Discussions

XP needed

+
0 Votes
Locked

XP needed

Kiltie
This is more of a rant that anything else, however I would like your opinions.

Far too often, I get seemingly good software to try out, only to find out during install that it needs Windows XP.

Why?

I have 98, 2k, XP, Linux, so why this restriction? I don't always want it on my XP.

It seems absurd to me.

The only reason I can see so far is M$ trying to squeeze more money out of the consumer, or is it lazy programming?

Now that Vista looms, will a similar requirement be stated?

This program needs at least Vista V 1.x.x.x. to install

my first knee jerk reaction, GTH M$, I can manage on my own thank you, but how many will this technique con into spending major bux?
  • +
    0 Votes
    mjd420nova

    Yes, M$ is rearing its head when they make new OS's that are not compatible with earlier versions of OS. Software companies are picking up on this out of neccesity, who wants to write programs for for obsolete platforms. I don't move up to any new OS until it has been on the market for at least a year, that way the bugs are taken care of and the software people have written enough programs to allow me to build a new machine to support the new OS.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    MS is losing millions in revenue because corporations have had it with their practices.

    ****, I've worked with old Win9x boxes because the programs wouldn't work on anything else. Compatability mode is a joke and the whole idea that App X will ONLY work on WinXP SP2 is moronic.

    The tides are changing and MS isn't. Seems a lot like where IBM was in the mid 80's.

    +
    0 Votes
    TechExec2

    Certainly, most application software can be written in such a way that it runs on all versions of Windows. Mozilla Firefox is an excellent example of this (Windows 9X, NT, 2000, XP, Mac OS, Linux, Unix). In order to achieve this, Mozilla developed the Mozilla Application Framework. But...

    - Microsoft calls it "the Win32 API" and "the .NET Application Framework", but there are MANY versions of these and many incompatibilities.

    - There are numerous programming (API) differences between Windows 9X and NT4/2000/XP/Vista. So, many developers/vendors completely write off Windows 9X because of that. The theory is that anybody still running Windows 9X is not buying new software. This is largely correct.

    - There are some programming differences between Windows 2000 and XP. Since, Windows 2000 is "ancient" in computer terms and no longer even supported by Microsoft, many developers/vendors write it off. (Windows 2000 was/is a perfectly fine system as far as I am concerned and I upgraded to XP reluctantly years ago).

    - You're absolutely correct about Microsoft's applications. Once the new operating system is out, all new MS applications only run on the new OS. On the other hand, the new MS applications often take advantage of new features in the new operating system. As you know, Microsoft's revenue model depends on upgrades to new versions, not maintenance of old versions.

    - Vista will be no different in this regard. However, previously Microsoft said there would be a significant Windows XP Service Pack that enables new Vista applications using "Avalon" (presentation) and "Indigo" (communication) APIs to run on Windows XP. But, it appears this (SP3) has been delayed until the first half of 2008! (1)

    - This is just one reason why I avoid MS software development tools. The entire MS "machine" is oriented around forcing everyone to upgrade to the newest releases on Microsoft's terms.

    So, you're absolutely right! GTH MS!! X-(

    On the other hand, upgrade to the latest OS or quickly fall behind. :-(


    (1) Windows Service Pack Road Map
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

    +
    0 Votes
    Kiltie

    So am I right in thinking that developers are shooting themselves in the foot by restricting themselves to a particular OS?

    I am not talking .NET stuff here, I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole.

    Good software needs to be multiple platforms, imho, it reaches a greater user base.

    +
    0 Votes
    TechExec2

    No, I don't think developers are necessarily shooting themselves in the foot by limiting themselves to the current release of Windows to the exclusion of old versions of Windows. It's generally true that the group of users who are still running Windows 98 (only) are NOT active software buyers. The additional effort required to make many applications run on Windows 98 is generally not commercially justified.

    It's a little less clear about Windows XP vs. Windows 2000. To answer THAT, you would have to study the specific group of customers you are targeting. I don't think there is one general answer that applies to everyone and every application. Remember that even Microsoft has deserted Windows 2000.

    Regardless, if you develop a significantly successful commercial application for Windows, you're going to have trouble when Microsoft moves in on your market with their leverage. And, if your app is not significantly successful, the issue is moot anyway.

    I generally think it is a bad idea to follow Microsoft's lead closely. You need to exploit the pervasiveness of the Windows platform while resisting making yourself vulnerable to Microsoft's treachery. Clearly, if you develop an application that ONLY runs on the latest version of Windows, that is EXACTLY the market that Microsoft will target if they choose to develop a competing application. I consider a decision like that absolutely stupid. You need to think harder than that.

    On the other hand, if you're developing a non-commercial application and your goal is to achieve the maximum number of users possible, it would likely be better to do something like Mozilla did with Firefox.

