Comments on: Windows 7 backwards compatibility

By: Dean Dohnalek

Dean Dohnalek — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 06:03:00 +0000

I have many well-written Music Software Applications including MIDI sequencing programs for Keyboards, music synthesizer applications, integrated music mixer control applications, digitized orchestral accompaniment applications, digitized performances covering many musical instruments, an extensive array of musical sound patches etc. that were created to operate on my Windows 95 and Windows 98 operating systems which are installed on my old computers that I am presently using as of today to produced my musical compositions. My major concern is whether or not Windows 7 backwards compatibility features will accommodate my music programs in the event I purchase a newer computer that has the architecture designed exclusively for Windows 7. Dean

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:47:03 +0000

window 7 compatibility with usb2vg ???
What to do?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:46:47 +0000

window 7 compatibility with usb2vg problem???
What to do?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:47:03 +0000

window 7 compatibility with usb2vg ???
What to do?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:46:47 +0000

window 7 compatibility with usb2vg problem???
What to do?

By: Cheyenne44

Cheyenne44 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:40:21 +0000

I have gone with windows from 3.1 regularly (actually does anyone remember windows 2?) but I stopped and would not go Vista. I have the same feeling above Windows. I am thinking about Dual system, keeping XP and going Linux 10 using the WINE emulator to get back some of those great programs that '98 and XP left in the cold. I have thousands of dollars (like many of you) in perfectly good software that can't run under the newer windows version. I actually keep several computers up with different versions just get around the lack of backwards compatibility. Back when people wrote “tight programs” in machine language, those ran well. and still do if you have a machine to do it on. Maybe we need to rethink whether we give the $$$ to Microsoft for their untested products (Beta testing does not count since it does not represent all of our real environments).

By: Matthew Whited

Matthew Whited — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 00:25:50 +0000

WPF is for general user interfaces. Silverlight is for web development. DirectX is not going anywhere

By: Matthew Whited

Matthew Whited — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:25:50 +0000

WPF is for general user interfaces. Silverlight is for web development. DirectX is not going anywhere

By: segerbagio

segerbagio — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:36:46 +0000

I used to develop in C#. Now I want to know what can I do with c# in Windows 7 Environment. As information Phyton defeat C# in TIOBE index.

By: segerbagio

segerbagio — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:36:00 +0000

I used to develop in C#. Now I want to know what can I do with c# in Windows 7 Environment. As information Phyton defeat C# in TIOBE index.

By: Windows 7 backwards compatibility | DBGL

Windows 7 backwards compatibility | DBGL — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:31:48 +0000

[...] users one less reason to worry about when updating from an old version of Windows to a newer one.Read More var addthis_pub=”dbgl”; Tagged as: Windows [...]

By: tomas

tomas — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:39:42 +0000

When a company like Microsoft releases a new OS that is
incompatible whith its own software, (Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 is quite difficult to install and run on Vista) it is not a question of progress or “what is best for the users”. It is just about making more money…
You can raise several complaints against library versioning issiues in different Linux distros, but I have never seen a confidence breech of Microsofts proportions in the Linux world.

By: tomas

tomas — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:39:00 +0000

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:45:53 +0000

@Rob

I see what you’re trying to say, and I agree with you, but for businesses, they use the software to make hundreds of thousands a year, so 400 for the ability to install the os on their computers sound fair, as it is quickly made by the computers. But for the home users, we don’t make our money off computers, we don’t have that kind of money just for an os. I think I’d take your “core” idea, and just make it broad objects, such gaming, business, networking, multimedia and etc. But do keep in mind, programming takes a LONG time to do, but they do still overcharge.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:45:00 +0000

@Rob

By: ryan

ryan — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:40:45 +0000

…”The huge advantages of this approach are performance increases for native applications and the operating system itself and a decrease of the distribution size itself.”
in other words: Windows 7 programed applications will run as they should. ANY OTHER WINDOWS BASED APPLICATION WILL RUN LIKE SHIT THROUGH AN EMULATOR.

note to Microsoft: quit monopolizing the market and trying to scare knowledgeable people into using you. Macs have been Superior from the start and Linux has now surpased you in every aspect (os size, functionality, cost and happy customers. not to mention that linux can run 70% of all applications ever created by any operating system. Thats without funding…)

note to potential buyers- put more pressure on game companies to write games for linux/mac. If you dont need to play games and you dont need media editing, linux is a FREE alternative to Microsoft

By: ryan

ryan — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:40:00 +0000

note to potential buyers- put more pressure on game companies to write games for linux/mac. If you dont need to play games and you dont need media editing, linux is a FREE alternative to Microsoft

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:24:30 +0000

Once everything not there… will people say “damn it, it takes me so much time to install everything. why not just build one ultimate edition w/ everything I wish to have… LOL”?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:24:00 +0000

Once everything not there… will people say “damn it, it takes me so much time to install everything. why not just build one ultimate edition w/ everything I wish to have… LOL”?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:08:09 +0000

If I had the opportunity from good ole Bill I’d tell him in the likeliness of Dr. McCoy from Star Trek “Dammit Bill let me make Windows 7: Gamer edition!” In the end when the project was done Bill will say “Gee why couldnt I do that in the first place? By giving people what they want, instead of what I think they need?” Not to target gaming people on that note. I’m really saying to Microsoft to just release a core edition. Then if they wish to make so called “addon” editions hence business, ultimate or whatever they could still do so, but sell them as a addon for like $20 to be fair. Personally We the people should have the “Ultimate” choice on what we want included with our OS. All I can say is I hope you leave that windows messenger junk out of my next OS. So this is a shout out to you MS people that work for Bill. Take heed to what I posted, or in a few years it may be Steve with the only Job. Yes, the pun is intended. K Thnx!

