Will Current Windows Software Run On Vista?

[stampede96]

I haven't been able to find anything about this, so I think it is a non-issue, but I'm curious. I'm hoping to sell my Powerbook after release of the MacBooks and go back to Windows (I love the Mac, but some Windows programs just don't play nice on a 1.33Ghz G4 with VPC). I'm looking at thin and light laptops, which aren't loaded with hardware. I don't mind a Vista without the eye-candy, and I don't mind holding onto XP Pro for a few more years...

I am just wondering. I have heard Microsoft is reworking some of the core of its OS (i.e. user management), and I am curious if it will impact programs. So what it boils down to is, will XP programs run smoothly on Vista, and will Vista programs run on or be concurrently released for XP? I don't want to buy a computer and be obsolete (software-wise) in a year (hardware obsoletion is a given).

 

[Smilin]

You've been on Mac too long, seen too many processor changes and too many core OS rewrites. That crap doesn't really happen in the Wintel world. Sure we do 64 bit computing but 8086 code still works. Apple clobbered you with motorolla, ppc, intel, OSX yada yada. That won't stand in the big non-proprietary world of the PC.

Generally, Yes XP software will run fine on Vista. There will be some exceptions to this but it's likely you'll never know about them. Microsoft is pretty good about backwards compatibility.

 

[spyordie007]

As Smilin said the vast majority of the software that works under Win XP will work under Vista (x86 or x64). There will be some things that dont work, but that's mostly going to be limited to your off-the-wall poorly written applications or the very old stuff.

That crap doesn't really happen in the Wintel world.

To be fair it does happen plenty on the PC side. I.E. there are a ton of Win 3.x applications that wont run under XP

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: stampede96
I haven't been able to find anything about this, so I think it is a non-issue, but I'm curious. I'm hoping to sell my Powerbook after release of the MacBooks and go back to Windows (I love the Mac, but some Windows programs just don't play nice on a 1.33Ghz G4 with VPC). I'm looking at thin and light laptops, which aren't loaded with hardware. I don't mind a Vista without the eye-candy, and I don't mind holding onto XP Pro for a few more years...

I don't disagree with your logic of wanting to run windows apps on windows, but you certainly picked an odd time to use it with apple transitioning to x86. At the very least, you won't have to worry about instruction set emulation anymore and only the libraries will need to be filled in. I'm sure wine will have that taken care of in a while.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin
You've been on Mac too long, seen too many processor changes and too many core OS rewrites. That crap doesn't really happen in the Wintel world. Sure we do 64 bit computing but 8086 code still works. Apple clobbered you with motorolla, ppc, intel, OSX yada yada. That won't stand in the big non-proprietary world of the PC.

Generally, Yes XP software will run fine on Vista. There will be some exceptions to this but it's likely you'll never know about them. Microsoft is pretty good about backwards compatibility.

Apple's been good about backwards compatibility too. I wasn't an apple user, but I've read a little bit about it. I probably don't remember all of the gritty details though.

First, with the move from m68k to PPC processors there were emulators that worked pretty well. Second, the move to OS X from OS 9: They gave everyone the Classic mode to run older software. Third, the move to x86: fat binaries should be working pretty well by now.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
You've been on Mac too long, seen too many processor changes and too many core OS rewrites. That crap doesn't really happen in the Wintel world. Sure we do 64 bit computing but 8086 code still works. Apple clobbered you with motorolla, ppc, intel, OSX yada yada. That won't stand in the big non-proprietary world of the PC.

Generally, Yes XP software will run fine on Vista. There will be some exceptions to this but it's likely you'll never know about them. Microsoft is pretty good about backwards compatibility.

Apple's been good about backwards compatibility too. I wasn't an apple user, but I've read a little bit about it. I probably don't remember all of the gritty details though.

First, with the move from m68k to PPC processors there were emulators that worked pretty well. Second, the move to OS X from OS 9: They gave everyone the Classic mode to run older software. Third, the move to x86: fat binaries should be working pretty well by now.

That's kinda my point.

Moving from Windows XP to Vista is really nothing like the motorolla to PPC or OS 9 to OS X move. You're not really going to see XP code that needs a frickin emulator to run on Vista. If you've been a Mac user for a decade you've been smacked with "your software won't run on the new Mac" a lot of times. If you've been a Wintel user for the same period of time the worst you usually see is "Your FIVE YEAR OLD (or more) software won't run on the new PC"

XP to Vista incompatibilities that require an emulator of some sort are going to be the exception, not the rule. Not so with many of the Mac transitions over the years.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin
You've been on Mac too long, seen too many processor changes and too many core OS rewrites. That crap doesn't really happen in the Wintel world. Sure we do 64 bit computing but 8086 code still works. Apple clobbered you with motorolla, ppc, intel, OSX yada yada. That won't stand in the big non-proprietary world of the PC.

