Porting to Vista
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
depends. The biggest potential snag is UAC jumping on your app for violating best pratices originally documented for win2k about where modifiable data should be stored and other settings related to runing as a nonadministrative user. How much of an issue this is is very application dependent. I'd assume (famous last words) being an embedded system your application runs in a very locked down account which should mean you've got most of what you need in place already. Finally I'd be shocked if Windows7 didn't require the same (if not greater) level of follow long documented best practices to behave in limited user accounts as vista does so you'll probably have to do it all either way. PS while MS is all over the map with 'within a year' or 'in 2010' statements recently I assume that the issue is RC1 vs RTM dates.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
-
The how hard to make vista compatible question, yes maybe. The opinion about is it worth it, or wait for windows 7, no. thats more of a mass opinion question, and I'm more interested in that answer.
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
The how hard to make vista compatible question, yes maybe. The opinion about is it worth it, or wait for windows 7, no. thats more of a mass opinion question, and I'm more interested in that answer.
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
Windows 7 is a long way off to even think about getting ready for it. Then there's the time gap it takes for most users to upgrade to Windows 7 from Vista. Like in all major Microsoft releases, it'll either get postponed or miss out some feature or simply be not worth it. By the time Windows 7 will be released, most users would have settled into the couch with Vista and again whine about upgrading to 7. If you want to retain clients in the immediate future, you ought to port your app to Vista, which shouldnt be a very major work, IMO. That'll also add to your product's selling point right now.
SG Cause is effect concealed. Effect is cause revealed.
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
It's not hard at all to port to Vista if your problems are only UAC and virtualization of registry and file system related. I learned and implmenented it in a few days once I waded through the horrible documentation on the subject. Basically if you make a "manifest" (<-google keyword) with stated restrictions and test under that you will be well on your way to figuring the rest out. The only problem comes when you don't make a manifest because then you won't get a clear understanding of the problem. With a manifest you will get clear errors immediately. Windows 7 will almost undoubtedly still have the same security system as Vista and what seems to be lost in the Vista holy wars I've seen here over the last year or so is that these security requirements were always important guidelines to follow since at least windows 2000; windows was just more forgiving then which masked the problem.
"The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying." - David Ogilvy
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering,
WHY is the customer trying to install it on Vista ? IMO ( not humble), this is a very controlled environment, and a customer must have VERY good reasons to upgrade to a new OS without first checking that all the software can run on the new OS. If your software works as expected on 2k and Xp; just tell the customer that he will need to wait until you can safely certify your software on the "new" OS. You should ( the R'n'D and development lead) should have a list of supported OS (and acceptable parameters) on which your software run; so that marketing will help customers to install or not the software on only approved OS and systems. On the other hand, if you really need to make it work on Vista, you don't have a choice, do you ? just get a new machine and work on it. It's probably a "simple" (relative) to user privileges issue. good luck
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering,
WHY is the customer trying to install it on Vista ? IMO ( not humble), this is a very controlled environment, and a customer must have VERY good reasons to upgrade to a new OS without first checking that all the software can run on the new OS. If your software works as expected on 2k and Xp; just tell the customer that he will need to wait until you can safely certify your software on the "new" OS. You should ( the R'n'D and development lead) should have a list of supported OS (and acceptable parameters) on which your software run; so that marketing will help customers to install or not the software on only approved OS and systems. On the other hand, if you really need to make it work on Vista, you don't have a choice, do you ? just get a new machine and work on it. It's probably a "simple" (relative) to user privileges issue. good luck
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
Maximilien wrote:
WHY is the customer trying to install it on Vista ? IMO ( not humble), this is a very controlled environment, and a customer must have VERY good reasons to upgrade to a new OS without first checking that all the software can run on the new OS.
Generally these environments have to try before they "buy in" which means they set up a new system, install software and find the problems before they attempt a full out replacement. Given that MS has declared XP support as terminating, it is really no surprise that many places are saying, "well, time to try!" Even the military is grumbling about lets try to make it work. because you can't be left in the cold in these environments, you cannot be on a dead OS in some of them, and others you can. It all depends on the environment and how fast equipment is replaced. If equipment is expected to upgrade annually or more as opposed to a NASA ten to twenty year upgrade, you need to think and test ahead of the game. My office was thankful I already did these tests on my own machine, they didn't need to put out much effort. They came to ask the same question, and I told them no probem, already tested, as did another programmer. For all the blustering at work it was a rather meek questioner that came to ask, and was surprised a few of us had the initiative to try it ahead of all the anti-vista blustering that was bantered about.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
is porting to Vista a long arduous process?
