> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible with the > hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of excuses. > I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to continue to work!!! > It may not support new features, but it should do at least what it used > to do. > Period!!! > Microsoft has let us down in that area. Sorry for any inconvenience, > my A$$.
Tell me about it. I've got a perfectly good Epson Perfection Photo 1260 flatbed scanner, and it won't run under Windows 7 x64. No driver for it. Epson can't be bothered writing one, and Microsoft just doesn't care.
Char Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote:
>> Nil wrote: >>> On 22 Feb 2010, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote in alt.windows7.general:
>>>> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible >>>> with the hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of >>>> excuses. I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to >>>> continue to work!!! It may not support new features, but it should >>>> do at least what it used to do. >>>> Period!!! >>> Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy world - that's not the way it >>> goes. Unless Microsoft makes an explicit claim that a certain piece of >>> hardware will work, out-of-the-box with Windows, then it's up to the >>> manufacturer to supply the device driver. That's the way it has ALWAYS >>> worked with EVERY version of Windows. That's probably the way it will >>> always work. Get used to it... and urge the hardware vendor to release >>> updated drivers. You're more liable to get results doing that than >>> complaining here or to Microsoft.
>>> I just built myself this handy dandy digital butt-scratcher with a USB >>> interface. Do you suppose Windows 7 supports it? >> You're welcome to your bend-over-and-take-it attitude. >> If XP could run my hardware device, there's no reason that W7 can't.
> If that were true, your devices would continue to run just as they > did. Since they don't, there must be a reason. The reason is that the > hardware driver is not compatible with the new OS. You have things > bass ackwards if you think the OS needs to be compatible with 3rd > party hardware. It's the responsibility of the 3rd party hardware > vendors to provide drivers that work with the OS, not the other way > around. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
>> The code is already written. It works just fine.
> If it worked fine, you wouldn't be here complaining.
>> M$ CHOSE to change things in a manner that caused a perfectly working >> driver to quit working. I don't care WHY they did it. I want them >> to continue to include the support they already had.
> They do. Just continue to use the OS you were using.
>> My C: drive is 9gigabytes of M$ bloat. Another bit of bloat for legacy >> support wouldn't have killed them.
> No thanks, I don't want tens of thousands of unneeded drivers > cluttering up my system.
>> Yes, I'm sure there are all kinds of excuses. I don't want excuses. >> I want those M$ geniuses to figger out how to make it work. >> You can bet if it had been a priority, it would have happened.
> You can also bet if it was Microsoft's responsibility it might have > happened, but the truth (whether you want to believe it or not) is > that hardware vendors are responsible for providing drivers for their > equipment. Period.
Microsoft provides tools, processes, techniques, interfaces that vendors use to write drivers. When microsoft arbitrarily CHANGES these base processes, the drivers fail. If M$ did not change the processes, but supported them for legacy code, drivers written by vendors for legacy products would continue to provide whatever functionality they provided before the OS change.
It is MOST DEFINITELY a M$ responsibility to allow old drivers to continue to work and coexist with drivers written using the new tools/processes/techinques/interfaces provided with the new OS.
Additionally, M$ keeps changing the tools so that it is inconvenient or expensive for writers of new drivers to support older operating systems without a complete rewrite. This FORCES users to update the OS go get drivers/support for NEW devices...which obsoletes their old hardware...which forces users to buy new peripherals to go with their new OS.
They get you coming and going.
>> This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >> stop!!!
> Who forced you to change your Operating System? If all of your devices > worked with XP, why not stay with XP?
Microsoft forced me to update the OS because the tools they provided to software vendors made it expensive to support older operating systems...So there's new software that REQUIRES the new OS. Ditto for new hardware.
> I'm finding some suggestions that having more than 4 Gig RAM in > a Windows 7 64Bit install leads to greater problems.
> Hardware uses addresses at the top of memory > with 64bit& greater than 4Gig RAM those addresses can be off what the > device driver can cope with. > (\__/) > (='.'=) > (")_(") mouse ( You could install Win 95 1st Issue in 40 MB's)
The amount of memory should not be a problem as long as there is enough. Having 4gB+ is a good thing. A driver is either compatible with the OS or it isn't. If it is then it will handle as much memory as the OS supports and having less memory is not going to make the incompatible magically compatible. I've not found any USB hardware with incompatible drivers on my W7-64bit beyond my old HP ScanJet. But given that the hardware is about ten years old that is probably to be expected.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:36:32 -0800, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote: >Char Jackson wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote:
>Microsoft provides tools, processes, techniques, interfaces that >vendors use to write drivers. >When microsoft arbitrarily CHANGES these base processes, the drivers fail. >If M$ did not change the processes, but supported them for legacy code, >drivers written by vendors for legacy products would continue to provide >whatever functionality they provided before the OS change.
>It is MOST DEFINITELY a M$ responsibility to allow old drivers to >continue to work and coexist with drivers written using the new >tools/processes/techinques/interfaces provided with the new OS.
