Jump to content
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • 0

The true story behind EMC 9's Vista certification


smonteijr

Question

Hi all!

 

I was cruising around the net trying to find why "There is more than enough evidence that Vista 64 is a disaster in a pretty box with almost no saving graces…" posted here, #26 when I came upon this:

 

roxioready.jpg

 

Ready! is defined as:

Applications that are Ready! for Windows Vista lists applications that have been reported by the application manufacturer as compatible with, or supported on, Windows Vista. These applications have not gone through the Microsoft Windows Vista Logo programs.

 

So until I can find documentation elsewhere which shows EMC 9.0 passing Microsoft's testing, EMC 9.0 is not vista certified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

FWIW Vista 64 was mainly described during beta using expletives, received little testing or attention from MS, and is still not for the majority of users -- from what I've read at the MS site, it was designed from the get go as a secure competitor to Linux for back end machines, not the average desktop.

 

As far as certification goes, IMHO I could care less... Vista has great compatibility -- I'm running apps I haven't been able to run since win95 & win98 [stuff that's no longer available or not used enough to warrant upgrading]. If a company says it'll run on Vista, and it runs on Vista, That's all I need. :D If OTOH a company says it's certified, and their product screws up Vista's registry or doesn't work worth beans, I'm pretty ticked off. ;) And yeah, that's happened much more often than I'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I have Vista here (along with XP 32, XP 64 and Gentoo Linux all on a quad boot) but I only use it for testing - I like computers that do what I tell them to do and don't have any time for one that tries to tell me what I can or can't do

 

How did you create your quad boot? I've dual booted XP and Vista but am wondering how to integrate some Linux OS's. Guess it'll be another all-nighter :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you create your quad boot? I've dual booted XP and Vista but am wondering how to integrate some Linux OS's. Guess it'll be another all-nighter :P

I've read of a few people who've used VistaBootPro and EasyBCD to help them do more than dual boot. Few people quad boot so take care if doing so but it certainly can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that Vista 64 was produced simply to have a 64 bit OS out there - without even considering that nobody is making 64 bit apps (I can think of one off the top of my head and that's Symantec Corp A/V). Even MS don't make any of their own apps in 64 bit - all 32 bit (even the latest Office) and none of them will ever take advantage of a 64 bit OS - they can't.

 

I agree with what you said about Linux - all Linux apps are open source and, if you do it right, you can compile those against a 64 bit arch (I do it myself here with Gentoo, using 'march=nocona'). Until somebody decides at some stage to produce a true 64 bit app, the 64 bit OS is a side issue but, considering the poor take-up of Vista (partly due to the inflated price and, believe me, over here it WAS inflated with Bill Gates defending the cost of $1 = £1 when it's only half that, but then with that $600 million fine he probably wants his money back :) ) most people are sticking with XP and even then the 32 bit version. Why? Simple - speeds have gone about as fast as they can - any further reduction in the fabtrication size and you're starting to approach quantum levels and, like Heisenberg, everything becomes uncertain round that point ;)

 

The point is, a lot of business systems are geared for 32 bit apps and a 32 bit OS - while they may run on a 64 bit OS, nobody is going to fork out for something that is unnecessary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9.1 is the upgrade - the build is irrelevant (in point of fact it's 9.1.075)

 

There is a different build number for the boxed set of 9.1 and another for the ESD version and again for 9.1 De Luxe. They are ALL 9.1

 

Just a pity btw you didn't spot these in your browsing

 

http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00001.htm

 

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc2c8ad

 

http://coderjournal.com/2007/03/apple-want...install-itunes/

 

Or perhaps you did and just don't want to mention the lack of VB Scripting in Vista 64 or the fact that there is no automatic registry and file redirection (which are there in the 32 bit version). Why MS decided to cripple the 64 bit OS is something you will have to ask MS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, a lot of business systems are geared for 32 bit apps and a 32 bit OS - while they may run on a 64 bit OS, nobody is going to fork out for something that is unnecessary

 

