Post I.T. - Washington Post Technology Blog Frank Ahrens Sara Goo Sam Diaz Mike Musgrove Alan Sipress Yuki Noguchi Post I.T.
Tech Podcast
The Bloggers
Subscribe to this Blog

Apple's Advisory - Part II

WOW. I think that last posting, the one about Apple's advisory against upgrading to Windows Vista, hit a nerve. Thanks so much for your input. I'm thrilled that so many of you are reading the blog.

A couple of quick thoughts, if I may:

I use both Windows and Mac OS X. At work, like many of you, I use the company-issued machine - a Windows PC. But at home, I'm more of a Mac guy. Sure, I have a Windows PC at home but tend to spend more time with my Macs

My posting from this morning was never intended to be a jab at Apple's or Microsoft's development teams. Apple was absolutely right to issue a warning where so many other third-party software companies didn't. It just seemed heavyhanded of Apple to tell consumers not to buy a Windows Vista machine because iTunes might not work on it. Instead, it should have simply warned users that they might run into problems with iTunes on a Vista machine for a few more weeks.

I edited Rob Pegoraro's Fast Forward review of Vista last week and repeated his advice to wait on a Vista upgrade on Washington Post Radio.

A new PC with Vista pre-installed is the way to go, according to Pegoraro. The upgrades require video cards, hard drives and lots of memory. Besides, the first version of anything is bound to have some bugs. My point is: By the time Vista is really ready for prime time, Apple will likely have worked out the iTunes bugs.

Hope that helps.

By Sam Diaz  |  February 5, 2007; 6:34 PM ET  | Category:  Sam Diaz
Previous: Apple knows how to use the news | Next: RIP LifeDrive


Add Post I.T. to Your Site
Stay on top of the latest Post I.T. news! This easy-to-use widget is simple to add to your own Web site and will update every time there's a new installment of Post I.T.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



The thing is, this isnt the first version of Vista. This is the first for-sale version, but how long has this product been in beta now?

How many people have had their hands on it, testing it, submitting issues back to MS about it?

Besides the fact that it is preposterous to have to overhaul a computer system to use what is essentially a service pack to a 5+ year old OS with a glitzy theme, most of the bugs should have been worked out BEFORE selling date, since it wasn't being developed/tested in a vacuum.

Posted by: marx2k | February 5, 2007 8:07 PM

mark, i agree. i guess its up to microsoft if they want to support itunes. if they won't, then they're making a big mistake

Posted by: mozart | February 5, 2007 8:12 PM

The best advice for anyone thinking of getting Vista:

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/915.html

Simple really.

Posted by: TTzz | February 5, 2007 8:13 PM

"mark, i agree. i guess its up to microsoft if they want to support itunes. if they won't, then they're making a big mistake

Posted by: mozart | February 5, 2007 08:12 PM"

So, I guess that Apple has no responsibility here? As others said, this isn't the first version of Vista to be available to developers. So why didn't Apple get off their haunches weeks ago and make sure that one of their flagship products actually worked with a new OS?
Sure, there are many programs and apps that don't work with Vista. But there are a lot of ones that do. That doesn't happen by accident. It takes planning.

Posted by: Jason | February 5, 2007 8:16 PM

Who's responsiblilty is it to make sure there software works with an OS, especially a New OS?
I think is it the software Vendors, not the OS Maker? Quit blaming microsoft for Apples lack of development on this, Vista has been out and available for developers to make there apps work for along time. This is all but Apples problem!

Posted by: suge | February 5, 2007 8:18 PM

this is interesting. i never once thought about upgrading to vista. why? because windows XP pro with SP1 works perfectly fine on my computer. but i guess there are people out there clamoring for the new OS, even though they have 6 year old computers? speaking of which, my computer is 6 years old and doesn't require any sort of "massive surgery" to upgarde to windows vista. in fact, i think i inadvertantly did that a month ago when i spent $200 upgrading the video card (replacing one which had busted) and adding more ram.

Posted by: ill | February 5, 2007 8:19 PM

Marx2k,

to be fair you never see any issues with a product unti, you start selling it to the general public because you can never generate the same kind of abuse, misuse, worn and tear the consumer can generate. Testing with 10,000 people and getting a probability of 0.001% errors changes when you release to general public of 100 million now you will see 10,000 errors being tracked. This is the same for pharmaceutical industry and good example to use.

I use MAC but I do understand the process of product development and if you tried to iron out all the issues, you would never release a product, reason for service packs or upgrades. btw both Mac and Win issue service packs..:--))

Posted by: souliisoul | February 5, 2007 8:20 PM

And let's not forget. The Business version of Vista was actually released last November. If Apple was waiting for a final release to test with, they've had 2 months. Apple is just using this as a way to make Microsoft look bad, when it is really their fault for not providing an update for their software that works correctly with Vista.

Posted by: Siege24 | February 5, 2007 8:24 PM

eithr apple have been true to form and taken the highground.. and completely ignored vista's development...... from how they dealt with the virus' on i-pod's this is likely...... or microsoft has failed to pass on commercially sensitive information to 3rd party vendors as they have with anti-virus vendors....

either way, macintosh are just as bad as microsoft... if not worse as they have a tendancy to bury their head in the sand. Either way mac users and manufacturers should get off their high horses.

what do I use?? what works for me... not a brand name!

Posted by: kosh | February 5, 2007 8:25 PM

Dear All,

I just read the pervious column to this and it makes me laugh that Apple should have this problem resolved, since MS could not resolve the same problem for Zune player.

Hey Suge please let me know who problem is it now..LOL

Anyway I hope MS new OS his a success, since it will just prove how good OSX is (your scratching your head about now)..since Vista is a cheap ripoff.

:--)))

Posted by: Souliisoul | February 5, 2007 8:28 PM

umm, the problem is that MANY mp3 s/w is not working with Vista.

Check this out http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200702/200702060016.html

When has Microsoft EVER gotten it right with a new OS? Where exactly did the rule of thumb regarding odd vs even versions come from if not from exactly that?

Posted by: Let's be real here | February 5, 2007 8:29 PM

Apparently, a number of Korean MP3 player manufacturers are having the same problems as Apple. They are now upgrading their MP3 software as well. Apple is not the only one, which makes you think where the problem really is.