OK, you've made your desires known. They don't match the reality of the situation, though, so I suspect you're going to continue to be disappointed. My best advice is to stop changing your OS just because a new one comes along. The existence of a new OS doesn't make your old OS suddenly stop working.
>Additionally, M$ keeps changing the tools so that it is inconvenient or >expensive for writers of new drivers to support older operating systems >without a complete rewrite. This FORCES users to update the OS go get >drivers/support for NEW devices...which obsoletes their old hardware...which >forces users to buy new peripherals to go with their new OS.
Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling. Wouldn't you have to look long and hard to find a peripheral that only works with Win7 and not with XP, for example? Again I ask, how are you being forced to upgrade your OS? Just stay with what you had.
> In article <hluimo$fo...@news.eternal-september.org>, > inva...@address.com says...
>> mike wrote:
>>> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible with the >>> hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of excuses. >>> I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to continue to work!!! >>> It may not support new features, but it should do at least what it used >>> to do. >>> Period!!! >>> Microsoft has let us down in that area. Sorry for any inconvenience, >>> my A$$.
>> Tell me about it. I've got a perfectly good Epson Perfection Photo >> 1260 flatbed scanner, and it won't run under Windows 7 x64. No >> driver for it. Epson can't be bothered writing one, and Microsoft >> just doesn't care.
>> -Al- > I found one for my 1650 Scanner that works great. > So look here: (this is one very long URL) > http://<infinitely long> snipped :-)
Have you heard of TinyURL.com?
Look into it, it's useful. There are other similar sites too.
> WINDOWS 7 Major USB Hardware Incompatibilities ?
> I'm trying out Win 7 64 Bit. on the same Hardware (but separate Hard > Drive) > as my established Win XP .
> A big issue for me & the main thing I'm testing is the ability to use my > existing Hardware.
> The standard basic stuff....Hard Drives...DVD Drive ...USB Memory Sticks > ...Graphics Card ...centronics port printer ... > is all OK.
> BUT I have a number of USB Hardware devices that are fine under XP ... > THAT MUST FOR ME, WORK ! in Win 7 & won't :(
> a USB ADSL MODEM ...
The fix for that one is easy if the modem has an ethernet port.
Stop using the USB port and connect your modem either directly to your PC via ethernet cable, or into a router or switch, also via Ethernet. Uninstall any USB drivers for the modem.
You'll likely find that you get better performance, lower overhead, and greater reliability; and if you use a router, the NAT features will increase your online protection.
As to the other devices, it's the manufacturer's responsibility to write drivers, and not really reasonable to expect a 3rd party to do it for them. Writing device drivers requires skill and access to hardware details that only the manufacturer will have. It's an expensive task that often doesn't produce any return for the manufacturer.
> Char Jackson wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote:
>>> Nil wrote: >>>> On 22 Feb 2010, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote in alt.windows7.general:
>>>>> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible >>>>> with the hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of >>>>> excuses. I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to >>>>> continue to work!!! It may not support new features, but it should >>>>> do at least what it used to do. >>>>> Period!!! >>>> Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy world - that's not the way it >>>> goes. Unless Microsoft makes an explicit claim that a certain piece of >>>> hardware will work, out-of-the-box with Windows, then it's up to the >>>> manufacturer to supply the device driver. That's the way it has ALWAYS >>>> worked with EVERY version of Windows. That's probably the way it will >>>> always work. Get used to it... and urge the hardware vendor to release >>>> updated drivers. You're more liable to get results doing that than >>>> complaining here or to Microsoft.
>>>> I just built myself this handy dandy digital butt-scratcher with a USB >>>> interface. Do you suppose Windows 7 supports it? >>> You're welcome to your bend-over-and-take-it attitude. >>> If XP could run my hardware device, there's no reason that W7 can't.
>> If that were true, your devices would continue to run just as they >> did. Since they don't, there must be a reason. The reason is that the >> hardware driver is not compatible with the new OS. You have things >> bass ackwards if you think the OS needs to be compatible with 3rd >> party hardware. It's the responsibility of the 3rd party hardware >> vendors to provide drivers that work with the OS, not the other way >> around. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
>>> The code is already written. It works just fine.
>> If it worked fine, you wouldn't be here complaining.
>>> M$ CHOSE to change things in a manner that caused a perfectly working >>> driver to quit working. I don't care WHY they did it. I want them >>> to continue to include the support they already had.
>> They do. Just continue to use the OS you were using.
>>> My C: drive is 9gigabytes of M$ bloat. Another bit of bloat for legacy >>> support wouldn't have killed them.
>> No thanks, I don't want tens of thousands of unneeded drivers >> cluttering up my system.
>>> Yes, I'm sure there are all kinds of excuses. I don't want excuses. >>> I want those M$ geniuses to figger out how to make it work. >>> You can bet if it had been a priority, it would have happened.
>> You can also bet if it was Microsoft's responsibility it might have >> happened, but the truth (whether you want to believe it or not) is >> that hardware vendors are responsible for providing drivers for their >> equipment. Period.
