How about "I am eagerly awaiting Official 64bit compatibility as I intend to upgrade to a 64bit OS soon." ...

Microsoft should put ALL backward compatibility into an optional installation package. I don't want it. Because it's installed as default, there's no real motivation for coders to create fully native software.

That's a nice and politically-correct PR spin on the matter. However, as nice as that sounds, it makes Stardock's software development look reactive rather than proactive. After all, that's one of the reasons why Microsoft provide partners with pre-retail builds of their operating systems -- to ensure that their software is 100% compatible in time for retail launch. But hey, I'm sure you already know that.

Well, yes...it actually NEEDS to be reactive and NOT proactive, as it is the MS coders and not Stardock who create and modify the OS.  Windows 7 may have been around for several months [I know I've been using it since about July on a permanent basis]...but what is deemed [By MS] as 'final' was/is the RTM which has not been out all that long.  Revisions [by MS] to the OS break things so that rather than play catch-up with the MS coders it is [as many developers do] more sensible to hold back until the OS goes Gold.

There's a very good reason for that.  In any bunch of 'users' you will find people who will not tolerate beta program failures/bugs and who will complain even more bitterly than the one or two voices crying "why isn't it out/supported yet?"

A little bit of confusion there. What I meant was that, if not possible prior to retail, once the OS goes Gold the software developement switches to being proactive, so that issues are fixed before the majority of end-users get their hands on it. Win 7 RTMed 3 & 1/3 months ago. I may be unduly harsh here, but I look at other software developers and software companies and they made and delivered on the claim that their software is compatible with the new OS. Sure, some of their software is more complicated than OD and some isn't, but it's a matter of perception. I feel compelled to ask: do you think OD's dominance of the dock market on the Windows platform made Stardock slightly complacent, which in turn meant that product quality level slipped?

Re: beta failures, not all betas are the same and it's difficult to manage users' expectations when it comes to telling them that it's a beta. On the other hand, if the developer engages with those intolerant/impatient people to carry out some root cause analysis and then feeds improvements back into the software then everybody benefits. The developer makes better software, which gives more value for money and that leads to more sales. The users feel appreciated and will put up with failures if their input is helping reduce the count of those failures.

No, I don't, but others might.  Afterall not everyone is on the same page...all the time...

More often than not, Stardock limits access to betas to people who will be more willing to accept that what they are using IS a beta and thus may break things, mildly or 'dramatically'....such as Object Desktop Subscribers, people who typically have more exposure to and thus more experience with Stardock's range of software.

Skinners in particular tend to have more intimate knowledge and understanding of what to look for as an actual 'bug', as they are skinning for the program.  SD's software development has always benefitted from skinner-feedback in particular so the development is/remains in good hands...

OK, allow me to rephrase the question, if you will: Do you think it is acceptable that one the main Stardock's products has not had a stable release in over 2 & 1/2 years, has such a log of documented issues and has not been officially declared compatible with neither Win 7 nor 64-bit architecture?

Being an IT person myself, I know of importance in managing users' expectations. I am also willing to accept that a beta is a beta and things may break and I'm happy to provide feedback so the development team can fix them. However, just because it's a beta that should not be used as a deterrent from people voicing their issues. Crucially, this process needs to be like a two-way highway and right now it's not, which doesn't mitigate the frustration.

I agree, skinners are indeed more likely to have intimate knowledge of what constitutes a bug, but most end-users of OD are not skinners. Therefore, to them "bug" = "unwanted behaviour" and that needs to be managed with a carrot instead of a stick. I appreciate skinners' input towards making the software better, but if end users are experiencing the same issues months after having reported them there's clearly a problem in there somewhere and it's not being solved.

Personally?

Acceptable?  Yes.

Desirable?  Maybe not.

I know of lots of programs which were released years ago....that functioned quite well...then....that do not now...and have had no further development either public or private.....all outside my control/influence...Sysmetrix is one.... Litestep [has always been one]....then there are literally HUNDREDS of other skinnable applications that have not seen renewal in years.

Would you like me to rattle them all off?

Whether or not Stardock releases revised versions...or limits possible beta testing to one group or another is all entirely outside my sphere of influence, and no amount of verbalising of frustration will likely make a huge difference.....unless perhaps it is from those who decide SD policy.

Now if end users are using a proggy, any proggy within an OS for which said proggy was not intended/developed then they should rightly expect "issues".

As for not officially being declared compatible with Windows 7 and/or 64bit that is clearly because there has been no released update of the proggy for X number of years....quite logical, really.

If attempts to use it on an unsupported OS fail or cause issues then I'd probably not use it.....

...until such time as there is an appropriate release...