Posted by: jr | February 5, 2007 8:41 PM

nVidea users are threatening to sue nVidea because of their slow or no response on getting new drivers out the door to support Vista.

Vista has been in development for a long time. The SDKs for Vista were released a long time ago. ATI has a driver for Vista, so do Creative Labs for their soundcards, so do the people who make my monitor and my router.

Perhaps Apple should focus more on supporting their customers than on making "cool" commercials...or on backdating stock options.

Posted by: Mark E | February 5, 2007 8:41 PM

I have been using Vista RC1 for a few months now. I noticed that all Creative MP3 players that I tested worked fine. Now Creative has the new drives for the players and they work better.

--
Pat

Posted by: Pat | February 5, 2007 8:45 PM

its apples job to make sure their software works with vista. itunes and quicktime always take over a system no matter what boxes you tick. i'm not surprise it has problems with vista given it behaves like spyware. all apples fault

Posted by: jerg | February 5, 2007 8:49 PM

Just because Vista has been released to consumers doesn't mean it's ready for prime time. Hell, XP is just barely ready for prime time now. I for one would wait until at least SP1 to get a new microsoft product.

Posted by: asdf | February 5, 2007 8:57 PM

It's is curious that most people are more concerned about wether or note iTunes will work for them, and who to blame. Than the rather insane product offering that has arrived with the release of Windows Vista.

Here in Australia, Vista retails from $230 ro $750 depending on the release variant you want. Now don't get me wrong, but one or two ticks on a product matrix is hardly worth an extra $250. The offerings are restrictive and for someone wanting a decent OS that isn't cut down, hoping to experiance the new look/style you're essentially forced to purchase the top (most expensive) product.

As for Apple and iTunes, MS has a history of producing OSes that mysteriously fail to support a well used application, in a lame attempt to hope to convert a few users over to the MS offering. For example, if you recall some time ago when Lotus 123 and DOS-6 had similar issues.

I find it very curious that you can produce an operating system that continues to provide backwards compatibility for 90/95% of the Windows applications out there, yet specificially targeted apps that compete with MS's own music apps have issues. This isn't accidental on MS's part.

iTunes is nothing special, it doesn't go out of it's way using specialised code to do anything funky. It's just a program, and yet mysteriously doesn't work. How is this apples fault? Sure Apple will have to fix it, but any software vendor forced into this situation deserves the opportunity to try and convert a few users to their platform (OSX/mac) where they won't have to deal with this kind of crap int he future.

I think people need to take a serious look at where MS is taking their offering, and consider if they really want to do things the MS way, or if they're rather just have a product that works.

Posted by: Andrew W | February 5, 2007 8:57 PM

Whoa there...Apple's had PLENTY o' time to get its iTunes to work with Vista. Fact is Apple is just being an elementary school snob. Whine whine whine.

Posted by: Jones | February 5, 2007 9:02 PM

BooHoohoo to Apple, Now start giving money away to charities like Gates and crew does and we'll call it even!

==
Steve Jobs is really Ignignokt, the Mooninite, and was over heard saying:

"Here on the moon, our weekends are so advanced, they encompass the entire week." -Ignignokt
==

Posted by: Scott | February 5, 2007 9:03 PM

I am always stunned how incompetent and blindly loyal Mac people are. If you really find using a PC so difficult that you would buy an overpriced technically inferior machine that assumes you are a retard (rightly so, or not), why do you talk like you're computer experts?

Prerelease versions of Vista have been issued by Microsoft throughout its long development cycle for the purpose of helping third parties fix incompatabilities with old software and use the new technologies offered before the OS hit the market. This has been going on steadily since the OS was codenamed "Longhorn."

As such, there are two possible explanations for the iTunes incompatability:
1) Apple developers are so inept that they didn't bother to try and fix their most popular software even with months of time before Vista was released. (no, MS is not withholding crucial information - it's all publically available and they have newsgroups to help developers). NOT LIKELY
2) Apple chose not to fix iTunes, because they could cast Vista as a buggy OS that is incompatabile with common applications to the unknowing masses in order to promote their own computers.

Wake up. Apple is the sleaziest company in the computer industry whose business model is based on taking advantage of people who don't know any better.

Posted by: somedude | February 5, 2007 9:12 PM

Andrew, you are mistaken. The entire audio subsystem in Vista has been rewritten, and actually I know that Apple is messing with things they shouldn't have been messing with in the first place, just as they do with Quicktime. It isn't the responsibility of the OS vendor to make every pre-existing application work on a new OS, it's the responsibility of the application vendor to test during the beta phase to ensure their product works. Apple clearly failed in this regard.

Posted by: Kevin S | February 5, 2007 9:13 PM

Apple is right
MS is wrong
Period

Posted by: whoever | February 5, 2007 9:28 PM

They're both at fault and they are both playing the PR game right now with good effect. After all, arenbt we thinking and writing and reading the wealth of media coverage on this and every issue apple or microsoft.
MS probably did make vista incompatible with Itunes. they probably think it will pull some folks to the zune. in actuality, it probably wont but why not try.
Apple probably didnt make Itunes compatible with vista. I mean if your commercials say that Vista and Windows are complicated and hard to use then why not create an artificial example of why.
Whether your loyal to one or the other, dont kid yourself into thinking that they arent both doing the same thing. I use PC's at work and a Mac at home and I do have some loyalty to one of those (not gonna tell you which). But at the same time I very clearly understand that the differences between the two are relatively minor and neither Microsoft or Apple is really that much better of a company of software developer than the other. The only real true difference to the average computer buyer, and that is who they are targeting, not you experts, is the marketing. Apple markets a little better than Microsoft. Both of them realize that importance of locking a person on to their brand and stoking the loyalty and hate of the other brand. It's like pepsi vs coke, no real difference just marketing.
so in closing what am I saying? Who really cares about who is responsible for this because they both are. All they really want is for us, the consumer/sheep to sit there, pick sides, and debate it to the death.

