What happens to things like Java Webstart or igLoader, OSAKit?
Good tips, Cliffski, thanks.
Ironically, just as some of this Vista panic was starting to rub off on me, we verified what was stated earlier in this thread regarding LUA access to Program Files in XP vs. Vista... with Virtual Villagers, at least, LUA accounts in XP prevented the game from being saved correctly. It worked quite well in Vista, however, even allowing multiple LUA accounts to share the installation quite distinctly and gracefully.
I have not decided yet what school I am going to be subscribing to: the "get ahead of everything, proactively fix all my games, and gain a competetive advantage" school, or the "wait and see what needs fixin'" school.
Here's a question that I am not quite clear on regarding the ESRB and certification/signing issue: If a game is to be rated, so that it will be treated well in Windows, the game will also have to be digitally signed. It would need to be the installer that is actually signed, wouldn't it? Would this not shift the burdon of the digital signing from the dev to whoever is propping the game (ie; portals)?
Although this sounds way too much a disastrous scenario to me. I don't think that that's the case and while i personally have only XP, i know people who have Vista and haven't heard anything negative from them yet...
If indie isn't used to read MSDN then Vista kills indie. All games written on exotic frameworks will be removed from sales.
You see that PopCap is happy with Vista launch, since Vista helps good-written games to sell better, and bad-written games to sell worse.
There are not so many problems actually, you just need to rewrite code in every game you ever launched. Professionals do it, indies don't.
In a year or two all indies will accept the Vista rules. But maybe indies need this evil Vista to understand something right now?
Anyone know how much an ESRB rating would cost?
www.mindflock.com - social AI-based games
Hm, another question that pops into my mind...
From all windows installations that i've seen so far, very very few had an "administrator" password set up. In all of them, you could simply use the "administrator" account without a password. Most users seem to have their systems set up like this.
What's the case on these systems? The "authorize dialog" will popup and the users will just press enter or it won't appear at all?
I'm surprised to see so many "the sky is falling!?" comments.
If there's one thing that you can always count on it's that things will always change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. You should always be prepared for both. Spouting out a bunch of hyperbole doesn't do you any good.
The way I see it, LUA has been around on the Mac for awhile now and Mac users still download, install, and buy Shareware/Indie software. It's not the end of the world. On Vista, backward compatibility with older software may be a concern initially but any widespread incompatibilities with XP-compatible software will most likely be addressed by MS. After all, it wouldn't just be small little Indie game developers affected, there are tons of shareware and commercial business software that would be affected. I'm sure groups like ASP would raise some noise if there were some major incompatibilities with XP software on Vista. Also, you can always offer a Vista patch for your older games.
As for the ESRB rating, if it becomes a major issue that seriously affects small/solo game developers, we can petition them (ESRB) to provide "shareware" pricing for companies under 5 employees or something. Get some well known groups behind it like Garage Games or IGDA, or whatever. Point is, it's not the end of the world. Indie gaming will not go instinct. You can always try something. Besides, Indie gaming will never be completely dead until both Windows and Mac become closed platforms like a console. We're very far away from that at the moment.
Here is a web page about Vista application compatibility:
On the same page, you will find a useful presentation: Five Ways to Ensure Your Application Will Be Compatible.
this is what I say:
indie developers could potentially get their games published by microsoft
"Since the Game Explorer is also inexplicably hard coded into Vista and `secured' from any modification, nobody can presumably fix its problems or otherwise augment it other than Microsoft. Considering the effort Microsoft must have invested in making the Game Explorer this onerous and immutable, it seems plausible that it was intended as a place holder for a subsequent game service offering from Microsoft."
if not, who cares? I never use my start menu, I only get a desktop shortcut. this is not as big a problem as some make it out to be. All the same I view microsoft as the enemy.
If you kill Death and his servant Fear, you have a moment when you feel invincible (lack of fear) and then die (you are Death)
After much blood, sweat and tears I'm happy to say that igL v3.0 works perfectly on Vista in IE7 Protected Mode - games are downloaded, sandboxed and launched without triggering the UAC elevation dialogs.
a prisoner of the cause
Since I am working on this... what is a windows session? It's the first thing that I saw in the compatibility list and I'm not sure that it's a thing I've dealt with before.