Vista Is Still Plagued by Incompatibilities

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693

its crap what did you expect???

teyebeareeus wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>
> its crap what did you expect???

Well, no. The author is talking about the software people try to use with
Vista. For example:

"Intuit does not supply a compatibility patch [for prior versions of
QuickBooks] or upgrade for QuickBooks Premier--though for a limited time,
when the OS first launched, the company offered special discounts for
Vista-compatible versions of its software."

This is because, for SEVEN years, Microsoft has been telling developers that
storing application stuff in the registry (i.e., next check number) is a
no-no. Intuit, in EVERY prior version of QuickBooks has stashed all manner
of execution parameters in the registry.

Now along comes Vista, enforcing the requirement that registry is off-limits
to ordinary applications. QuickBooks 2006, 2005, 2004, on back to the time
of Noah now cannot run. Putzing with the registry by an application program
is a known hazard; Intuit should not have done such in the first place.

I don't know the problems with the other software mentioned in this article,
but it's possible the other "incompatible" software are hitting similar
walls.

HeyBub wrote:
> teyebeareeus wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>>
>> its crap what did you expect???
>
> Well, no. The author is talking about the software people try to use with
> Vista. For example:
>
> "Intuit does not supply a compatibility patch [for prior versions of
> QuickBooks] or upgrade for QuickBooks Premier--though for a limited time,
> when the OS first launched, the company offered special discounts for
> Vista-compatible versions of its software."
>
> This is because, for SEVEN years, Microsoft has been telling developers that
> storing application stuff in the registry (i.e., next check number) is a
> no-no.
And who is/has been driving the boat? MS or the developers? Would this
likely be knowledge that ms had during the development of xp? If known,
why did they not fix the issue with xp, way back when?

> Intuit, in EVERY prior version of QuickBooks has stashed all manner
> of execution parameters in the registry.
>
> Now along comes Vista, enforcing the requirement that registry is off-limits
> to ordinary applications. QuickBooks 2006, 2005, 2004, on back to the time
> of Noah now cannot run. Putzing with the registry by an application program
> is a known hazard; Intuit should not have done such in the first place.
By the same reasoning, ms should not have allowed it in the first place,
if it was a requirement that needed enforcement. Of course, all this is
water under the dam. But, just possibly, there is/should be some shared
culpability on this issue?
>
> I don't know the problems with the other software mentioned in this article,
> but it's possible the other "incompatible" software are hitting similar
> walls.
>
>


--
norm

teyebeareeus wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>
> its crap what did you expect???
>
>
Well for one thing, for an idiot like you to actually read some of the
drivel and articles you post. That would be a start. Then you need to
get a real life. By that I mean get out of your mom's basement and give
up trying to make that cardboard space ship fly. It won't and nor will you.
BTW, we've all gotten your message of Vista hatred and your 15 mins of
fame and attention are now up.
Move on pal!
Frank

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:04:40 -0800, Frank <> wrote:

>teyebeareeus wrote:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>>
>> its crap what did you expect???
>>
>>
>Well for one thing, for an idiot like you to actually read some of the
>drivel and articles you post.


That's funny, when you don't even know when to use Veteran and
Veteran's. That's ok, we're know you're just a buffoon.

***INTUIT WAS WRONG*** Microsoft is not culpable for Intuit storing
customer *data* parameters in the registry.

Intuit is one of a handful of companies to get nailed. The vast majority of
programs follow good programming principals.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"norm" <> wrote in message
news:...
> HeyBub wrote:
>> teyebeareeus wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>>>
>>> its crap what did you expect???
>>
>> Well, no. The author is talking about the software people try to use with
>> Vista. For example:
>>
>> "Intuit does not supply a compatibility patch [for prior versions of
>> QuickBooks] or upgrade for QuickBooks Premier--though for a limited time,
>> when the OS first launched, the company offered special discounts for
>> Vista-compatible versions of its software."
>>
>> This is because, for SEVEN years, Microsoft has been telling developers
>> that storing application stuff in the registry (i.e., next check number)
>> is a no-no.
> And who is/has been driving the boat? MS or the developers? Would this
> likely be knowledge that ms had during the development of xp? If known,
> why did they not fix the issue with xp, way back when?
>
>> Intuit, in EVERY prior version of QuickBooks has stashed all manner of
>> execution parameters in the registry.
>>
>> Now along comes Vista, enforcing the requirement that registry is
>> off-limits to ordinary applications. QuickBooks 2006, 2005, 2004, on back
>> to the time of Noah now cannot run. Putzing with the registry by an
>> application program is a known hazard; Intuit should not have done such
>> in the first place.
> By the same reasoning, ms should not have allowed it in the first place,
> if it was a requirement that needed enforcement. Of course, all this is
> water under the dam. But, just possibly, there is/should be some shared
> culpability on this issue?
>>
>> I don't know the problems with the other software mentioned in this
>> article, but it's possible the other "incompatible" software are hitting
>> similar walls.
>
>
> --
> norm

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:04:40 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>
>
>>teyebeareeus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>>>
>>>its crap what did you expect???
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well for one thing, for an idiot like you to actually read some of the
>>drivel and articles you post.
>
>
>
> That's funny, when you don't even know when to use Veteran and
> Veteran's. That's ok, we're know you're just a buffoon.
>
>


How's (possessive) that little "frank-infested" rat brain of yours doing
mr pig?
Got any more pearls of wisdom to share with us...hahaha...lol!
Frank

oh, where you draft-dodger, or 4F?

Richard Urban wrote:
> ***INTUIT WAS WRONG*** Microsoft is not culpable for Intuit storing
> customer *data* parameters in the registry.
>
> Intuit is one of a handful of companies to get nailed. The vast majority
> of programs follow good programming principals.
>
OK. And if ms saw an issue in the way their creation allowed other
programs to do what they did, but did not step up to the plate to
rectify it until vista, then yes, there is/was culpability. With some
issues, it does indeed take two to tango.

--
norm

Tens, hell - hundreds - of thousand of other programs do not do this. Intuit
was the one who decided to "take advantage" of a situation. Just because you
can do something doesn't mean you should especially when going against good
programming practices.

It was Intuits choice and they got nailed. Actually, I am glad they did, but
am not happy for their treatment of their customers due to an Intuit created
problem/condition.

You are one of the types who would blame Microsoft if you dropped the
physical computer on your foot - just because Windows was installed.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"norm" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Richard Urban wrote:
>> ***INTUIT WAS WRONG*** Microsoft is not culpable for Intuit storing
>> customer *data* parameters in the registry.
>>
>> Intuit is one of a handful of companies to get nailed. The vast majority
>> of programs follow good programming principals.
>>
> OK. And if ms saw an issue in the way their creation allowed other
> programs to do what they did, but did not step up to the plate to rectify
> it until vista, then yes, there is/was culpability. With some issues, it
> does indeed take two to tango.
>
> --
> norm

You are crap. What do we expect?

Just FYI

"teyebeareeus" <> wrote in message
news:4737845f$...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2007...pcworld/138693
>
> its crap what did you expect???
>