I don't rightly think anyone who knows how to make money in technology is seriously suggesting making software Vista-only is the way to go right now. I do work for Microsoft myself and can state with some confidence that they aren't expecting everyone to suddenly develop Vista-only applications. The work I'm doing for them now certainly has earlier platforms in mind; as do many other projects currently in-progress.

Microsoft has a support cycle wherein it continues to offer support for its applications and development of brand new applications takes this into account. Those support mechanisms are frequently extended and, taking just one product as an example - Commerce Server 2002 - security patches and updates will be offered until 2013! (The support for the Vista track will likely be very similar, meaning supports will continue well into the next decade.) So I don't really udnerstand in what context Microsoft has "given up" on Vista, except that it is planning another OS release very soon which will add new features and functionality to a platform that is growing and will continue to.

Having said all this - there is certainly evidence to suggest that not everyone was happy with Vista's production. But to say that it's compromised Windows' future on the desktop is nothing more than rampant hyperbole at this point, in my opinion. During the Vista debate, I recall there being questions about whether it was necessary to release another version of Windows on the heels of Windows XP (a very successful OS, by all accounts - and this writer should note Vista's release so soon aftereward was not an indication to the contrary). At the very least if Vista was so terrible, then the fact that nobody wanted a new OS anyway would mitigate the loss of market share considerably.

Cogswell asked if developers were supporting Vista only, and the answer should and will be a resounding 'no'. However, adding supports for Vista is a really good idea for several reasons - not the least of which is that if Windows 7 is released soon, you can bet that the features in Vista will persist into the next iteration of Windows. Supporting those features now only adds longevity to your app, and I'd expect the feedback we see here to reflect this.

I believe, that staying with XP would be great, just tune it up every once in awhile, but that would be in a perfect world, the fact is that, Microsoft, only makes money by changing the game, to follow their own buisness plan, so I would not look for XP, to be here much longer, The best plan, is to learn to work with what is available, that best meets your needs at the time.
You have to change with the times or get left behind.
Remember 3:11?

I will keep this short, I think?
The vast majority of developers that develop for windows are doing so against some version of the .NET framework and not �directly� to Windows per se. Since this framework is supported in both Windows XP and Vista they are providing the building blocks to work in BOTH operating systems. Most of the crisis in the industry is surrounded by issues relating to not enough hardware resources (hardly something new with a new version of Windows reflecting on each major release of windows since the early 90s), hardware driver issues (I would think we what the hardware vendors to create more stable drivers for their printers and such), backward compatibility of applications (do you really want to try and run 'visicalc' on this OS?), and security (come on human race who use computers, do want it or don't you? Make up your mind and don�t say I want it to be less invasive, HAL 9000 is not available yet)
All of this does not speak to whether or not Microsoft rushed Vista out the door before it was ready but I would submit that no matter when they did, it would require some degree of �bake time� in the wild to stabilize for the masses. Can you possibly suggest that the improvements derived for Vista as of today will not be major components of the next version of windows or that the next version is not going to be Vista 2.0?
If we follow the train of thought that what we have is good enough, why do we continue to fuel an automobile industry with purchasing the new and innovative car? The imagination and creativity used to create it is what sparks our interest. The new instant on wipes or the safer electronically controlled 4 wheel drive system. Vista is the promise of new innovative software products built around all new development paradigms to take us beyond the current offerings. Is the current version of Excel that much more innovative than �visicalc� or just bigger and more capable in different usage scenarios?
All products go through evolution in the technology industry and there is no complex product in the world that is so pervasive as Microsoft Windows. Looking at it as a whole, that is a lot of customers with a lot of usage scenarios and demographs to satisfy. It seems to me that would take time�..

It's almost as if the Microsoft Lab was set up with Vista as a base for "Windows 95" -- and they went forward, and backward, from there. If they are promising "Windows 7.0" next, well isn't that just like offering a [ "2xoverwrite" for Windows 3.x, plus ] The "plus" is that the explanation of what Vista was as it developed through the 'unstable' extreme program (xp) development cycle was in all the information that came along the way. (XP) now seems like a fairly tame development process to code, and it is time to move onto incorporating the things that people actually want for their 21st century experience -- (xp as 'windows experience', come on, we have a better vista than that ...). Bring on the touch screens and the "open source" system compatibility, which was obviously missing from Vista, not XP

We are a small shop in Trinidad in the Caribbean doing Telecommunications and developing applications in that area. Since Windows 2000, I have been reading all the free documentation that Microsoft has put out about development compatibility across their OSes.

We pretty much have our code run in 2k, 2k_Server,2003 server and XP pro with he same exe and little code change moving to newer platforms. We set a deadline of March 2008 to target full compatibility in Vista and discussed this fully at the beginning of the year.

However, other demands and other deadlines has come in the way. Practically we have put full Vista compatibility (including UAC) on hold.

The strange thing is, not one of our customers has asked or requested (demanded) that our product work in Vista.

Usually we would have liked to say there is full compliance, but no one seems to be holding their breath.

The most interesting thing is personally, I think the U.A.C. philosophy is very very good.

Unfortunately, most people do not understand that if you want full security, you will compromise usability. In XP and 2000, viruses do what they want because the virus application runs at the level of the logged in user, in Vista this is not the case.

Application do not run as Administrator in Vista by default and should not have to. If this is happening, then the application is poorly designed.

Unfortunately most applications are poorly designed in this regard.

So programs that require making a 'dangerous' change to the operating system parameters should have user intervention or be blocked altogether.

I think people have been asking for this for years and Microsoft have delivered. But people want it all - usability and security.

I think it is time the hackers and virus writers pay for their exploits since they are the ones that are making the world one without trust, not Microsoft.

Bottom line, long live Vista.
and 'Hack' the hackers.