Posted by: Me | February 5, 2007 9:30 PM

You also have to take into account the bell-curve of software buying. Historically, once a major software update or product is released there are a few people who jump on the bandwagon but most users (perpetual intermedeates) will get the upgrade when they feel the need to get a new computer or until they see that vista is worth buying and then there are the stalwarts that will just refuse to upgrade until they have no choice. Apple knows that. They have a few months until the majority of people start moving over to vista so they don't feel the need to rush things. I have also heard from my friend that just got a new computer with vista on it that vista is very buggy and he actually just bought a copy of XP and went through a major ordeal to install it. Vista is not ready and Apple still has time to work on iTunes until they start hearing complaints from a lot of their users.

Posted by: person10104 | February 5, 2007 9:51 PM

All of the comments on upgrade this, upgrade that is utter hogwash.
I am running Vista on a T40 Thinkpad with the glitzy graphics turned off.
Compared to one running XP, the Vista so far has been a much better experience.

Upgrade if you need, or really want the graphics.

As for items like iTunes, I consider this a case of Apple dropping the ball. I use an iPod.

Posted by: Rhonin | February 5, 2007 9:56 PM

The problem with iTunes is recent. I experienced no problems whatsoever with iTunes for Vista previously.

Posted by: Kerrigan | February 5, 2007 9:57 PM

I'm still using Release Candidate 2 of Vista, a version not to far off from the final. Its actually the full Windows Ultimate. I'm not too happy with performance of it, network connection just seems slower on Vista than XP, and there's too many bugs with installing or running applications, and the whole Administrator approval to run certain apps is annoyance.

I'll be sticking with WinXP MCE in the meantime. I've also played with Mac OSX86 a bit, overall XP is still the best OS right now.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 10:00 PM

To All PC Users:
Get a Mac and be happy!!!
(Life's better over here)

Posted by: Was-A-PC-User | February 5, 2007 10:01 PM

Why bother ?

You could upgrade to Linux and use gtkpod instead.

http://www.gtkpod.org/screenshots.html

Posted by: Linux user | February 5, 2007 10:02 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do Beleive that there is a Mac and a PC version of itunes. Now it seems that Apple does something that Microcsoft never seems to pull off. It Updates the Mac and PC version of the software at the SAME time. Now Apple announced that AppleTV will require 7.1 so it seems logical that it will be released sometime before the end of feb. Maybe Just Maybe apple does not want the PC itunes to be on version 7.0X and the MAC version to be on 7.0Y so maybe just maybe apple wants to release 7.1 at the SAME time. Of course my logic is flawed so I'm sure people want apple to relase 7.03 to fix the Vista problem then in 2-3 weeks relasese 7.1 to make it appleTV compatible.

Posted by: anon | February 5, 2007 10:03 PM

Vista is yet another reason that common man (not techie man) is migrating to the Mac. With Mac OS X you get an OS, not twelve options as to which OS you want. The mainstream doesn't know and frankly doesn't care which one to buy - they want one simple thing - for the dang thing to work.

Windows may be embedded in the Corporate world, but there are many large companies exploring ways to rid themselves of Microsoft. Apple may not be the answer for corporations, but it seems the common man has begun the migration - just check any Apple store on the weekend.

Posted by: Interesting | February 5, 2007 10:03 PM

Who needs another Windows operating system? I'll stick with v5.0 (Win2000). If Bill needs a new boat, he'll have to get money from someone else.

Posted by: OldGuy | February 5, 2007 10:04 PM

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Even as a PC user I won't touch a new version of MS OS until its been out at least 6 months. Enough said.

Posted by: Robert | February 5, 2007 10:14 PM

I am amused at all the Windows fanboi commentary of "Apple's fault" Vista was in beta long enough for Apple to fix it.
This argument just doesn't hold water - beta is when the code base changes. It's a moving target. And don't give me this crap about MS not makig it happen - just look at the old records of what they've aways been up to.

And is this why nearly 90% of the games are working or why a host of peripherals don't work and drivers aren't ready yet? Sure it is. And I've got a nice big bridge in Brooklyn I'd love to sell to you fanbois. If you can get your heads out of the dark long enough to look...

Posted by: Amused | February 5, 2007 10:16 PM

iTunes and Vista?! Apple hasn't even fixed all the bugs with iTunes and its own iPod software! How can they possibly have time to worry about Vista when they are still busy ignoring iPod users on the previous platforms?!

Posted by: A. Noni Mus | February 5, 2007 10:18 PM

Why don't Microsoft just launch the MPod and get it over with. I wonder how many people were ripped off by Microsoft with the latest OS? I'm looking forward to seeing the news about the latest viruses and 250 gig patches lol. Ah here we go again.

Signed
Disgruntled ex Microsoft employee.

P.S.
I use Mac and Linux ;)

Posted by: Com Wedge | February 5, 2007 10:43 PM

I have a vista partition on a macbook pro and had no problem installing itunes.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 5, 2007 11:05 PM

It's the same all good story. MS uniFied everything as usual. We need more of this more of that, we got to change this and that in our home PCs. It's not the 90's when the tricks would always go trough. People are sick of this. At home I use MACs, I have company laptop with Win on it and I use it only for emails.
Until people start using more and more free source code software (as it comes) this won't stop. It's frustrating when MS always does this.

Regards,

I'm waiting for MS Vista SP2... patiently

Posted by: pix | February 5, 2007 11:08 PM

Again, Vista in Beta is not the same as Vista in the wild. Most people do NOT have issues with iTunes on Vista. For most people, it works ok. But now that there are a lot more people with a lot more varied configurations trying this out, some are running into problems and Apple has wisely told people who use iTunes to wait since they cannot guarantee that YOU won't be one of the people who have the problem. I believe they have also released a utility to help fix the problem. This is not deliberate on Apple's part and they probably didn't drop the ball -- they probably ran a bunch of tests on some test Vista machines and had no issues. Lots of problems first surface once a piece of SW hits the customer.

Adobe and MS still have no provided intel versions of their Mac OS X software (Photoshop and its suite and MS Office) and OS X on intel has been in the wild for almost a year now. That is a lot more rdiculous than Apple finding (like many other SW vendors) a problem and advising people to wait for a fix, which has to be coded, tested, etc and then go through a release cycle.

