|
|
|
iTunes has problems with Vista
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 3 February, 2007
If you are an iPod owner and plan to upgrade to Microsoft's latest operating system, Windows Vista, Apple Computer Inc. suggests you think otherwise due to some issues the iTunes software has with the new OS. Several report shave been coming in from users that mainly deal with problems playing purchased music, purchased TV shows, synchronizing address book contacts and slow response times.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. February 2007 @ 12:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
The only programs that worked on my new XP machine was MusicMatch jukebox. My scanner, camera,mp3player and the rest of my programs nothing worked. It was the worst 30days transferring everything and replacing programs and finding new compatible drivers etc. I never hear Mac users complaining. I have not had a Mac, so assumed they were compatible. Obviously I was wrong.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Newbie
|
6. February 2007 @ 13:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I'm no code writer, TG. But I am networking/systems etc. From my understanding of code, there is a general foundation to build on. From there it's building step by step using logic. Many companies don't follow this but many do. I'll have to go back and get the stats but there are a lot of incompatabilities w/Vista with software that does follow this model.
Hi Chief
For smaller programs...yes, and I suppose there's even a base for large ones like an OS..the kernel, but there's a big difference.
There are so many 1000's of interactions in a complex OS that it's basically impossible to run a "Step Logic" system. It would create far too much bloat (which we have anyway ;) ) and simply couldn't be feasible.
People want their computers to be able to do "Everything" basically, and it's because of that we have such a humongously complex (and ultimately confusing for most), whopping chunk of code called XP or Vista....even Mac OS X too for that matter. You simply can't apply the same technique to build an OS as you do for even a large program, there's way too many other things happening. I wrote my first program in 1975 on "Punch Cards" for an IBM computer that was almost twice as big as my GMC 4x4 is, so I know a bit about code. It took 10,000 steps (cards) to make a simple program to tell the computer to make a poster using ASCII characters...imagine how many "steps" it would take to make a functional browser, then interact with your email client and top it off with popup and ad blockers, activeX, Flash...etc.
Over the years different folks made different protocols for emerging technologies and everyone wanted theirs to be the standard one. Some protocols were given to a governing authority and somewhat standardized, such as IP protocol and such, but others continued doing things their own way. Take CD and DVD for instance and the +/- format wars..
Eventually tho, everybody wants an OS that can do it all and for that they have to allow for many different things to have many differing standards...that alone builds in the vulnerability risks.
I could go on & on (I already have I guess..heheh) about why it's impossible to build perfect systems nowadays, but it's fairly common knowledge for s'ware engineers and I don't need to rehash it here.
Anyway, I'm not expousing MS as the OS to use, nor trying to discredit Mac OS, I'm simply trying to get across the fact that to build a perfectly safe & secure, fully functioning, totally compatible, easy to use, point & click OS today, is a pipe dream. I think the "Holy Grail" will be found before that ever happens.
My fingers hurt....I need a Beer
|
Newbie
|
6. February 2007 @ 16:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi garmoon
Yah, Vista is a rather large leap for many programs and existing hardware. I Beta tested Longhorn/Vista and while the original plan had many new & innovative ideas, many of my favorites had to be dropped due to the time constraint of getting it stable in time for Public Release Candidate. I certainly hope MS continues to iron out the new file system they had planned back in Longhorn days, that will prove to be a major security improvement.
Personally, I'm sticking with a stable and well tested XP Pro platform for now, partly because of the heavy system requirements for Vista but mostly because XP is nicely matured, well supported by programs and very stable. As "ripxrush" above has pointed out, Vista is still having stability issues whereas XP has proven itself as the MOST stable platform MS has ever built.
No doubt that Mac's are fantastic OS's and Apple makes one frikkin GORGEOUS Machine!!! Man they're sleek and good lookin, sexy as all hell, and I thoroughly enjoy helping my neices on their Mac's as they're exceptionally user friendly for audio/visual and just plain foolin around fun. But I have to laugh when I listen to Mac users who think they have no worries about Virus or hackers and stuff like that...they'll be in for a big shocker soon. Macs are getting very popular and I know for a fact that mainstream hackers are taking a hard look at them now, so it won't be long.
A cruise thru any established hacker IRC channel will tell you that Mac users and their "worry free" glory days are soon to part company.
K...I've written enough here already. I feel like I've written another tutorial or sumthin...
You guys please Take Care, it's been a slice and I hope I've helped to dispell a myth or two here, there's too many of them around that should've died years ago.
|
Member
1 product review
|
6. February 2007 @ 18:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, as time has told before, like it or not Vista is here to stay. I was happy as can be with my TRS-80 back in the day and was very weary of any of the new technologies. I loved DOS 6.22, and didn't even want to look at Windows 3.11, but as time wore on, I got used to that as well as Win 95 and 98. XP has some nifty things in it compared to DOS 6.22 that really simplifies all of the things I use my PC for. I guess that I'll just have to poke around under the hood and play with Vista until I get used to it.
|
Junior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 03:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
[quote]I'm no code writer, TG. But I am networking/systems etc. From my understanding of code, there is a general foundation to build on. From there it's building step by step using logic. Many companies don't follow this but many do. I'll have to go back and get the stats but there are a lot of incompatabilities w/Vista with software that does follow this model.