No, I would not [personally] like for you to rattle them off. Then again, they don't appear in the top of Stardock's most popular software, like OD does -- at no. 5. It's a shame that this matter is outside of your influence, but perhaps you can get the attention of people who are the policy-makers and point them to this thread/forum (if they aren't aware already)? Thanks.

Sure, you're right that if end users use a proggy within an OS for which said proggy wasn't developed then they should not be surprised to come across issues. However, it's a "catch 22" situation -- end users won't know for sure whether they'll experience issues until they go ahead with the install. On the other hand, this could be a potential blessing in disguise. People who experience issues are best-positioned to provide feedback as Stardock tries to fix those hiccups. That way, it's a "win-win".

Normally, I'd agree with you that if a proggy fails or causes issues on an unsupported OS I'd abandon it. "Unfortunately", OD+ is a special case for me so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Throwing something out that I paid $20 for a few years ago isn't a solution in my head, yet the waiting game is getting weary.

See...there's the rub.

Years ago, when you purchased it...it worked, right?

Then time moved on...the OS changed....wasn't a 32bit of XP...suddenly it was a 64bit of Windows 7.

Is it the fault of the program that your OS is perhaps now incompatible?

The program didn't change your OS...

What about this.  Stardock never has yet claimed that OD is 64 bit compatible.  Maybe you should have considered that BEFORE you purchased the software instead of complaining about it AFTER you purchased the software.

That's like buying a toy football helmet and wearing it on a motorcycle, then crashing, busting your head, and blaming the toy football helmet company... even though there was a big sticker on the helmet saying "not a safety device"...

So... does it work on 64 bit 7even ? I was thinking about buying it this morning actually, guess I'll hold off. Suuuure would be nice if it came with OD.

I think you phrased it inappropriately. It's not the OS that is incompatible, but the said proggy. The OS is this global layer and, as it changes, proggies should "roll with the punches". OD, for one, didn't...yet

It's not about that. When I bought OD+, I had no expectations of 64-bit compatibility, I was running XP 32-bit. Now I'm running Win 7 32-bit and seriously considering the 64-bit move. Users' expectations moved on from a few years ago, but the software remained static. Buying OD+ now is like buying it in April 2007, when 1.9 came out. Users cannot be blamed for changing their expectations, you can't just say "You're bad, bad users for upgrading to a new OS because that means that our software won't work on it even if you'd expect it to because other proggies that you use, big or small, had updates to make them compatible".

I guess that's technically true. But when I bought OD+ a year ago it wasn't 32-bit only. It was "64-bit support currently in beta", which is not true anymore.

i'm running it on Windows 7 x64 with no issues

No issues whatsoever? Can we swap PCs?

I'm running it on Windows 7 64bit with no issues too. But that's because I know where the issues are and stay clear of them. If you have a car that break down when you hit 60mph, would you say "it's running without issues" just because all the roads you drive on has a 55mph limit?

No, I put it correctly.

You had XP 32 bit.

You acquired Object Dock for it.

It worked.

You then changed your OS to Windows 7 32bit.

End of story.

I currently have a three-user subscription to Bitdefender 2009.  It is a SUBSCRIPTION that has about 330 days left to run.  It was ME, NOT Bitdefender who changed his OS from XP Professional 32bit to Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit.

Is it Bitdefender's fault that my subscription is next to useless as 2009 does not function correctly on 7?

Did Bitdefender stand over me and force me to change my OS?

As I've mentioned already, if and when Object Dock is suitable for formal public release in a subsequent OS version then it will be available for formal release....and also as mentioned, there are MANY programs that are not immediately compatible with every/all variations of a SERIES of Operating Systems.

Windows 7 is NOT a flow-on from Vista, just as Vista is not a point release of XP.

Depending on the TYPE of program the real differences within each OS can have dramatic consequences to functionality.

Typically GUI interface modifiers [shell extensions] require real changes, unlike most 'normal' executables like PaintShop Pro that don't care what version of an OS they are on.

Yes, the steps that you, Jafo, describe are almost correct. Before moving to Win 7, I also used OD+ on Vista for which OD is claimed to be ready. Yet I experienced and reported bugs that to this day have not been resolved. What is supposed to happen in this type of situation?

Re: Bitdefender, perhaps you should switch to Norton. I had NIS 09 and got a free upgrade to NIS 2010, which I took upon, but 2009 users got updates to make their version compatible with Windows 7 if they did not wish to move to NIS 2010. Clearly some companies are more concerned than others to make sure that their software is fully compatible with Windows 7 (hint hint).

Let's be frank about this. Some programs do require more work than others to make them compatible, like you said. That being said, WindowBlinds which is a more complex piece of software than OD+ yet it is cared for very well indeed. A few months ago I made a prediction about OD not getting a stable update before Christmas. Looks increasinly likely, I wonder how much I would have got at the bookmakers

I dont think bookmakers give odds on software dev.