How good are Microsoft software engineers?

I had windows advisor to recommend me an upgrade, and the result was vista ultimate, but I have one issue to solve before to buy it, I have to solve one of their own problems first, how intelligent is that? :laugh: :laugh: :tongue: :tongue: :twitcy: :twitcy:

 

why not just go vista business 64 bit?

 

This is a low level protocol for allowing remote access to the graphics drawing subsystem commands. It's not exactly suprising that it would have conflicts with an OS with an entirely new graphics subsystem.

 

Because there is not upgrade, I would have to buy the full business 64 OS.

 

If you upgrade to Vista Business, you can use your license with a Vista Business 64bit installation. You just have to get the DVD, which you can order from Microsoft for free+shipping.

 

Is not like passing from premium 64 to business 64, an upgrade.

In my case I have to buy a new brand 64 OS.

 

what kind disk do you have? is it oem version? if so, then yes you have to buy another one. why do you want ultimate? do you really need it? if so, you could buy oem version of ultimate. i think it's ~180 bucks. some places sell it for more, but it's better than ~400 bucks. there's a store near me that sells it for 179.99. sometimes you get "hardware" with it. my home premium 64 was 100 bucks and i got a free thermal take atx tower including two fans.

 

I'm not really looking presicelly for ultimate, I guess business 64 woul do. I do have the original CD form microsoft, and i don't have any problem with buying an OEM, especially if it is cheap.

But my frustration is how microsoft can launch products that are not 100% back compatible? I call that BAD engineering and Marketing.

 

if you have a retail version of business, you should be able to download it for free or get one shipped for less than 20 bucks. oem will run about $150 and you will only legally be allowed to use it on that computer

 

Do you know that version 10 of the web client is Vista compatible? Why don't you upgrade your web client software, instead of complaining about Microsoft not making a new operating system work with every single piece of software ever created? I've got some Windows 98 software that doesn't work on Vista, but I certainly don't blame Microsoft for it.

 

Exactly....

Glad I did not have to check the version.... thanks for saving me that look.

 

The only the stay 100% backward compatible is using the same kernel, and that wouldn't be a a real new OS. Neither Sony or Microsoft Xbox division are able to fully emulate the games from their previous consoles too. The PS2 had no problem with PS1 games because it had a PS1 chip in it. The 20/60GB PS3 have a PS1 & PS2 chip in them so no problems there. The X360 & 80GB PS3 have backward problems. The Wii is an OCed gamecube (nintendo denies it but ATI & IBM confirm it) so still no problem with gamecube games there.

How can you say bad engineering if you are not a comp/software engineer yourself anyway?

Don't try to include Linux in that. Ubuntu 8.04 is compatible with Ubuntu 7.xx softwares. Guess what? Same Linux kernel. They added some stuff, fixed some bugs, changed the visual a bit and there! a new version.

 

Hey quebecois, who said that I'm not a comp/soft engineer?

 

I think this is an unfair expectation for the software engineers to support all versions new and old. People want backward compatibility then they complain that the OS is too bloated. Microsoft updated it OS and then Citrix updated their software to work with the new OS. If people are stuck with an old version then they shouldn't upgrade their OS if it isn't going to work.

 

Let' see if I can be more clear. Microsoft has products fo the different markets, and to make more money, they also have an "upgrade" strategy. Now, to make it easy for us to buy, they suggest we use their upgrade advisor, which I did, then I came back recommending Ultimate, which is great, but they also said that I had to solve a minor issue before to get Ultimate, what was it? One of their own applications.

What kind of strategy is this if the previous version has problems with the upgrade?

With regards the kernel, is vista a brand new kernel really?

 

Maybe I don't really understand your problem, but there is a Vista compatible solution, so what's the problem? You are just expecting an old version to work on a new OS, which is an unreasonable expectation.

 

Vista Business is an old OS for you???????? Please wake up!

 

You never originally said which OS you were upgrading from. So sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!! (enough !'s for you?)

 

Old version = your web client, not the operating system. As I told you, version 10 is Vista compatible, which you should've figured out, since all it took was a visit to the company's website. Upgrade to 10, or stick with version 9 and use XP.

 

MetaFrame Presentation Server Web Client is not a Microsoft product. As others have said, the newer version is Vista-ready, so there should be no problem. Just upgrade your client, and you can stay at the current version of Vista...or upgrade if you wish.

 

Besides, it sounds like if you don't use remote desktop type apps (like tha majority of users), it doesn't matter if you even have this app working or not.

 

Well, at least we got one good bit of advice out of this one; stick with XP and version 9. Since it's going to cost full freight to go with the business version of _Vista, if you instead go with the upgrade version to _Vista ultimate, you're going to lose security support from MS in April of 2012 (unless you're a betting man and want to wager that MS will dispense another favor by extending security support on _Vista like it was forced to do with XP Home); however, if you stay with XP - Home or Pro - you'll continue to get security support through April 2014 - two more years past the point at which _Vista ultimate becomes worm-food. The only better alternative (other than linux, of course) is the business version of _Vista, for which security support will continue until 2017.

 

I'm not sure when MS 'officially' stopped offering security support for Windows 2000, but yesterday I fired up my Windows 2000 virtual machine and I had new security updates. If one can get security updates for an os released nine years ago, and one that I'm not sure many people would even want to run anymore, I think Vista in any flavor will be covered for a while, at least long enough that when they do stop offering security updates for it people will wonder why they bothered updating that 'legacy' OS for so long. Besides, you make 2012 sound like it's tomorrow or something.

 

Windows 2000 will continue to receive monthly security updates until July 13, 2010. Microsoft hasn't released an extended support date for Vista, so Shyster's statement about XP going two years past Vista is not correct. Based on past operating system extended dates, I would guess Vista will get security updates until 2017 (the average extended date is five years past the mainstream support date).