Posted by: chadbag | February 5, 2007 11:09 PM

Both company's do things to one up or degrade the look of the other. Wake up its called Marketing you know the stuff they design on Mac's and then put on the TV where you learn so very much from.

It is also astonishing how many people argue something they know so little about. own both platforms then pose your opinion. I own and use a variety of OS's they each have their strong points and weaknesses, some more than others. I personally don't want an OS that restricts things that no other OS on the planet does and cost so much more.

MAC VS VISTA to me there is no debate to be had to run the full gambit of what Microshaft considers pluses you better be running a top end machine. your 6 year old pc will run it like a 133 MHz pc runs XP it might go on but will run like crap. Technically savvy people tend to Migrate towards Platforms with proven stability and a track record for doing things right the first time.

It also strikes me odd that the people boohooing are the the same ones when there WOW game gets broke on the new service Pack are the Same ones cursing Microshaft.
Now we could get really technical and run down every Pro and Con there is for each Platform, but in the end the decision is still in the consumers hand, What are they comfortable with, what do they need in an OS what kind of Scalability do they require.

I personally see the best of all worlds in the MAC as you may have noticed but then I use A Mac, a Windows box, and Several Linux distros daily. An I would personally never expect a competing product to support my program and or architecture. Microsoft took a bold move leaving out what where to be its calling cards for Vista, and well rushing to meet a deadline but thats nothing new for Microsoft is it. This is why Mac users are so die hard Mac puts out a solid well tested product before soiling there name. Microsoft figures well fix it later, and that will be there demise. And think of this when Mac finally releases an OS for the X86 architecture you can throw on just about any decent box are you gonna really spend 750 or more plus upgrades on the Microsoft Nightmare.

Posted by: Protocol | February 5, 2007 11:11 PM

FFS what is this with the "500 versions of Vista". For you home users there is 2.

Home Premium if you want the media center functionality. Home Basic if you dont.

If you are at all confused about the other editions then They Are Not For You.

Posted by: phx | February 5, 2007 11:18 PM

Given the fact that Vista is a complete rip-off of OSX, installing the Mac version of iTunes should rectify any compatibility issues. ;)

Posted by: Tom | February 5, 2007 11:23 PM

Apparently everyone posting here hasn't had an iPod long enough to remember that Apple didn't release a Windows version of iTunes for a LONG TIME (I think 2003) after its release for Mac OS (9, then OS X).

That it surprises anyone that Apple isn't embracing Windows operability shouldn't come as a surprise. That they're even thinking about it so SOON after the release of a new MS OS is what amazes me (and it certainly underscores the new direction of Apple, Inc. as opposed to Apple Computer, Inc.)

Posted by: Apple is just following their usual game plan... | February 5, 2007 11:24 PM

Silly penguin lovers, Macs are for hacks.

I've been running Vista for about two weeks now and I haven't been this into my PC since Dos 6.22.

Why do I like Vista? It's blazing fast on my modern machine, WAY more reliable then OSX ever was. ...Oh yeah, and it runs all my Windows applications. Big bonus.

I love all the whinnying I've been hearing from the fruit crowd. It just proves all Apple users are immature little snatches.

...Oh, and one last knock; Bill is twice the man Jobs could ever dream of being. Jobs is a jerk.

Posted by: anti_penguin | February 5, 2007 11:30 PM

Diaz looks like he needs to pinch a loaf in his photo.

Posted by: anti_penguin_reloaded | February 5, 2007 11:31 PM

>:) redrum

Posted by: anti_penguin_on_being_immature | February 5, 2007 11:33 PM

I had an iPod, but I gave it to my gf so she'd shut-up.

...I've been using this modern thing called a Windows Mobile Smartphone for a while now; It's a phone, an internet browser and a music player. ...And it takes miniSD cards.

:O

Does Jobs know these are out?

Posted by: anti_penguin_on_ipod | February 5, 2007 11:37 PM

anti_penguin-why don't you use your time for something useful like posting real honest opinons, not a bunch of whining. Personally, I use all 3 OS's (Windoze, OSX, and Linux) and I am finding more and more reasons to migrate away from MS. But that is me, my point is - just use what works for you and be happy, this is about choice not starting a Holy War. Relax.

Posted by: whocares | February 5, 2007 11:46 PM

I am an Apple user. I do pro audio so it makes sense for me to be on a Mac. Fortunately i like Macs.
However, very few of us went with the first version of 'X'. It was buggy all over.
Just wait six months to see how Vista really settles in.

p.s. this does not negate the copy cat claim

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b4928a69e:11095513a7a:-4731&st=1170737058250&mp=FLV&cpf=false&fvn=9&fr=122306_082800_28ed9693x10faf194225x7fe5&rdm=629269.1564323702

p.s.s. use what you want / need, leave everyone else alone

Posted by: Steven | February 5, 2007 11:49 PM

First, Apple's advisory was simply that - an advisory. An Apple CYA for situations in which a Vista upgrade did, somehow, cause iTunes to freak out. If one actually reads the advisory, I think they would find that these two blog postings and a fair number of posted comments are misinformed and baseless speculation at it's worse. First, the advisory carefully notes that iTunes will work fine with a majority of upgraded PCs. Secondly, Apple acknowledges there are some compatibility issues between iTunes and Vista which they are fully prepared to address shortly following the release of Vista - issues of which Apple is aware and prepared to address quickly with an iTunes update. Finally, Apple provides tips for those who are going to update to Vista before the iTunes upgrade on measures which can be taken which will provide the greatest likelihood of not encountering any problems.

I'm completely amazed that anyone, at least anyone acting as an honest actor and a fairly decent knowledge of IT systems could read that advisory and think that it was an attempt to influence people not to adopt Vista. In the first place, anyone that thinks that iTunes effect on the OS market place is so great as to cause people not to upgrade their operating system is either delusional, lacking in knowledge, or under the influence of some sort of mind altering drug. Come on, Sam, do you really think iTunes is more important than Vista to people that have that choice to make? Do you think Steve Jobs or anyone at Apple, even at their most over-enthusiastic, would think that iTunes has somehow surpassed Windows or Office as the world's most important piece of software? Do you think iTunes plays any role in corporate or business IT decisions such as purchasing upgraded OS software?

