M$ do it again...

[Gatt]

Sounds familiar to when XP's SP2 came out..

Microsoft warns on Vista update

Vista was released to consumers on 30 January, 2007
Microsoft is warning Windows Vista users that a forthcoming service pack for the operating system may stop some third-party programs working.
The software giant has released a list of programs that may be broken by the SP1 update for Vista.

Most of the software hit by the upgrade are security programs that prevent Windows users falling prey to viruses, trojans and booby-trapped webpages.

....

Full Story

[kmount]

Couple of widely used applications listed in there ... Oh dear indeed

I hope they've had the foresight to ensure both 'casual' users, and also the known developers are aware of this issue otherwise I'm not looking forward to the fall out!

[JamesC]

You'd have thought that they would have given the companies affected a heads up so that they could release updates for their own products.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Nothing I use on the list, but still, GJ Microsoft!

[cookie_monster]

It fits with the don't buy untill SP1 rule of thumb ;-)

[srochford]

You'd have thought that they would have given the companies affected a heads up so that they could release updates for their own products.

Vista SP1 has been in beta for months and its existence was hardly a secret. Any software vendor could have joined the beta program to make sure that their software would work with the new SP.

It's easy to criticise Microsoft (I often do!) but in areas like this I think they're taking the right approach. An OS vendor should be able to set the rules about how user software interacts with the OS (look at what Apple does, for example!) - if the software vendor doesn't get sorted then it's their fault.

[JamesC]

Vista SP1 has been in beta for months and its existence was hardly a secret. Any software vendor could have joined the beta program to make sure that their software would work with the new SP.

It's easy to criticise Microsoft (I often do!) but in areas like this I think they're taking the right approach. An OS vendor should be able to set the rules about how user software interacts with the OS (look at what Apple does, for example!) - if the software vendor doesn't get sorted then it's their fault.

I actually agree with you there srochford. The way I interpreted the post though was that maybe something had changed since the RTM (not sure whether this is likely or not as once it has gone RTM id have thought that it was pretty much concrete) causing a problem which affected the selected products. Like you say it has been around as a beta for quite a while so if nothing has changed then more fool the vendors for not jumping on the bandwagon and testing or making their product SP1 compliant.

[Ryan]

Same as drivers really. A lot of complaints are aimed in Microsoft's direction, but 3rd party companies should really know what they're doing as they have the specs for a long time prior to launch, so the lack of driver support from Vista is both annoying, and little to do with MS. They're to blame for much more though

[localzuk]

So 3rd party developers should be at the mercy of Microsoft and the way they can change API's with any release? The problem with developing from beta's etc... is that it is not a finished product, and is subject to change. Why should a company invest time in fixing a problem only to have another problem ruin their investment because Microsoft change their mind?

It is Microsoft's fault with this issue - they are the dominant leader of the OS market and as such they have some responsibilities to those companies that develop for their OS.

[torledo]

It fits with the don't buy untill SP1 rule of thumb ;-)

the rule is actually don't buy until well after SP1.

[srochford]

So 3rd party developers should be at the mercy of Microsoft and the way they can change API's with any release?

So would you prefer that MS never fix faults? Never develop their software?

I don't know the exact details here but in general no software company can be expected to freeze what they develop in case it breaks someone else's software. When SP2 was released for XP, MS went to great lengths to try and let people know the changes that were coming but still some companies were not ready. I suspect that something similar is happening here.

[contink]

I had a quick peek at the list of software packages affected and as I suspected they're all security based products, which when you consider the push MS have made re: security is hardly surprising.

On one hand you can't expect MS to take responsibility for and work towards fixing security faults without closing potential hooks and/or loopholes that security products use to work. There are plenty of other packages out there that aren't on the list and that are working so it's obviously possible to work-around... So, did MS drop the ball or the 3rd party vendors, I suspect it's the latter.

Without being a major coder I couldn't even begin to understand the choices facing MS in this regard so all we're left with are some folks claiming it's security through obscurity while others b*tch about how their product base isn't being supported (and they have an agenda too let's be honest - their income!) while others see it as a positive move until the next exploit is found.

Personally, I hold a completely different view which is much simpler.. ie: Vista is a bloated resource hogging beast that is best left alone, so I could care less at this juncture and hopefully this new WinME#2 will be surpassed with something that's learned from the mistakes of this one.

[torledo]

I had a quick peek at the list of software packages affected and as I suspected they're all security based products, which when you consider the push MS have made re: security is hardly surprising.

On one hand you can't expect MS to take responsibility for and work towards fixing security faults without closing potential hooks and/or loopholes that security products use to work. There are plenty of other packages out there that aren't on the list and that are working so it's obviously possible to work-around... So, did MS drop the ball or the 3rd party vendors, I suspect it's the latter.

Without being a major coder I couldn't even begin to understand the choices facing MS in this regard so all we're left with are some folks claiming it's security through obscurity while others b*tch about how their product base isn't being supported (and they have an agenda too let's be honest - their income!) while others see it as a positive move until the next exploit is found.

Personally, I hold a completely different view which is much simpler.. ie: Vista is a bloated resource hogging beast that is best left alone, so I could care less at this juncture and hopefully this new WinME#2 will be surpassed with something that's learned from the mistakes of this one.

that list isn't comprehensive, no doubt more will be added as more testing is done...

none of the products chosen from the 12 you're likely to find on PC's and servers in the 'enterprise', except maybe the novell agent.

It's interesting you mention WinME, and while it's tempting to think of it as such, it's a far more significant product to the windows roadmap than WinME was ever designed to be. Microsoft have got quite a long period, minimum of 2.5 years, between the EoL of XP for the enterprise and the stage at which they'll have a a successor to Vista ready for release. Between that time, they absolutely have to be selling something to business, and Vista SP1 is all they'll have and i'd imagine they'd ramp up the push quite considerably.

As ME was a home product it was easy to look beyond it to correct it's shortcomings...

Not so with vista, you're stuck with it if you absolutely need to upgrade this decade . Absolutely no point in waiting and hoping for the successor to Vista to be ready for business deployment for a number of years, or for it to be any good. Stick with XP SP3 or Upgrade post Vista SP1. If you don't like vista i'm comfortable in predicting you'll despise windows 201x...