It has been for us. Our software is somewhat similar to yours. I will be attempting to install the latest web client to it tomorrow or Friday. It's usually problematic but this is by far the simplest part of the system and it's mostly just wrestling with IIS 7.
Kevin
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
I'd have to say that I'd be very surprised if Windows 7 doesn't include a lot of the *thinking* that went in to Vista as regards application security and what not. I doubt MS would be foolish enough to undo all the work that has been done to make applications work with Vista, so I'd think that porting to Vista now would make sense.
-
Maximilien wrote:
WHY is the customer trying to install it on Vista ? IMO ( not humble), this is a very controlled environment, and a customer must have VERY good reasons to upgrade to a new OS without first checking that all the software can run on the new OS.
Generally these environments have to try before they "buy in" which means they set up a new system, install software and find the problems before they attempt a full out replacement. Given that MS has declared XP support as terminating, it is really no surprise that many places are saying, "well, time to try!" Even the military is grumbling about lets try to make it work. because you can't be left in the cold in these environments, you cannot be on a dead OS in some of them, and others you can. It all depends on the environment and how fast equipment is replaced. If equipment is expected to upgrade annually or more as opposed to a NASA ten to twenty year upgrade, you need to think and test ahead of the game. My office was thankful I already did these tests on my own machine, they didn't need to put out much effort. They came to ask the same question, and I told them no probem, already tested, as did another programmer. For all the blustering at work it was a rather meek questioner that came to ask, and was surprised a few of us had the initiative to try it ahead of all the anti-vista blustering that was bantered about.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
El Corazon wrote:
Even the military is grumbling about lets try to make it work. because you can't be left in the cold in these environments, you cannot be on a dead OS in some of them, and others you can.
I'm curious if you've heard anything from the navy on that front, or just the other services? I'm asking because I know they never upgraded to XP because they "couldn't stop services from trying to phone home" on secure/minimal bandwidth networks. (Since all the other services have similar (if perhaps less stringent) constraints on secure/forward deployed networks my thoughts lean towards malice from win2k forever fanatics rather than insurmountable problems.) If you have any (publicly shareable) material about the navy + vista adoption I'd love to be able to wave it in certain peoples faces.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
-
VonHagNDaz wrote:
The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering,
WHY is the customer trying to install it on Vista ? IMO ( not humble), this is a very controlled environment, and a customer must have VERY good reasons to upgrade to a new OS without first checking that all the software can run on the new OS. If your software works as expected on 2k and Xp; just tell the customer that he will need to wait until you can safely certify your software on the "new" OS. You should ( the R'n'D and development lead) should have a list of supported OS (and acceptable parameters) on which your software run; so that marketing will help customers to install or not the software on only approved OS and systems. On the other hand, if you really need to make it work on Vista, you don't have a choice, do you ? just get a new machine and work on it. It's probably a "simple" (relative) to user privileges issue. good luck
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
Im just astounded that marketing suggested vista for an industrial application. I'm sure GM or the other clients will be thrilled when their line shuts down with a blue screen or some other vista non compatibility issue. They know that vista isnt supported. It must be hard checking documented specifications when all you want to do is sell, sell, sell...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
I'd have to say that I'd be very surprised if Windows 7 doesn't include a lot of the *thinking* that went in to Vista as regards application security and what not. I doubt MS would be foolish enough to undo all the work that has been done to make applications work with Vista, so I'd think that porting to Vista now would make sense.
martin_hughes wrote:
I doubt MS would be foolish enough to undo all the work that has been done to make applications work with Vista
I thought that was the big thing about Windows 7. From what I've read, its being rebuilt from the ground up and wont have backwards compatibility?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
martin_hughes wrote:
I doubt MS would be foolish enough to undo all the work that has been done to make applications work with Vista
I thought that was the big thing about Windows 7. From what I've read, its being rebuilt from the ground up and wont have backwards compatibility?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
I read that too - and unless Windows 7 virtualizes previous windows versions in a big way, I just can't see it being viable. Of course, if it can virtualize xp and 2000 then you won't have much to worry about with your application :)
-
El Corazon wrote:
Even the military is grumbling about lets try to make it work. because you can't be left in the cold in these environments, you cannot be on a dead OS in some of them, and others you can.