As long as you've opened the door to baseless speculation, I've got my own bit of baseless speculation. To me, this "Apple conspiracy" reeks of corporate PR spin from Redmond. Microsoft PR flaks passing along some "insider" info to the gullible, clueless, and MCSE's who masquerade as IT experts in various blogs. Why the spin? MS is concerned about Vista's sales during the first quarter or two (or more) of it's availability. You think there could be any truth to that idea?

Posted by: David Reese | February 6, 2007 12:05 AM

What a sorry state we are in. Public education has dumbed us down so much that we cannot think critically any more. Some of the replies here are so inane and stupid it scares me. As long as we have our American Idol, or Lost, or Super Bowl, a 6 pack of beer or a wine cooler or whatever, and a bag of chips we are good to go... Wake up people.

Posted by: chadbag | February 6, 2007 12:12 AM

MSFT released an OS driven by marketing.

To those that say Apple had plenty of time to make iTunes compatible... even MSFT didn't make the Zune compatible when they launched the first round of Vista to corporations, and it's their own product!

Both Apple and Microsoft have some great programmers and great testers. Marketing is evil. $ drives corporations. Don't blame the people trying to make it right.

Posted by: evilempire | February 6, 2007 12:15 AM

"To those that say Apple had plenty of time to make iTunes compatible... even MSFT didn't make the Zune compatible when they launched the first round of Vista to corporations, and it's their own product!"

If... you actually analyzed the timeline, Zune had pretty short dev cycle. When vista's in beta, there isn't a thing called Zune yet.

For ipod, it's totally a different story.

Posted by: Stop | February 6, 2007 12:40 AM

Hi there, thanks Apple for the advice. However I found during my beta testing of Vista RC1 that my iTunes worked fine. ???

Posted by: zacharyonlinedotus | February 6, 2007 12:44 AM

Its not really eithers fault... but if you really think about it microsoft is only thinking about themselves and what will benifit there company, but what they didnt expet is for apple to bring it out into the open that ms didnt make it compatable for apple products from the beginning and that there not thinking about the customers or there ease of use, but of there own marketing...

but also apple has had all the time in the world to make itunes work on vista. if anything, this all could have been a stradigy for them to make ms look like the bad guys.... ms was probly not even thinking about working on something like that becuase they probly thought apple would do it themselves because they would want to advertise that itunes is well ready for the new windows os without any of ms help. apple is really just making them look bad, but apple is a big company and should have done it themselves. its not ms responsability to help compitition...

Posted by: Kevin | February 6, 2007 12:49 AM

Vista is not a service pack. It's a fundamentally different OS from XP. And trusting Apple's advice on Vista is a bit like trusting Ford's advice on Toyota - they're competitors... sort of, Microsoft has something like 95% of the OS market.

ps - apple has a history of intentionally making their products incompatible with their competitors' platforms.

Posted by: benny | February 6, 2007 12:49 AM

and just to add.... i have had no problems with my itunes working on vista either... i never would have known that there was an issue with itunes working on vista if it wasnt for this post....

Posted by: Kevin | February 6, 2007 12:52 AM

If everyone uses MS, hackers and viris makers will only bother MS users. Thats if they are lazy enough. And good for everything else.

Posted by: cool | February 6, 2007 1:11 AM

This is a proper way to installa Windows VISTA. Check this out.

This is great,hahaha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQm3IsSKAo&eurl=

Posted by: Bill | February 6, 2007 1:25 AM

Please see this url for the correct perpective on the Mac/PC ads!

http://www.our-picks.com/archives/2007/02/05/the-pc-vs-mac-ads-return-now-from-the-pcs-perspective/

Posted by: grant | February 6, 2007 1:33 AM

http://www.our-picks.com/archives/2007/02/05/the-pc-vs-mac-ads-return-now-from-the-pcs-perspective/

P.S. I writing this on a Vista computer.

Posted by: grant | February 6, 2007 1:35 AM

some of these comments have had me laughing for the past 10 mins...I've been beta testing Vista since Beta 2 and I can tell you that this is solely Apple's fault, but Apple is not the only company that has dropped the ball...other companies, such as Square-Enix have refused to accept bug reports from users, and completely refuse to work with beta testers to help them work out issues that are preventing their software from running until Vista was "released". While other companies have been unofficially supporting vista since the first stable beta release.

Turbine, creators of Asheron's Call, D&D Online, and the new Lord of the Rings Online has worked with their beta testers that were beta testing vista also to make sure the Beta was compatible for every release with the Vista betas and the final release...

Microsoft released the patch for their Zune product during the final month before Vista went on store shelves...I've been using my Zune for about a month now in Vista with no issues.

Creative also has kept their MP3 players running fine throughout the beta process and has worked hard at improving performance of their synching software in Vista.

I've only run across one game so far that refuses to run for me in Vista, and thats Gothic III, and the guys as JoWood are hard at work trying to fix the issues...Any other game that doesn't work, is more than likely from the ages of Windows 95, and not a DirectX 9 game...which I don't think I have any of those left layin around, and if I did, what's the chances that I would play them?

So please, stop bashing Microsoft, Vista is their product, iTunes is Apple's product, Vista runs fine, I have no issues, and if iTunes doesn't run, thats Apple product, therefore they are responsible for support.

If everyone's logic here prevailed in the world, then people would be calling Tycho for support on their motherboards, just because they made the connector that connects their HDD to the Motherboard...

Get real people...Apple dropped the ball, and its probably because they've shifted too many resources to develop the iPhone and iTV products, and didn't think there would be problems with Vista (there werent in problems up until RC2 if I remember correctly)

And yes, a lot of this stems from the new OpenAudio Layer that MS uses, which is where the games that people complain about not working are having issues too...MS rewrote the entire audio layer, and anyone using some of the dirty code that was concidered a serious no-no to begin with in XP and earlier OS's, now they're software wont work...so people are going to have to rewrite a lot of audio code to fix mistakes that never should have been there to begin with...