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:08:00 +0000

By: Confused Geek

Confused Geek — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:52:35 +0000

In testing phases, one thing that I see positive over the Vista pre-beta edition is the fact that application compatibility has been improved very vastly. I am working with the pre-beat edition and current testing has most commonly used applications working fine. . . . . Take the jump for more. . .
http://www.verzion7.com/?p=438

By: Confused Geek

Confused Geek — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:52:00 +0000

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:39:04 +0000

My question is:Â Will older software versions be more or less compatible with Windows 7 than they were Vista?Â

I don’t think a user who has software that WORKS and is happy with it should have to pay an exorbitant amount of money for a newer version just because a new operating system comes out!Â I’ve been a Delphi 7 programmer for years and it does everything I need, but doesn’t run well in Vista and, in fact, is not officially “Vista Compatible”.Â The newer Delphi is $400 just for the upgrade (over $800 for the full version!).Â Furthermore, you have to buy a whole new Office Suite (Office 2000 won’t even install).Â This is ridiculous!

What’s worse, many companies are still on XP and don’t have Vista compatible network VPN software, and don’t plan to upgrade for the foreseeable future.

This means that if I buy a new computer today I’m forced to spend almost $1,000 on new software and I have a computer I can’t even use to login to work!Â What a ripoff!!

Maybe Microsoft should come out with something called “New Windows”, and when everybody rejects it, release “Windows Classic” that everybody uses for the next 20 years!

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:08:41 +0000

I think they mean virtualization in the sense of application virtualizaion. Take a look at vmware's thinapp as an example. http://www.vmware.com/products/thinapp/ A way of isolating dlls on a per application basis. I just hope we can turn it on or off instead of getting it rammed down our throat like with winSXS.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:31:03 +0000

More gimmicks I fear and not addressing the core problems which are evident within Windows Vista. They may solve the problem of speed due to a different approach to the design by ‘Virtualisation’ but no backwards compatabilty? If noone can run their current applications especially in the corporate world, Microsoft’s new baby decends rapidly into the abyss dear dear!

By: The Arc of Engineering : Bruce F. Webster

The Arc of Engineering : Bruce F. Webster — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:22:53 +0000

[...] by not supporting binary (and to a certain extent source) backwards compatibility in Windows 7 but instead using virtualization technology (switching to a backwards-compatible OS) for older [...]

By: Ryan Northrup

Ryan Northrup — Sun, 11 May 2008 23:19:28 +0000

Is this "virtualization" the same as installing a Virtual PC, or are my definitions of virtualization mixed up a bit? If my definition is right, then in order to run older applications, a user would have to dig out an older version of Windows, install it on Microsoft Virtual PC (which would presumably be included if this is the virtualization being described), and then fiddle around with ripping CD's into .iso's and installing all of the old software on the virtual computer.

Or, Windows could use a menu similar to that of Windows XP's Compatibility Mode, where the user goes into Properties, selects "Compatibility", chooses the application's target version of Windows, clicks on "Apply", and runs the program. If the normal DLL's can't support the software, then older ones are downloaded online as soon as they're first needed.

By: Ryan Northrup

Ryan Northrup — Sun, 11 May 2008 23:19:00 +0000

Is this “virtualization” the same as installing a Virtual PC, or are my definitions of virtualization mixed up a bit? If my definition is right, then in order to run older applications, a user would have to dig out an older version of Windows, install it on Microsoft Virtual PC (which would presumably be included if this is the virtualization being described), and then fiddle around with ripping CD’s into .iso’s and installing all of the old software on the virtual computer.

Or, Windows could use a menu similar to that of Windows XP’s Compatibility Mode, where the user goes into Properties, selects “Compatibility”, chooses the application’s target version of Windows, clicks on “Apply”, and runs the program. If the normal DLL’s can’t support the software, then older ones are downloaded online as soon as they’re first needed.

By: Kay Tannee

Kay Tannee — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:43:49 +0000

I hope no one listens to the guy before you, because he's obviously just advertising. And secondly. The whole point of this article is about cutting down the footprint of windows and making it more streamlined.

Ie, making it at its core less resource intensive and less memory dependant.

By: Kay Tannee

Kay Tannee — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:43:00 +0000

I hope no one listens to the guy before you, because he’s obviously just advertising. And secondly. The whole point of this article is about cutting down the footprint of windows and making it more streamlined.

Ie, making it at its core less resource intensive and less memory dependant.

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:40:58 +0000

I hope no one listens to the person before me….. an OS in development means bad idea to buy for it untill its here…. i.e. see ‘vista compatible’ complaints everywhere. P.O.S. systems with no ram and then BAM! your computer doesnt run vista worth a …. after release. Its true this OS will probably need a required system of more than vista, but maybe not… Technology is funny like that.

So worry about prices about oooooh, summer 2010 if they are lucky.

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:40:00 +0000

So worry about prices about oooooh, summer 2010 if they are lucky.

By: Ared

Ared — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:57:17 +0000

I hope so!!

By: Ared

Ared — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:57:00 +0000

I hope so!!

By: newsguy

newsguy — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:48:20 +0000

Ive got some news for you guys

Microsoft is developing silverlight, to cover all of the jobs that they had used to require direct x to do in the new user interface

By: newsguy

newsguy — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:48:00 +0000

Ive got some news for you guys

Microsoft is developing silverlight, to cover all of the jobs that they had used to require direct x to do in the new user interface