Hi Chief
For smaller programs...yes, and I suppose there's even a base for large ones like an OS..the kernel, but there's a big difference.
There are so many 1000's of interactions in a complex OS that it's basically impossible to run a "Step Logic" system. It would create far too much bloat (which we have anyway ;) ) and simply couldn't be feasible.
People want their computers to be able to do "Everything" basically, and it's because of that we have such a humongously complex (and ultimately confusing for most), whopping chunk of code called XP or Vista....even Mac OS X too for that matter. You simply can't apply the same technique to build an OS as you do for even a large program, there's way too many other things happening. I wrote my first program in 1975 on "Punch Cards" for an IBM computer that was almost twice as big as my GMC 4x4 is, so I know a bit about code. It took 10,000 steps (cards) to make a simple program to tell the computer to make a poster using ASCII characters...imagine how many "steps" it would take to make a functional browser, then interact with your email client and top it off with popup and ad blockers, activeX, Flash...etc.
Over the years different folks made different protocols for emerging technologies and everyone wanted theirs to be the standard one. Some protocols were given to a governing authority and somewhat standardized, such as IP protocol and such, but others continued doing things their own way. Take CD and DVD for instance and the +/- format wars..
Eventually tho, everybody wants an OS that can do it all and for that they have to allow for many different things to have many differing standards...that alone builds in the vulnerability risks.
I could go on & on (I already have I guess..heheh) about why it's impossible to build perfect systems nowadays, but it's fairly common knowledge for s'ware engineers and I don't need to rehash it here.
Anyway, I'm not expousing MS as the OS to use, nor trying to discredit Mac OS, I'm simply trying to get across the fact that to build a perfectly safe & secure, fully functioning, totally compatible, easy to use, point & click OS today, is a pipe dream. I think the "Holy Grail" will be found before that ever happens.
My fingers hurt....I need a Beer[/quote]I guess when you really think about it, it's amazing a computer even boots up. Zillions of code lines, multiple hardware pieces and peripherals, all w/different firmware and drivers. Hundreds of DLL's flying around. Hundreds of ports opening and closing, numerous protocols, GPO's, firewall rules, spyware protectors, virus scanners, resource intensive games and apps, wireless considerations, and a million other 3rd party apps w/G-D knows whats in em. IF that isn't enough, this poor box is getting bombarded daily by hackers, phishers, scanners, scammers, viruses, email bombs, and old Glen Campbell records. And yet, despite all of this, it all works (relatively speaking.) It really is a remarkable thing.
But here's what I don't understand. iTunes for example worked w/XP. It doesn't work w/Vista. Why did MS take away that 'core?' Did they have to, to make Vista? Is Vista built on a completely new foundation?
|
Junior Member
|
7. February 2007 @ 03:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Unfocused:
Well, as time has told before, like it or not Vista is here to stay. I was happy as can be with my TRS-80 back in the day and was very weary of any of the new technologies. I loved DOS 6.22, and didn't even want to look at Windows 3.11, but as time wore on, I got used to that as well as Win 95 and 98. XP has some nifty things in it compared to DOS 6.22 that really simplifies all of the things I use my PC for. I guess that I'll just have to poke around under the hood and play with Vista until I get used to it.
Ya know, you really hit the nail on the head. Bottom line, in a year or so, Vista will be the new XP in popularity. Might as well get used to it now. I'm still going to wait for SP1 though. Just too many incompatabilites right now, at least for me. I use a lot of small company proprietary SW for certain things I do.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
mr_dre2u
Newbie
|
10. February 2007 @ 05:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by garmoon:
Now it begins; the long sequences of patches to fix the next best operating system that doesn't live up to its expectations. And they want $400 for this POS in its glorious edition. Microsh*t keeps you hopping.
You think that's a BAD thing?
Try building something as massively complex as Vista is and see if you can make it 1005 perfect first try...
I think a company that DOESN'T issue patches for it's s'ware is far worse than one who does try to keep up with new vulnerabilities. Todays OS's are far too complex to expect them to be flaw free. Most flaws are completely UNKNOWN until someone gets tinkering with things, so just how do you expect them to fix flaws they don't even know exist??
People who make this type of comment are completely unaware of how difficult it is to write complex code in todays computer world. Frankly, if it weren't for MS, we'd still be working with antiquated GUI's and machines where you have to load drivers, mount drives, and use command line to get things to work. MS has pioneered the modern computer that your grandma & kids can use, which is only what everyone wanted in the first place.
Everyone screamed that "This needs to be easier, and That needs to be automatic, and it needs to work with Everything I can think of" so when a company tries to do exactly that, they get jumped on for building this complex, interactive s'ware with a few errors in it.
Give it a try and see if you can do better...
Perhaps... but I think MS puts its foot in its mouth with their release model. Releasing all new OSs every few years puts unnecessary pressure on their programmers and other hardworking employees, and all for a little increased revenue? MS should consider a more Apple solution, where in they just release little updates at strategic intervals...
|
|