Posted by: Seiggy | February 6, 2007 1:37 AM

Everyone forgets how insanely long it took for Apple to get the first MacOs X out the door. Similar to Vista, OSX was also a big bang release. Essentially MacOSX suffered the same problems that Apple so readily forgets when pointing fingers at Msft.

Atleast applications dont need to be rewritten to run natively on Vista.

Posted by: nullPointer | February 6, 2007 1:44 AM

Did you hear from the Monopoly, Mr. Diaz? It seems like you need to retreat from reporting from the criticism that Vista is not ready yet so don't buy it.


_________"WOW. I think that last posting, the one about Apple's advisory against upgrading to Windows Vista, hit a nerve."____________


Did it hit the Monopoly's nerve? What did you hear?

_______________"It just seemed heavyhanded of Apple to tell consumers not to buy a Windows Vista machine because iTunes might not work on it. Instead, it should have simply warned users that they might run into problems with iTunes on a Vista machine for a few more weeks."_______

Mr. Diaz, are you saying that it is an unforeseen accident that iTunes does not run on Vista? Explain to us how a new version of the Monopoly OS does not run the most popular music program smoothly? Just who do you think is being heavy-handed? It is deliberate sabotage. It is a Monopoly attack on itunes. It is not an accident. It is corporate war. Apple can be completely shut out but that would be too Monopolistic, but this is the next attack.


_________"I edited Rob Pegoraro's Fast Forward review of Vista last week and repeated his advice to wait on a Vista upgrade on Washington Post Radio."_________

Good advice.


______________-"A new PC with Vista pre-installed is the way to go, according to Pegoraro. The upgrades require video cards, hard drives and lots of memory. Besides, the first version of anything is bound to have some bugs."_____________---

Did you say that to appease the Monopoly? These bugs were deliberately put or left there. The Monopoly even breaks its own stuff to make sure everyone eventually has to buy an upgrade or a new computer. They design incompatibility into the next version.


____________" My point is: By the time Vista is really ready for prime time, Apple will likely have worked out the iTunes bugs."_________

Yes. The whole world must dance for the Monopoly. The Monopoly calculates that more will move to Vista and drop iTunes, than people will move to the Mac. That, or they want a larger cut from iTunes.

I hope you can report the reality. Did you hear from the Monopoly about your Post editings? Can you disclose the Post's Monopoly advertising revenue?

Hope this helps.

Posted by: webster | February 6, 2007 1:45 AM

My dollar's worth.

This is what it all comes down to ..stupidity and idiocracy!

The more stupider people get the more gullible they become to marketeers Apple uses to strut their wares. Apple may be fun, but Vista brings a whole new world to the corporate world and home a like.

Windows in all its previous avatars has hepled bring the world that you are in my friends NOT itunes.

Dont be stupid. Make educated choices.
I have seen worms in apples too.

Be a part of an educated market and dont fall for stupid marketing jumbo-mumbo or heresay. Each software has its pros and cons.


Posted by: MR | February 6, 2007 1:48 AM

I've held off posting on any MS/apple blog or article for a while. It just ticks me off the way people have to bash each company, when each of them both have their faults and issues. Nothing is perfect when it first comes out. Software, operating systems, someone said medication, and even cars. the first generation product almost always has its kinks to be fixed. lets not forget one thing about the itunes and microsoft issue that is going on. It took apple 3 years after the initial release to finally make it compatible with the windows os. Zune which was just released, is going to take time to become compatible with the mac, just as ipods took time to become compatible with windows. Optional software and hardware is made to run on the operating system because of the limited options. Companies do not make operating systems to run with software, as even microsoft had to update zune software for vista compatibility. To me, all this press release is saying, is that if you use itunes and want it to continue working for you until they update it to be compatible with vista, hold off. no one is at fault for anything. if anything, apple was a little slow at updating the compatibility. i just find it absurd the way anytime there is a press release or review about an apple or MS product, almost half of the responses are defending or attacking either of the two companies.

Posted by: kevin | February 6, 2007 1:51 AM

It seems to me that this is all just marketing bluster. I'm a MS user mainly because I work in the industrial controls arena and there is no choice. Frankly I'd likely choose the PC anyway because of the hardware flexibility. Having said that, I still have a problem with not being able to use legacy software apps. of any type on a new OS -- whether it's Ipod stuff or otherwise.

Why is it that every time MS drops a new OS on us, a new Office Suite is pushed as a compliment to the OS. The new Suite is said to be more compatible with the new OS. WHY?? It should be transparent. The OS should be nothing more than a toaster. I should be able to put new bread, old bread, or bread that I've had in the freezer for 5 years and still get toast! Obvioulsy in the case of a computer the processor still needs to remain the same and it's speed should match the OS requirements if it requires more housekeeping -- but IF the old application code was written to the specifications of the legacy OS -- than it seems to me that it should still run on the new OS without modification.

To me that means that IF Apple wrote their code as MS required it to be written for the older OS's then it should still run in Vista without any changes. If it doesn't, then it seems to me that it's a Vista issue.

It's really a moot point for me because I'm neither an Ipod or an Apple user -- but I think that it's an interesting discussion. The jist of the whole thing, it seems to me, is that the Applications SHOULD NOT be that tightly bound to the OS. The OS is just the toaster.

OK ---- I feel much better now. Let the bit-weenies sort it all out. In the end they will anyway.

Posted by: Keep-It-Simple | February 6, 2007 2:07 AM

It seems to me that this is all just marketing bluster. I'm a MS user mainly because I work in the industrial controls arena and there is no choice. Frankly I'd likely choose the PC anyway because of the hardware flexibility. Having said that, I still have a problem with not being able to use legacy software apps. of any type on a new OS -- whether it's Ipod stuff or otherwise.

Why is it that every time MS drops a new OS on us, a new Office Suite is pushed as a compliment to the OS. The new Suite is said to be more compatible with the new OS. WHY?? It should be transparent. The OS should be nothing more than a toaster. I should be able to put new bread, old bread, or bread that I've had in the freezer for 5 years and still get toast! Obvioulsy in the case of a computer the processor still needs to remain the same and it's speed should match the OS requirements if it requires more housekeeping -- but IF the old application code was written to the specifications of the legacy OS -- than it seems to me that it should still run on the new OS without modification.

