# Vista backwards compatible with XP apps? I hope not!



## Thank The Cheese (Dec 28, 2005)

I've read that Microsoft says "Vista is fully compatible with the vast majority of existing Windows applications" (Wired, 2005). 

Perhaps I'm the odd one out, but personally, I think that is a bad move. 

Seems to me a lot of the problems with XP come from the fact that is has tried to remain compatible with Windows 95/98 apps. I think Apple had it right when they decided to build Mac OS X from scratch and not worry about backwards compatibility. This gave them huge amounts of freedom to create an OS that was modern, and catered for today's tech needs. 

The article referenced is pretty outdated (form August), so does anyone know if this is still the case? As much as I love seeing MS fail, I'd still like them to make a decent OS for once. 

They've stolen everything else from OS X, they may as well add a "Classic"-style WinXP emulator in Vista as well!


----------



## kainjow (Dec 28, 2005)

Not sure if it's true, but I would bet that it is. If Vista wasn't compatible, then that would be a major blow to Windows users. M$ can't afford to not have backwards compatibility anymore with such a huge user base.

I predict Vista is going to be similar to Mac OS 10.0. It's basically a complete new rewrite of the OS. I've heard it's slow though, so they're basically not going for speed optimizations now, but that will come later. I'm looking forward to trying Vista out and seeing how it compares.

Hopefully my university will give me a free version like they did with WinXP Pro


----------



## powermac (Dec 28, 2005)

My friend is a PC guy. He has had the varies versions of Vista for Developers. He has admitted that M$ has stole from Apple big time on Vista. As hard as it was for him to admit, he feels Vista is not a big improvement over XP.


----------



## symphonix (Dec 28, 2005)

Yes, Vista will in fact be a full 64-bit operating system running a 32-bit environment to handle many older programs, as well as a 16-bit environment to handle even older programs still, and a DOS environment for all the 8-bit fun. There'll be 4 bits of the OS that actually work reliably, because its made by a two-bit company without the one bit of commonsense it takes to realise that the only way to make an OS more stable is to throw away the old, unstable sections and start again.


----------



## fryke (Dec 28, 2005)

However, the original _plan_ was to throw out the old. Vista's not finished, so I wouldn't say too much about it just yet.

Btw.: Even if they'd make it so that none of the older apps would run out of the box, chances would be that most developers would make new versions. If you're a developer with a large investment in the Windows-world, you won't just close shop if Microsoft actually makes a daring *good* move to a new foundation. You also wouldn't bet on enough old-version users. And you wouldn't jump ship and switch to linux or Mac either, because it'd still be less hassle to develop for Vista (for you as a Windows developer, that is...). So from a Windows-hater's perspective, it is to hope that they'll make Vista compatible with older stuff in a way that hampers Vista. Just like they did with Win 95/98/etc. and XP.


----------



## Mikuro (Dec 28, 2005)

If I used Windows, and Vista came out without any backwards compatibility, then there's no way in hell I'd upgrade. Just that simple. I'm sure there's a very large percentage of PC users who would feel the same way, and I'm sure Microsoft knows this.

Even with Apple's transitions, which have all been fairly smooth, I held off for at least a year. And I intend to do the same with x86 Macs, even though they will be backwards-compatible, because the backwards compatibity will not be perfect.

The whole "applications will be updated!" argument never fails to bug me. As if older unsupported apps are no longer useful; as if small developers' products are not important; as if it's fine and dandy to have to start a software collection virtually from scratch (most commercial developers charge &#8212; and way too much, I might add &#8212; for these updates).

It's a tradeoff. And that's okay....but it is certainly a HUGE disadvantage for users in the short-to-medium term.

And don't get me started on games, which are obviously more important to the Windows crowd.

Even as a potential new Windows user (ha!), I wouldn't use Vista. The only reason to use Windows is to have access to its vast library of third-party software. Take that away, and it's nothing more than a crappier version of OS X. I think Microsoft knows that, too.


----------