    +
    0 Votes
    p.j.hutchison

    Linux has been updated much more often than windows does.
    Microsoft updates and develops windows as requested by its customers i.e. us!
    To get new features needs new code, sometimes it may need a complete overhaul, hence a new version of windows.
    And since most people these days get Windows XP on new machines, most developers will write companies for newer versions of Windows. There hasn't been a new version of Windows for 6 years. Since you haven't upgraded for 7 years its not exactly a con unlike Apple who have released a new version of MacOS every 1 or 2 yrs(that does hurt!)

  • +
    0 Votes
    mjd420nova

    Yes, M$ is rearing its head when they make new OS's that are not compatible with earlier versions of OS. Software companies are picking up on this out of neccesity, who wants to write programs for for obsolete platforms. I don't move up to any new OS until it has been on the market for at least a year, that way the bugs are taken care of and the software people have written enough programs to allow me to build a new machine to support the new OS.

    +
    0 Votes
    jmgarvin

    MS is losing millions in revenue because corporations have had it with their practices.

    ****, I've worked with old Win9x boxes because the programs wouldn't work on anything else. Compatability mode is a joke and the whole idea that App X will ONLY work on WinXP SP2 is moronic.

    The tides are changing and MS isn't. Seems a lot like where IBM was in the mid 80's.

    +
    0 Votes
    TechExec2

    Certainly, most application software can be written in such a way that it runs on all versions of Windows. Mozilla Firefox is an excellent example of this (Windows 9X, NT, 2000, XP, Mac OS, Linux, Unix). In order to achieve this, Mozilla developed the Mozilla Application Framework. But...

    - Microsoft calls it "the Win32 API" and "the .NET Application Framework", but there are MANY versions of these and many incompatibilities.

    - There are numerous programming (API) differences between Windows 9X and NT4/2000/XP/Vista. So, many developers/vendors completely write off Windows 9X because of that. The theory is that anybody still running Windows 9X is not buying new software. This is largely correct.

    - There are some programming differences between Windows 2000 and XP. Since, Windows 2000 is "ancient" in computer terms and no longer even supported by Microsoft, many developers/vendors write it off. (Windows 2000 was/is a perfectly fine system as far as I am concerned and I upgraded to XP reluctantly years ago).

    - You're absolutely correct about Microsoft's applications. Once the new operating system is out, all new MS applications only run on the new OS. On the other hand, the new MS applications often take advantage of new features in the new operating system. As you know, Microsoft's revenue model depends on upgrades to new versions, not maintenance of old versions.

    - Vista will be no different in this regard. However, previously Microsoft said there would be a significant Windows XP Service Pack that enables new Vista applications using "Avalon" (presentation) and "Indigo" (communication) APIs to run on Windows XP. But, it appears this (SP3) has been delayed until the first half of 2008! (1)

    - This is just one reason why I avoid MS software development tools. The entire MS "machine" is oriented around forcing everyone to upgrade to the newest releases on Microsoft's terms.

    So, you're absolutely right! GTH MS!! X-(

    On the other hand, upgrade to the latest OS or quickly fall behind. :-(


    (1) Windows Service Pack Road Map
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/servicepacks.mspx

    +
    0 Votes
    Kiltie

    So am I right in thinking that developers are shooting themselves in the foot by restricting themselves to a particular OS?

    I am not talking .NET stuff here, I wouldn't touch that with a barge pole.

    Good software needs to be multiple platforms, imho, it reaches a greater user base.

    +
    0 Votes
    TechExec2

    No, I don't think developers are necessarily shooting themselves in the foot by limiting themselves to the current release of Windows to the exclusion of old versions of Windows. It's generally true that the group of users who are still running Windows 98 (only) are NOT active software buyers. The additional effort required to make many applications run on Windows 98 is generally not commercially justified.

    It's a little less clear about Windows XP vs. Windows 2000. To answer THAT, you would have to study the specific group of customers you are targeting. I don't think there is one general answer that applies to everyone and every application. Remember that even Microsoft has deserted Windows 2000.

    Regardless, if you develop a significantly successful commercial application for Windows, you're going to have trouble when Microsoft moves in on your market with their leverage. And, if your app is not significantly successful, the issue is moot anyway.

    I generally think it is a bad idea to follow Microsoft's lead closely. You need to exploit the pervasiveness of the Windows platform while resisting making yourself vulnerable to Microsoft's treachery. Clearly, if you develop an application that ONLY runs on the latest version of Windows, that is EXACTLY the market that Microsoft will target if they choose to develop a competing application. I consider a decision like that absolutely stupid. You need to think harder than that.

    On the other hand, if you're developing a non-commercial application and your goal is to achieve the maximum number of users possible, it would likely be better to do something like Mozilla did with Firefox.

    +
    0 Votes
    p.j.hutchison

    Linux has been updated much more often than windows does.
    Microsoft updates and develops windows as requested by its customers i.e. us!
    To get new features needs new code, sometimes it may need a complete overhaul, hence a new version of windows.
    And since most people these days get Windows XP on new machines, most developers will write companies for newer versions of Windows. There hasn't been a new version of Windows for 6 years. Since you haven't upgraded for 7 years its not exactly a con unlike Apple who have released a new version of MacOS every 1 or 2 yrs(that does hurt!)