Digital Workshop

Since the Vista + Opus 6 combo arrived, there have been several comments of the difficulties of developing pubs using that combination.

I'm more interested in the legacy issue -- that is, how pubs developed using Opus pre v6 and Windows pre-Vista perform when loaded onto a Vista-driven computer.

I'm guessing that many of us will have pubs that go back many years. If these refuse to work under Vista, I see these choices:

1. Redevelop them in Vista -- if that's a realistic possibility; or
2. Do not provide Opus pubs to Vista users.

I've decided on this strategy:

1. I will not install Vista (although I have 2 machines that proudly boast Vista Compatible or Vista Ready until more stability reigns in the Vista/Opus environment.

2. I no longer include Vista-based computers in my list of approved platforms for my pubs. I advise prospective clients that I will no longer provide support/refunds for my products on these computers.

I provide free downloads of evaluation copies for anyone to test. If they subsequently purchase and have problems I do not give refunds, and I provide little, if any support for subsequent operational problems.

I am very interested in your experience because I believe this has the potential to be a serious issue.

Publications with pop-up windows seem to always cause Vista to revert to basic GUI.

Those of us who remember truly stable, small, preemptive multitasking OS's are becoming fewer and fewer all the time. Microsoft has managed to establish the most successful monopoly in history based on the worst product imaginable. Processor speed has improved exponentially since the mid-90's, while effective speed as improved little or none. Windows still cannot run 30fps video cleanly, something other OS's could do 10 years ago. This is not just a Microsoft-bashing rant, there is a point.

-Upgrading to Vista will not be optional. It is part of Microsofts business model to remove support and compatibility from legacy iterations. The only reason 2000 is still around is that huge companies with sufficient clout to say "no" still use it. They'll eventually have to come along...

-You can't blame DW for Vista issues. With Microsofts "insured obsolence" strategy and code so vast, arcane, and bloated that I rather suspect not even they understand it all (in fact, I know they don't...) you cannot expect a small outfit like DW, even with the extraordinary talent and dedication they exhibit, to be able to catch every potential issue.

So, Opus users are going to have to be patient and work WITH the DW folks to uncover and fix these issues.

I long ago accepted the fact of the iron boot of Microsoft ruling the world and have learned to live with it. I run Ubuntu Linux on my kids and other computers around the house, use a vintage Amiga 4000 for graphics and 2D animation development for export (NOTHING at ANY price like it on the Microsoft or Macrosoft platforms) and then just buck up and suffer.

I think many companies (including mine) hold fast to XP for a long time...at least, I hope so.

However, as long as Microsoft maintains a stranglehold on business forced upgrading will be inevitable. Might as well prepare...

Dave

I'd prefer to stick with XP for development but as more of my users start moving to Vista, which may not be there choice as all new computers come preinstalled. We have little choice in the matter, so the sooner all problems can be ironed out the better it will be for all of us.

SP1 of Vista is due soon and should solve many of the problems.

As for the faster processors theory, XP/Vista does not crash, or not very often in six years maybe 5 system crashes, better than my experience with OS X or RedHat. Compared to Win 95, 98 or even 3.1 which crashed all the time, all that extra protection in XP/Vista comes at a performance cost. Again most of the hardware in Vista is used to make it look nice with Aero, same as XP when it first came out.

Saying that I found Vista runs very nicely on my setup on a mid-range computer with extra RAM (2GB) loads up quickly, and apps start quickly. Also has some nice new improvements, but still some terrible issues which haven't been fixed since 95! Why is UAC is annoying, even when disabled it still is annoying.

I don't want to hijack Ray's thread so I'll leave it at this...

Administering a significant number of computers, including 7 in my home, my experience is significantly different. I get crashes quite often as I REALLY work machines. Due to the archaic virtual memory requirements of Windows, these often result in damage, and need to reinstall, the OS.

Beyond that, it is still 50 times bigger than any OS needs to be, still does not really multitask, and forces the same gui on a 3D modeling program as on a spreadsheet. Thank goodness an F-22 doesn't have to have the same dashboard as a Prius.

The last and closest to a "reasonable" Windows environment was 98SE installed in it's "compact" config, about 100 meg. It was relatively stable and met 99% of all users needs. Where is "Windows Lite" at 30.00 or so for the 95% of users who have utterly no need or use for the majority of Windows features and just need to run Works, games, and a browser and can't afford to spend more on an OS than they did for their computer?

The only reason the above things are accepted today is that an entire industry has evolved to plug holes, support, and make this monstrosity usable and only a few have been resistant enough to "the big lie" to realize the insanity of it all.

End rant, really. Back to you, Ray...