I'm curious if you've heard anything from the navy on that front, or just the other services? I'm asking because I know they never upgraded to XP because they "couldn't stop services from trying to phone home" on secure/minimal bandwidth networks. (Since all the other services have similar (if perhaps less stringent) constraints on secure/forward deployed networks my thoughts lean towards malice from win2k forever fanatics rather than insurmountable problems.) If you have any (publicly shareable) material about the navy + vista adoption I'd love to be able to wave it in certain peoples faces.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
dan neely wrote:
If you have any (publicly shareable) material about the navy + vista adoption I'd love to be able to wave it in certain peoples faces.
Nothing that is really shareable, I don't talk much with the navy. But there is hope some of the embedded OS's especially a cut-down and improved XP for embedded systems offers hope for the Navy and others. Microsoft has refused to remove the phone home bit, though made it manageable with enterprise solutions, but requires at least one validation. This means imaging of disks after validation, and tools for reinserting licenses, which again is doable under XP. The Navy could have made this work, we do it all the time for offline computers, though admitedly not for the first year of XP. Vista is a whole new ballgame, new things to learn, new validation chatter to MS, new licenses, and no reasonable offer on enterprise level licensing to the military -- though pressure will mount I am sure. There is no way to go to Vista right now, and it is still forbidden, per se, but it is encouraged to try to see what it will take in those departments that are offline. In other words, if you put this on our network, we will confiscate your equipment, but we want you to try it on your own internal networks at your own expense whereever possible. ;) I doubt the Navy will move soon. Though I expect drivers are getting to be a hassle so there are grumblings about following the Army's Redhat route, without much enthusiasm, inquiries without much enthusiasm I should say, and embedded OS's with a little more hopefull mutterings. All in all, don't hold your breath. They could have made XP work if they had wanted to, but didn't. So I expect there will be hold outs for as long as possible.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process?
How are you interfacing to those microcontrollers? Custom hardware? Specialized device drivers? What 3rd party libraries are you using? Are they Vista compatible? Those are two big questions I'd ask first before even pointing the finger at your own software (unless of course, you are the guys writing the drivers and libraries, hehe) Marc
-
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
Right-click the exe file in Explorer, select Properties, click the Compatibility tab, and play with the settings there. I've used this successfully on some old Atari games.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
My company has software in the field which is Windows 2000 and XP compatible. We currently have a customer who is trying to install our software on Vista, and surprise, surprise it doesn't work. Marketing is asking for a Vista compatible version. The software is meant to run micro controllers in an industrial setting, and I was wondering, is porting to Vista a long arduous process? If so, what are your opinions about making a Vista compatible version with Microsoft releasing Windows 7 in the next year or so?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
WElcome to hell. Your most likely problem is that you're trying to write to files that are in an area you are not allowed to access. Such as, the folder that your application lives in. Everyting needs to go to the app data folder under the user profile.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
martin_hughes wrote:
I doubt MS would be foolish enough to undo all the work that has been done to make applications work with Vista
I thought that was the big thing about Windows 7. From what I've read, its being rebuilt from the ground up and wont have backwards compatibility?
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
VonHagNDaz wrote:
ts being rebuilt from the ground up and wont have backwards compatibility?
If MS does that, it will make the Vista fiasco look genius.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
depends. The biggest potential snag is UAC jumping on your app for violating best pratices originally documented for win2k about where modifiable data should be stored and other settings related to runing as a nonadministrative user. How much of an issue this is is very application dependent. I'd assume (famous last words) being an embedded system your application runs in a very locked down account which should mean you've got most of what you need in place already. Finally I'd be shocked if Windows7 didn't require the same (if not greater) level of follow long documented best practices to behave in limited user accounts as vista does so you'll probably have to do it all either way. PS while MS is all over the map with 'within a year' or 'in 2010' statements recently I assume that the issue is RC1 vs RTM dates.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
dan neely wrote:
violating best pratices originally documented for win2k
Would you mind pointing a lazy and busy man in the rough direction of such documentation?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