Generally, Yes XP software will run fine on Vista. There will be some exceptions to this but it's likely you'll never know about them. Microsoft is pretty good about backwards compatibility.

Apple's been good about backwards compatibility too. I wasn't an apple user, but I've read a little bit about it. I probably don't remember all of the gritty details though.

First, with the move from m68k to PPC processors there were emulators that worked pretty well. Second, the move to OS X from OS 9: They gave everyone the Classic mode to run older software. Third, the move to x86: fat binaries should be working pretty well by now.

That's kinda my point.

Moving from Windows XP to Vista is really nothing like the motorolla to PPC or OS 9 to OS X move. You're not really going to see XP code that needs a frickin emulator to run on Vista. If you've been a Mac user for a decade you've been smacked with "your software won't run on the new Mac" a lot of times. If you've been a Wintel user for the same period of time the worst you usually see is "Your FIVE YEAR OLD (or more) software won't run on the new PC"

XP to Vista incompatibilities that require an emulator of some sort are going to be the exception, not the rule. Not so with many of the Mac transitions over the years.

There were software incompatibilities from XP sp1 to sp2.

There are some of us that would like to see some incompatibilities in Windows OSes, because then there would be evidence of a _real_ change.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

There are some of us that would like to see some incompatibilities in Windows OSes, because then there would be evidence of a _real_ change.

That would actually be evidence of poor long term design. Remember NT started with an OS2, Posix, and Win32 subsystems. The robustness and scaleability of the design has stood for over a decade.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

There are some of us that would like to see some incompatibilities in Windows OSes, because then there would be evidence of a _real_ change.

That would actually be evidence of poor long term design. Remember NT started with an OS2, Posix, and Win32 subsystems. The robustness and scaleability of the design has stood for over a decade.

And so has the swiss cheese nature in regards to security.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

There are some of us that would like to see some incompatibilities in Windows OSes, because then there would be evidence of a _real_ change.

That would actually be evidence of poor long term design. Remember NT started with an OS2, Posix, and Win32 subsystems. The robustness and scaleability of the design has stood for over a decade.

And so has the swiss cheese nature in regards to security.

The majority of the security breaches and issues have stemmed from poor administration, not a bad system.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

There are some of us that would like to see some incompatibilities in Windows OSes, because then there would be evidence of a _real_ change.

That would actually be evidence of poor long term design. Remember NT started with an OS2, Posix, and Win32 subsystems. The robustness and scaleability of the design has stood for over a decade.

And so has the swiss cheese nature in regards to security.

yeah, once Kerberos was plugged in (without an OS rewrite mind you) things really went to hell huh? Quit trying to change the topic. Vista isn't going to have any compatibility issues that come anywhere near what a long time Mac user is acustomed to.

 

[chcarnage]

Mac OS Classic: 1984-2001
Mac OS X: 2001-?

Both CPU architecture changes were hidden away from the average user and even for the OS change there is the Classic environment of OS X. I for one don't interpret one visible change in more than two decades a "lack in long term design".

 

[Nothinman]

That won't stand in the big non-proprietary world of the PC.

Intel's CPUs are just as proprietary as those from IBM or Motorola, do you think AMD was able to implement the x86 instruction set without paying Intel any royalties?

You're not really going to see XP code that needs a frickin emulator to run on Vista.

Yes you will, it's called WoW. NT has had it for 16-bit apps since it's debut, XP64 has it for 32-bit apps and maybe for 16-bit too if they still run.

 

[scottws]

Windows XP 64-bit Edition does not support 16-bit applications. It is my understanding they will not run.

As far as the topic goes, from what I gather Windows Vista : Windows XP :: Windows ME : Windows 98. It more complicated than that, really, but not far off.

 

[stampede96]

Smilin, thanks for the respond. For the record though, I've been in the Mac world for a total of 14 months. I got sick of formatting Windows every month (and still am) so I decided to try a Mac when I needed a laptop. A few months later the announcement came about Intel.

Kamper, my bad in the original post. After hearing that MacBooks will be shipped in February, I want to sell my PB before the MacBooks are in peoples hands. I was hoping to get a few more months out of it and finish my undergrad, but I don't think my PB will have any value after MacBooks are out.

 

[Link19]

Yes you will, it's called WoW. NT has had it for 16-bit apps since it's debut, XP64 has it for 32-bit apps and maybe for 16-bit too if they still run.

