In other words, it's something that THEY broke, and have the ability to fix.

---

I might be wrong but I was always of the view that the OS is made by a certain someone. You make your apps/hardware (with drivers) for that OS and in doing so, need to make sure that your app/hardware works fine. If your app/driver works fine with the OS one day and the next day it breaks due to a patch on the OS, sure, go ahead and bitch about it to the OS creators.
But if its a new OS all together, like vista is here, you are the one who is responsible for making your app work on their OS since its not the OS that is running on your app, its your app running on the OS

Conversely, if you are the one making a processor/motherboard, the people who make the OS will make sure that they support your architecture..

As I said, I might be wrong with this whole thing of course

---

There hasn't been any major restructuring in the kernel. A few things have been changed and are a lot nicer, but it's still essentially the same. Which has to make you wonder why functionality from userland would be bad enough to break many programs and drivers. This suggests that not only have new system calls been added, but also older ones have been fundamentally changed. It'd make sense to provide functionality to allow programs to use the older calls as standard.

I guess it's more convoluted for drivers, particularly kernel resident drivers, and this is a problem for monolithic kernels in general [revisions of code that should be internal break real drivers in practice]. Maybe- I mean, I don't know exactly where the original driver and the new API clash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phillip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verte
It would be naive specifically because, these products worked on the previous version of Windows, which Microsoft have access to the source and manuals of. In other words, it's something that THEY broke, and have the ability to fix.

---

Your joking right..? Are you saying Microsoft should make sure all programs work fine on their OS..?

---

I'm saying that they should provide an API which behaves the same as the previous one, and that it isn't particularly difficult to do [gcc + glibc is my favourite example, supporting all sorts of standards from win32 to SYSV, through the *BSDs, XOpens, POSIXen, GNU, for many different standards of languages, ad nauseum].

I'm just thinking, if there is a chance applications will rely on outdated syscalls, they should be depreciated; but still available. Even if it's through some wrapper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phillip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verte
I'm not saying that things won't get fixed, but I've got to wonder why you'd be paying money for something with the promise it will work Real Soon Now. Why not stick with something that works for the moment, and then when you know you will get more positive than negative out of the move, make the switch.

---

I have not had one single problem with Vista. Programs run just as fast as XP and even my games have more FPS than XP.

Basically if you know what your doing, download a copy and try it out for the 30 days. Judge it for yourself.

---

Yeah, of course, it's most likely to work fine. That probability increases all the time. But if you're worried about it, there's no harm in waiting.

All I'm saying is, you've got to weigh up the potential downsides if some application you use isn't supported, and the fact that you will be paying $$$ to get it, with the upsides. What that means to you will be different to what it means to the next person. If I need application X for work and it just doesn't work on Vista, I'm less likely to make the move. If features A, B and C are worth $$$ to me, I'll really consider it.