So what software does require Vista?

Microsoft keeps saying that companies will find themselves in a compatibility pickle with their developers not supporting XP anymore, but has this even started to happen? I haven't seen or read about any software that actually requires Vista, except for Vista tweaking tools. Certainly there will be some eventually, but will it be soon? With only 10% of enterprises using Vista, is there really any potency at all to Microsoft's argument that switching to Vista before Windows 7 is released will be useful?

I can't see the large-scale commercial developers abandoning XP at all before Windows 7 is out, and if a company is hiring someone to develop proprietary software for their company only, there won't be any trouble finding XP programmers - if their previous company insists on making Vista-exclusive programs, they can hire someone else. I suppose there could be a few enterprises out there that have switched to Vista and have made a few Vista-only programs, but I can't see a company not being able to get its programs for XP if it wanted them for XP.

So what is out there that actually requires Vista? Any commercial software at all, other than Vista tweaking programs? And does anyone actually think companies will find themselves in a compatibility pickle because of skipping Vista?

Poll inspired by the recent comments by Microsoft's Gavriella Schuster that companies could find themselves in just such a predicament.

 

MS will probably leap frog their thumbscrews onto Win 7, despite still being in public denial that Vista was a flop. If I were them, I would probably push hard to get some major titles on 7 only, to avoid the 'why bother' arguments that crippled Vista penetration.

Ah, if only some brave devs would start writing games for non-MS OS's...

 

if you are not developing for vista,
you are not developing for win7.

and XP is going down pretty soon.

if you are developing a software now, focus more on Vista than XP.
if you are at the last stages, then it's a different issue.

 

I'm thinking...

I do think some software packages wont list XP any more - however they may still run under XP.

I could be wrong though.

 

the trick is, software written for vista is software written for xp, the way it should always have bin. that's because of the enforced user restrictions in vista.

the only problems that may occur on xp are apps that use vista features: dx10, .net 3.0, aero, etc.. some of those can get after-installed on xp, some can't. but on vista, you have a much bigger baseline on what works on every machine in terms of software development libraries.

but there's a big chance that software vendors won't care about you as much if you report problems with xp. they'll reply: we develop for vista, no support on ancient systems.

 

I think the question you are asking is, "Why switch to Vista?"

Your question, "So what software does require Vista?" unrealistically models the current industry and its trends. One, few software companies will release software that isn't compatible with the majority of PCs out there, which run XP.

Two, the jump from XP to Vista isn't a very large jump at all. Outside of device drivers, there is very very little change in the development of XP compatible software to XP and Vista compatible software.

Three, consider Microsoft's thoughts on backwards compatibility. They make backwards compatibility a high priority in every release. Just look at the Windows 98 to XP jump. That was a HUGE jump, more so than XP to Vista, or even XP to Win 7.

I think the real question on everyone's mind is, "Why bother with Vista when you can buy Win 7"

 

which should be the question the other way around.. but yes, developing for vista is no big thing, except if you code something really wierd. and even then, you'll be able to run it, and then write some bugfixes to get it working good. (bugfixes _before_ the release.. ).

i've seen a lot of stranger apps working out of the box on vista, but now work much much better (ableton live comes to mind).

so, the real question for the ones not following sheep news: "Why bother with Win7 when you can get Vista right now?"

 

More relevantly, the converse is true. Any software that runs on Vista should run on W7.

So to answer the original question: no, skipping Vista and upgrading straight to W7 will not result in any incompatibilities that wouldn't have occurred with Vista anyway. There is, however, a different downside to skipping Vista: you cannot perform an upgrade from XP to W7 (you must do a clean install). (Not that anyone would buy Vista for the sole purpose of upgrading from it to W7. )

 

Software that requires Vista? Halo 2

 

I believe that companies should be developing for Vista platforms already, otherwise when Windows 7 does hit they'll find themselves greatly behind. Windows 7 does share a large (if not 100%) of Vista's kernel, and by delaying development until Windows 7 hits will bite them badly.

I kind of wish that my company performs upgrades for all of our machines to Vista now, as at home Vista SP1 works solidly on my MBP and desktop. I bet Vista SP2 will improve upon that even.

 

My 2009 Toyota Corolla works solidly. But I still drive everywhere in my 2002 BMW M3. I hope they don't build any roads that only Corollas can go on...

Seriously, the day my company forces me to use Vista, I quit.

 

That's pretty sad.

 

Microsoft is very worried about a Vista revenue falloff in business sectors. Hence, they are saything anything to make people feel it's imperative to upgrade to Vista now, because they don't want to lose that incremental upgrade revenue between XP and Windows 7. Unfortunately, many companies aren't biting. Therefore, business software will without a doubt remain XP-compatible.

In the consumer market, Vista-minimum software is more plausible, but what APIs does Vista introduce that realistic make it worth giving up all the that revenue from XP users? (Of which there are so many...) What does Vista introduce beside DirectX10?

 

So the whole backwards compatible thing is coming back to bite them in the right about now? Yeah...

 

Exactly. Microsoft themselves cannot write a Vista-only title because they'll be in many ways undermining the philosophy of backward and forward compatibility that has kept Windows going all these years. They also are well aware that the only growing segment in this recession/depression economy (netbooks) run XP and writing Vista-centric software will push that market to Linux.

And if Microsoft itself doesn't want to write Vista-only software, then why should anyone else?

 

Uh, nice, so can I get your job, then? I'd be more than happy to leave xp behind finally here.

 

If my strat games come out natively for Linux, I'm a gone johnson I'm anxiously awaiting Windows 7...Vista was never stable enough for me.

 

I would say it's more the one-sided media coverage coming back to bite them.

Vista isn't bad, even in a business environment, it's just that everyone got it in their mind early on that Vista was crap and had "problems." Of course you didn't hear the media saying that SP1 fixed many of Vista's problems.

 

I haven't seen anything, but a few games require vista.

 

the games that DO require Vista are games that take advantage of DirectX 10. Like Halo 2. there are plenty of games that take advantage of DirectX 10 if it is available, like CoH.