To me that means that IF Apple wrote their code as MS required it to be written for the older OS's then it should still run in Vista without any changes. If it doesn't, then it seems to me that it's a Vista issue.

It's really a moot point for me because I'm neither an Ipod or an Apple user -- but I think that it's an interesting discussion. The jist of the whole thing, it seems to me, is that the Applications SHOULD NOT be that tightly bound to the OS. The OS is just the toaster.

OK ---- I feel much better now. Let the bit-weenies sort it all out. In the end they will anyway.

Posted by: Keep-It-Simple | February 6, 2007 2:10 AM

I dont understand why everyone is peeved at Microsoft for an iTunes problem? iTunes is an application that is developed and supported by Apple and it must have done some testing with the beta and RC versions of Vista that were available for most of 2006. There are hundreds and thousands of applications written for the Windows platform and expecting MS to test each and everyone of them is laughable. Apple by being arrogant is doing a disservice to their customers who are using Vista. If I were to be iTunes user, I would be seriously pissed at such attitude!

Posted by: Rajiv | February 6, 2007 2:17 AM

iTunes blows in a bad way! Just uninstall and be done with it. www.musikCube.com

Posted by: Corky | February 6, 2007 2:37 AM

Hi, everyone, let me contribute my penny's worth. I am a simple self taught user. I use both mac & pc would like to see popular programs working seamlessly. therefore for me
it's important for both the sides to develop
the attitude of producing programs for the people not the other way around.

Posted by: ajay pratap singh | February 6, 2007 2:48 AM

Ok you IT department monkeys, go back to your cages and I'll give you a banana. Did anyone actually read the article from Apple, or did all you fanboys wet yourself at the chance to argue that you OS kisses you goodnight?

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042

Here is the article and read the following line a number of times!

"the next release of iTunes which will be available in the next few weeks"

Also see how pitiful the issue is.

Now some advice, when you read regurgitated crap make sure you read the original article and are familiar with the technology you are talking about. That especially applies for people who are 'parrot' users of Vista and Mac OS X!

Posted by: Matt | February 6, 2007 2:55 AM

Another version?? Apple just came out with version 7 and it was very buggy for both Windows and Apple. In no time they released 7.0.1 and then 7.0.2. Remember when iTunes was release and Steve said it was the best written Windows software? What a joke. At the rate iTunes is adding bloat this program will molest 200MB of RAM!! A true waste of resources! The future is open source and lossless.

Posted by: Tookie | February 6, 2007 3:07 AM

I find it interesting that no one has pointed out that the iTunes issue is only affecting SOME PC's with Vista, not all. I think this was pointed out already, but I think it is very important. You can only test software so much as alpha, beta, rc, etc, but when it is rolled out into production new issues begin to surface. This is why every companies IT department rolls out software and does not put it on everyones computer all at once. Trust me, been there for a long time. A few thousand users will not test any software as well as the general public user base. Plus, most of the testers are more than likely quite knowledgeable with computers and how to fix an issues. Apple posted a temporary workaround, I know it may not fix everything, but will help on their site linked here http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042

To sum it up: When any software is rolled out new issues pop up, its just how it is.

Posted by: someGuy | February 6, 2007 3:56 AM

Is this a political forum or a pc forum? Yes MS is big and somewhat evil in its practices. That said, pc's that run Win are generally cheaper, not locked into a specific manufacturer set of hardware, and have a ton of software available. Mac's are generally more elegant, and being linux based, a bit more stable.

Everyone has their share of upgrade hell. No reason to get on a high horse. I have a new macbook pro, and neither MS apps nor Adobe apps work well on the machine. Now MS not supporting the update I can understand. Adobe?!?! So upgrade pain is not limited to MS. Everyone needs to calm down a bit.

Posted by: dknyc | February 6, 2007 5:08 AM

An interesting debate.

One point that's being made is the question of attributing "blame".

The simple answer here is that the two companies (MS + Apple) could have worked more closely together to have assured it to work - - if that was in their respective corporate interests. All it takes is *one* of them to choose to not play nice, and virtually no amount of heroic coding by the other will be able to completely prevent problems.

IMO with the advent of Zune (irony: not Vista-compatible), it is clear to me that MS isn't interested in helping an identified competitor. Besides, many of us Old Dogs still remember living through the days of "DOS Isn't Done 'Til Lotus Won't Run", where with each OS update, 123 *always* broke and MS-Excel *never* broke - - such an amazing coincidence, right? Historically, that's how MS leveraged their OS to marginalize their competitors and get MS-Office off the ground and eventually into dominance. If they've done it before, they are predisposed to do it again.

Next point is on the Beta of Vista and it "being ready" for updates.

The simple reality here is that Beta's are *by definition* not finalized and highly subject to change. The argument about Vista-Business being out for 2 months is noted, but this assumes "Business Code = Consumer Code", which if that was true, then MS could have released the Consumer variant back at the same time and not lost the 2006 Christmas sales. The point is also noted that MS (and Adobe) have had much longer to update their Mac products for Intel CPU's, but we are still waiting for those releases - - yet virtual silence in the criticism here. Say what you want about the consumer's desire for immediate gratification through "Corporate Agility", but the cold hard facts are that MS isn't up on a pedestal here, particularly if Apple comes through on time with iTunes 7.1.

The simple bottom line is that no software developer can assure their product's compatibility with an OS update until they have access to the Golden Master and some time to digest it - - regardless of this is within the company, or a third party. Note that this also requires the owner of the OS to not only publish comprehensive interface standards (in a timely fashion), but to also make sure that his own product meets his own published standards. Don't be deceived into thinking that that hasn't happened.

Finally, we come to Consumer Expectations.

Consumers generally have very high standards for what they expect from Apple. As such, such a "warning" was essentially a necessity from Apple, because it is what is necessary to *meet* (not exceed) their Consumer's Expectations. If it has favorable spin in regards to encouraging Switchers, that's just Gravy: Apple's first objective was to protect the reputation of their brand, by preemptively minimizing potential disappointment (and blame) from their Consumers from a change that they could not control. If you were in their situation, wouldn't you do the same thing?

