The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Start-up boost planned for Windows Vista applications

Pierre

Backward compatible? 

Posted Thursday 28th February 2008 21:33 GMT

From Microsoft? I must be dreaming here.

Karl Lattimer

I wonder... 

Posted Thursday 28th February 2008 21:33 GMT

How much Microsoft have learned from the mono project...

Jon Hulatt

WPF 

Posted Thursday 28th February 2008 21:44 GMT

er... WPF was Windows Presentation Foundation last time I looked. And Extensible Application Markup Language was also known as XAML.

Sort your QA out, Reg

Craig Foster

Too Late 

Posted Friday 29th February 2008 06:59 GMT

Flame

An update to .Net is too late for me...

.Net corrupted on my Vista Ultimate. Various MS blogs and articles suggested ngen updates, sfc /scannow, etc with a last resort of reinstalling.

I'm sure reinstalling will fix it, but as far as I'm concerned... it's WinXP TCP/IP stack all over again. If it munts the system that badly, a reinstall from scratch is the only real real fix since Vista installs .NET as built-in components. I've even tried installing SP1 (from TechNet)

That said, my machine now runs WinXP Pro again and I'll reconsider Vista only if I get desperate.

Rick Damiani

Backward Compatable... 

Posted Friday 29th February 2008 06:59 GMT

...must mean that it will be able to exist side-by-side with the 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 .NET frameworks. I mean, the idea that a newer version might possibly *replace* an older version is just too absurd to contemplate.

Anonymous Coward

So what this means: 

Posted Friday 29th February 2008 09:35 GMT

Gates Horns

"the updates will make it quicker and easier for applications to be installed and started by users without changing an application's code and *without re-compiling the application.*" (my emphasis)

is basically that Microsoft admit that their own programming is crap and they can finally be bothered to fix some of it...

TeeCee

@Pierre 

Posted Friday 29th February 2008 09:35 GMT

If it were not for MS's addiction to backwards-compatibility, world + dog would probably be running some derivative of OS/2 and the x86 architecture would be dead, buried, resurrected in the hereafter and sitting on the right hand of Bill by now.

This is the company that sold DOS-with-a-GUI-front-end for several years, just so that in extremis you could drop the GUI and run your ill-behaved POS DOS program natively.

Don't act surprised that they're providing back-compatibility. Then again, don't act surprised when it doesn't work either.....

David S

@TeeCee 

Posted Friday 29th February 2008 12:53 GMT

Linux

"This is the company that sold DOS-with-a-GUI-front-end for several years, just so that in extremis you could drop the GUI and run your ill-behaved POS DOS program natively."

Was that the only reason? Purely for backwards-compatability? Not just 'cos it was considerably easier (and cheaper, presumably) to run Windows as a POS GUI on top of the POS OS?

Don't get me wrong, though. Some of the best OSs have been / are GUIs on top of CLIs, but I have to say I'm not sure Windows was ever among the truly great or good...