Well poop. I went with the 64 bit for security and the beliefe that software designed 64 bit app's would take advantage of my 64 bit CPU. So much for trying to stay ahead of the game... Do you think MS has a buy-back program? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use GRUB (GRand Unified Bootloader) - first screen comes up with Windows/Linux boot option: select Windows and then there's a 'Vista or older Windows version' screen. In 'older versions' I then get a selection for XP or XP 64 bit

 

Install order (on a clean drive) is XP, XP 64, Vista and finally Linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use GRUB (GRand Unified Bootloader) - first screen comes up with Windows/Linux boot option: select Windows and then there's a 'Vista or older Windows version' screen. In 'older versions' I then get a selection for XP or XP 64 bit

 

Install order (on a clean drive) is XP, XP 64, Vista and finally Linux.

I keep forgetting about Grub. Once I messed up the bootloader and Grub was the only way I could fix it. Kind of archaic in a way but did the job. And, it's free too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9.1 is the upgrade - the build is irrelevant (in point of fact it's 9.1.075)

 

Which EMC 9.1 product is the 9.1.45 build?

 

From link #1: Interesting points. I also found this interesting: "...unsigned drivers will not work at all. There's a good reason for that; bad drivers are probably the number one cause of XP crashes." 64 bit Vista is not for the faint of heart.

 

Link #2: Indicates that an update from Adobe and a hotfix from Microsoft has resolved the problem. It would be nice if Sonic/Roxio would do the same. If they don't want to support 64 bit OS, then they should say so.

 

Link #3: Broken link, but had to do with Apple I-Tunes not installing on a 64 bit machine. It was Apples fault that i-Tunes wouldn't/won't install on a 64 bit machine. The installer is hard programmed and you must register VB Scripting (and then unregister it.)

 

VB Scripting: It's not that VB scripting isn't there, it's just not registered, and that's the way Microsoft shipped it. VB Scripting is left unregistered because of the threat of Trojans and worms. Also, VB Scripting is no longer necessary to install programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well poop. I went with the 64 bit for security and the beliefe that software designed 64 bit app's would take advantage of my 64 bit CPU. So much for trying to stay ahead of the game... Do you think MS has a buy-back program? :P

 

 

As I said - the only 64 bit app I've come across is Symentec Corporate Anti-Virus (if anyone knows of any others, let me know :lol: )

 

Buy back? You gotta be joking (they're going to try to claw back that $600 million plus fine they got hit with)

 

Seriously, none of my custoners has the slightest interest in 64 bit operations - they're all perfectly happy to run single core machines in XP and, more importantly, all their apps work smoothly in that.

 

As for 64 bit security - MS tries to make it look that way - but at the cost of crippling the OS (removing VB was one example). They also want to try to control the hardware makers - you mentioned earlier that driver certification was a 'good thing' - it is for MS. A case in point: I worked with XP 64 in RC1 and RC2, but I did know that, originally, XP 64 was going to be for IA64 machines only. The reason being that AMD refused to pay MS to have their CPU checked out in the OS - it only went AMD64 because of the total screwup that was the Itanic. Now why should a software company try to pressure a hardware maker into paying them? It's as if Ford made Standard Oil pay them to make sure that cars ran on their fuel

 

Personally, I have Vista here (along with XP 32, XP 64 and Gentoo Linux all on a quad boot) but I only use it for testing - I like computers that do what I tell them to do and don't have any time for one that tries to tell me what I can or can't do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buy back? You gotta be joking (they're going to try to claw back that $600 million plus fine they got hit with)

 

Roughly 239 million PCs were sold worldwide last year.

 

MS Revenue US $51.12 billion (2007)

 

Computer software

Publishing

Research and development

Computer hardware

Video games

Microsoft Windows

Microsoft Office

Microsoft Servers

Developer Tools

Business Solutions

Games and Xbox

Windows Live

Windows Mobile

Zune

 

"claw back" it's small potatoes, very small. :lol:

 

cd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like a bag of those please :lol:

 

But that was just the fine - there were also the costs involved and MS 'allies' were left to pay their own.

 

The main thing is that, at long last, MS has been stood up to and told to clean up its act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...