-hh

Posted by: -hh | February 6, 2007 10:19 AM

Reviewing Apple's comments in light of liability potential for monopolistic behavior and other antitrust considerations...Jobs and Company should be careful...very careful. The quickest way to have the "heavy hand of justice to come down on your sorry head" is to continue in the venue of arrogance, obstruction, and contumely.

Posted by: Antitrust Lawyer | February 6, 2007 10:32 AM

I've got an idea for Apple... I think they should just not even make Itunes compatible with Vista at all. Maybe at that point the Ipod/Windows users will climb out of their fear of the Mac OS and get a mac and try it out. Once you've used a Mac, you will never again want to use a PC. Trust me, Ive seen it hundreds of times.

The stereotype most PC users have against Macs is they cannot run anything but Photoshop. This is completely untrue, and I tend to think it is a rumor spread by PC manufacturers just to keep people buying their low quality products.

Itunes is probably the best piece of software ever written for the PC,and guess what? It was made by Apple...

I own a 15 inch Macbook Pro, and run my entire business on it. I have the option of booting Windows on my Apple if I want to. (although i see no reason to bastardize my beautifully designed portable with such garbage).

Want to solve the problem? Buy a Mac. Then you can actually get some work done while still having a good time with video, photography, music and a myriad of other applications all available to the Mac.

Get over this stereotype that Macs don't run PC software. Macs are the most adaptable computers on the planet.

Posted by: Greg | February 6, 2007 10:35 AM

wow this is one of the dumbest threads i've ever read, Vista is crap and breaks many things, even things that seems to work in the release candidates seem now not to work quite right, funny! Still apple needs to step up and fix it, not tell people to not upgrade.

Thank being said buy a Mac, it will cost less as your Mid Range Vista upgrade and you'll get all the fancy features of the premium.

Better yet go back to DOS!

Posted by: ouch | February 6, 2007 10:46 AM

Guys.. dont rush to buy Vista. My friend bought vista enabled Laptop. Vista really sucks... it gives all sort of troubles.
Guys.. le me know.. how many versions of Vista available...? How many types of upgrade available..? I doubt even Bill knows the answer for it...MS people try to do something on Vista, what Mac users have it for decade now. Buy a Mac system.. be happy. No need to press ctrl+alt+del.

Posted by: Thiru | February 6, 2007 10:53 AM

"The Business version of Vista was actually released last November. If Apple was waiting for a final release to test with, they've had 2 months."

Right on! So by that logic, where are my Vista printer drivers from HP? I can't do envelopes correctly with the HP drivers that shipped with Vista. And where is my anti-virus software from AT&T (via Computer Associates)? They have also had the Business release since November 2006, but AT&T's website says it's anti-virus software for Vista is still under development. Yes, all this is somehow Apple's fault. Yes, of course, that connection is so obvious, I don't know how I missed it before.

Posted by: Jason | February 6, 2007 11:14 AM

Just use what you like. Fact is when the new MAC OS came out a couple of years back you had to get new versions of software. People were unhappy with that. Now a new MS OS is out and people are mad about software on that. Give it some time folks.

Posted by: uses both | February 6, 2007 11:22 AM

"Fact is when the new MAC OS came out a couple of years back you had to get new versions of software. People were unhappy with that."

Actually, the Mac OS seamlessly updates when necessary, but because developers at Apple have a clue, the updates are always minor and never a hassle at all.

It's like driving a BMW instead of a Hyundai. With a better product, you get better support. I have never once had a problem with any Apple updates, and I've been using them for well over 10 years. I also use XP and distinctly remember what a pain in the ass updating to service pack 2 was. It was a nightmare. I can only imagine what upgrading to Vista must be like.

Give it some time folks? Sorry but Microsoft is already at least 5 years behind...

Posted by: greg | February 6, 2007 11:33 AM

Microsoft is an OS manufacturer. They have a legal duty, especially given the scrutiny they are under in the EU, to sell an OS that reliably runs the software the public uses. The iTunes user base easily exceeds 200 million. The proprietar-izing games MS used in office applications, browsers, and now MP3 play (and media) hurts innovation and usability because MS grasp is longer that its reach..... MS simply cannot produce reliable, secure products in all the areas they have "extended" into. (And there are a lot of media extensions built into Vista).
XP runs way faster than bloated Vista on any PC so I plan to continue to use XP. The public is growing very tired of this....

Posted by: David | February 6, 2007 12:52 PM

So, when did a Mac become Not a PC? In fact they're all PC's Dimwits! "Personal Computers" It's just that the Original Intel based variety now runs a much Superior OS then the ones that recently converted to the highly Superior Intel Processor, which BTW, is housed in what one would call an over priced "Hot Plate".

==
Steve Wozniak is really Err, the other Mooninite, and was over heard saying:

"Err: Dude they're mooning us! Ignignokt: Impossible, we are the Mooninites."
==

Posted by: Scott | February 6, 2007 8:59 PM

I wasn't intending to post on this blathering thread, but stupidly read the fourth to last comment...

"Fact is when the new MAC OS came out a couple of years back you had to get new versions of software. People were unhappy with that."

Um, you clearly have ZERO clue what you are talking about. When OS X was released the computers that shipped with it ran TWO operating systems simultaneously, the old one (9) and the new one (X). (Yeah, I know that's probably shocking to you windows people who can barely keep one running, or that always seems to be the case when I am trying to email a file to someone on windows while talking to them on the phone... they inevitably say: hang on I have to reboot (again?)...).

For OS X, users did not have to upgrade ANYTHING until they wanted to. I still have Illustrator running under OS 9 (five years later, yup, still runs the old OS at the same time as the new one) because it is too pricy to upgrade and I don't use it often enough to warrant the upgrade cost.

So, windows being vastly superior, vastly vastly so I hear repeatedly, microsoft must have been nice and given you both vista and xp on your new machine and made them run at the same time so that you didn't have to get any new software at all, right??? Must have.

By the way, 70% of the market and 1800 competitors is NOT a monopoly. 95% of the market and 2 competitors IS. (especially because it is only 2 because one of them is free) When windows has an "uptime" command, I'll believe they've gotten serious; their other two competitors do.

Posted by: geck | February 9, 2007 10:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company