InformAction Forums

If you want to know that it runs on Vista/7, then the answer is yes. Despite whether a program is specifically designed for Vista/7 or not, if its certified to run on XP, it will run on those two as well. The worst case scenario is running it in XP compatibility mode which is a great feature built-in to accommodate poorly written legacy software that are not intended to run on newer machines without sacrificing their functionality.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:If you want to know that it runs on Vista/7, then the answer is yes. Despite whether a program is specifically designed for Vista/7 or not, if its certified to run on XP, it will run on those two as well. The worst case scenario is running it in XP compatibility mode which is a great feature built-in to accommodate poorly written legacy software that are not intended to run on newer machines without sacrificing their functionality.

Thanks for that. I understood Win 7 to have a specific "XP mode", but didn't know if Vista did. Give credit where it's due, MS does try hard to maintain back-compatibility.

You'd think the dev would note this, or borrow a machine somewhere and test on each...

What Guardian was talking about is what XP also has, where the OS tried to imitate older OS versions to some degree.

Yes, for all their fault, MS always does a good job with backward compatibility. And yes dhouwn, even in XP, beginning with 95 actually, they had backwards compatibility for 16-bit legacy as well, but it was less obvious as it did it automatically and the core libraries in 32 bit were also built with 16 bit assembly codes as well, so it was "transparent" if you will, but now they give actual option to ensure that you know, what Tom alluded to, whether your stuff ACTUALLY works or is being accommodated. As a developer, I find the latter more geared towards quality assurance and better testing practices, while the previous model was geared more towards, lets make it easy on the user to transition and not confuse them, the approach Apple/Mac is taking, even to this day. Basically that they know better and you should behave as they want you and not as YOU want, hence why people call it more "user friendly" because its idiot proofed based on what Apple considered to be best practice, while Microsoft for all its fault will allow you to hack and tweak the hell out of it to make it do what YOU want, now you break it, that's your own fault and responsibility.

dhouwn wrote:What Guardian was talking about is what XP also has, where the OS tried to imitate older OS versions to some degree.

There is a %windir%\system folder, separate from system32, which contained libraries for running 16-bit apps. And a "compatibility mode" option also.
But that is not the same as the dev saying, "I've tested this under many circumstances, and it runs well on OS's A, B, C, and D."

Correct, that's for lazy devs. I personally have a VM for EVERY single version that I claim my program works with and I run the application in EACH clean environment to ensure that it runs as expected before certifying it compatible with x,y,z,etc. That's just good developing, but not all follow that, most are lazy, they figure, ok works on Vista, so it will work on XP, works on 7 or will work on Vista and XP and they certify it across the board and its like, are you f-ing nuts? Some libraries, depending on how you built it, won't necessarily be there. Anyway, I can go on forever on this subject so I am going to drop it.