Only for running 32-bit applications on Windows Vista 64-bit just as Windows XP x64 uses emulation to run Windows XP and prior 32-bit applications. Windows Vista 32-bit will not have any emulation to run Windows 2000/XP 32-bit applications. And Windows Vista 64-bit won't have any emulation to run Windows XP x64 native 64-bit applications. Is that right?

 

[Nothinman]

Windows Vista 32-bit will not have any emulation to run Windows 2000/XP 32-bit applications.

Then what would you call that "Compatibility" tab that appears on shortcuts an executables in XP?

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Windows Vista 32-bit will not have any emulation to run Windows 2000/XP 32-bit applications.

Then what would you call that "Compatibility" tab that appears on shortcuts an executables in XP?

Doesn't that just trick the installer into thinking that it is running in that OS? I don't think it does any more than that. What I was syaing is that it is not emulation in the way that MAC OS X emulates Classic MAC OS applications. MAC OS 9 and MAC OS X were completely different. The transition from Windows XP to Vista won't even be close to what it was like from MAC OS 9 to MAC OS X. Windows Vista will be based on Windows XP OS heritage, so almost all Windows XP 32-bit applications should easily run without any problems in Vista? Just like almost all applictaions written for Windows 2K could eaisly run in Windows XP because Windows XP was the next version of the same OS heritage as Windows 2K.

The jump from Windows XP to Vista will only be slightly bbigger than the jump from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. But the jump from Windows 9X to WIndows 2000 and above was much bigger than the jump from XP to Vista will be as far as techs are concerned.

Is what I said correct? I am pretty sure it is?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Windows Vista 32-bit will not have any emulation to run Windows 2000/XP 32-bit applications.

Then what would you call that "Compatibility" tab that appears on shortcuts an executables in XP?

Link is right (wow, there, I said it).

Immitation. Compatibility mode does not provide any code emulation, just immitation of the environment the application would have expected (windows version number returned might be different from the actual OS, etc...)

Bill

 

[spyordie007]

App compatability in 2k/XP is more than just tricking the application into thinking it's a differant OS (though that is one thing that it does); it can make it appear that certain older dlls that an app might expect exist, etc.

You're right though in that it is not a true "OS Emulator" (like Classic mode under OS X)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/plan/appcmpxp.mspx

EDIT: See bills post above, this is what happens when you take too long to compose a message

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
App compatability in 2k/XP is more than just tricking the application into thinking it's a differant OS (though that is one thing that it does); it can make it appear that certain older dlls that an app might expect exist, etc.

You're right though in that it is not a true "OS Emulator" (like Classic mode under OS X)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/plan/appcmpxp.mspx

EDIT: See bills post above, this is what happens when you take too long to compose a message

Hehe, and I thought you were correcting me (since I just gave the one example) until I saw your note....

 

[Nothinman]

Immitation. Compatibility mode does not provide any code emulation, just immitation of the environment the application would have expected (windows version number returned might be different from the actual OS, etc...)

It's a layer between the app and the OS that provides the environment, file path fixups, registry path fixups, version strings, etc to that process to make it think it's running on the older OS. To me that's emulation. Sure it's not as complete as the OS 9 emulation on OS X, but it's still emulating the old OS to make the app run properly.

Hell, MS even uses the word emulate in the link that spyordie007 provided.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Immitation. Compatibility mode does not provide any code emulation, just immitation of the environment the application would have expected (windows version number returned might be different from the actual OS, etc...)

It's a layer between the app and the OS that provides the environment, file path fixups, registry path fixups, version strings, etc to that process to make it think it's running on the older OS. To me that's emulation. Sure it's not as complete as the OS 9 emulation on OS X, but it's still emulating the old OS to make the app run properly.

Hell, MS even uses the word emulate in the link that spyordie007 provided.

It's not instruction set emulation and you know it.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not instruction set emulation and you know it.

I never said otherwise. Emulation isn't restricted to CPU instruction sets. If you replace a function with a new one with a different name but provide a wrapper function using the old name for compatibility, that's even considered emulation by most people. Neither the 'Linux binary emulation' done on FreeBSD nor the virtualization that VMWare provides are instruction level emulation either, but they're still considered emulation.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It's not instruction set emulation and you know it.

I never said otherwise. Emulation isn't restricted to CPU instruction sets. If you replace a function with a new one with a different name but provide a wrapper function using the old name for compatibility, that's even considered emulation by most people. Neither the 'Linux binary emulation' done on FreeBSD nor the virtualization that VMWare provides are instruction level emulation either, but they're still considered emulation.

Vmware most certainaly does instruction set emulation (for some instructions). Thats the whole point of the VT work, to remove that need.
Bill