> Microsoft provides tools, processes, techniques, interfaces that > vendors use to write drivers. When microsoft arbitrarily CHANGES these > base processes, the drivers fail.
Who says OS changes are arbitrary?
I'm not sure that the word means what you think it means.
> If M$ did not change the processes, but supported them for legacy code, > drivers written by vendors for legacy products would continue to provide > whatever functionality they provided before the OS change.
Manufacturers get plenty of notice of OS changes, and choose to either update their drivers or not. It's neither trivial or cheap to write device drivers.
I get the impression that you've never worked with people who write such code professionally.
> It is MOST DEFINITELY a M$ responsibility to allow old drivers to continue > to work and coexist with drivers written using the new > tools/processes/techinques/interfaces provided with the new OS.
.... And you want the cost for this service passed on to you?
> Additionally, M$ keeps changing the tools so that it is inconvenient or > expensive for writers of new drivers to support older operating systems > without a complete rewrite. This FORCES users to update the OS go get > drivers/support for NEW devices
So don't buy them. Make do with what you already have.
> ...which obsoletes their old hardware...which > forces users to buy new peripherals to go with their new OS.
> They get you coming and going.
One might note that Apple does exactly the same thing.
In the real world, it is not reasonable to expect support for all legacy devices.
>> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible with the >> hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of excuses. >> I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to continue to work!!! >> It may not support new features, but it should do at least what it used >> to do. >> Period!!! >> Microsoft has let us down in that area. Sorry for any inconvenience, >> my A$$.
> Tell me about it. I've got a perfectly good Epson Perfection Photo 1260 > flatbed scanner, and it won't run under Windows 7 x64. No driver for it.
Excuse me, Al, but taking a look at the Epson site, I don't see any mention of Epson ever providing any 64-bit drivers for that product.
What I do see is a FAQ that clearly states that Epson wrote no 64-bit Vista drivers, and that implies that there were no 64-bit XP drivers either.
So, the OS you previously ran this on was almost certainly 32-bit, not 64. This isn't a trivial detail.
Epson does point to a 3rd party product (Hamrick VueScan) whose 64-bit drivers *might* work, but Epson wasn't providing or supporting those drivers.
And that 3rd party application was and is not free. It may, however, get you the support you want, and there is a free trial, so here is the link for it: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
> Epson can't be bothered writing one,
Epson apparently couldn't be bothered to write a 64-bit version at any time in the past, either, so this isn't really a change.
> and Microsoft just doesn't care.
More properly, your Epson scanner is not an MS product and drivers for it are not Microsoft's responsibility.
It can be surprising what isn't supported under 64-bit OS's.
I would have thought that ProTools, an industry-standard professional level audio recording software would want the extended memory in a 64-bit system. And I would have been wrong, because it didn't support or run on 64-bit anything until very recently. It's still not officially supported, it's only the latest releases, it's still 32-bit code and requires that the audio interface have 64-bit drivers.
>>> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible with the >>> hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of excuses. >>> I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to continue to work!!! >>> It may not support new features, but it should do at least what it used >>> to do. >>> Period!!! >>> Microsoft has let us down in that area. Sorry for any inconvenience, >>> my A$$.
>> Tell me about it. I've got a perfectly good Epson Perfection Photo 1260 >> flatbed scanner, and it won't run under Windows 7 x64. No driver for it. >> Epson can't be bothered writing one, and Microsoft just doesn't care.
>> -Al-
> Hummm...MS has nothing to do with Epson drivers.
And Epson didn't provide any 64-bit drivers in the past, either.
> In article <hluimo$fo...@news.eternal-september.org>, > inva...@address.com says...
>> mike wrote:
>> > It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible with >> > the >> > hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of excuses. >> > I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to continue to work!!! >> > It may not support new features, but it should do at least what it used >> > to do. >> > Period!!! >> > Microsoft has let us down in that area. Sorry for any inconvenience, >> > my A$$.
>> Tell me about it. I've got a perfectly good Epson Perfection Photo >> 1260 flatbed scanner, and it won't run under Windows 7 x64. No >> driver for it. Epson can't be bothered writing one, and Microsoft >> just doesn't care.
>> -Al-
> I found one for my 1650 Scanner that works great.
> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible with the > hardware I already have.
Sure. Like they can test it with MILLIONS of different appliances peripherals and internal hardware.
What a STUPID statement. That's the purpose of BETA and RC releases so the MANUFACTURER can test their own products. Complain to the manufacturer of your hardware if it doesn't work.
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote:
>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >stop!!!
Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled away?
Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS market.
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spam...@go.com> > wrote:
>>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>stop!!!
> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to > your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled > away?
> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based > on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to > support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't > expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS > market.
Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility with outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible for providing updated drivers? It would certainly be cheaper in the long run for each manufacturer to write new drivers than it would be for Microsoft to insure it, but then, HP and the rest wouldn't be selling anything new if their 20 year old printer has Windows 7 drivers. Are you willing to pay the extra big bucks for Windows to be compatible with every piece of hardware ever made? Can you even imagine what that cost would be? I can't. All I could see would be "You can have the latest Windows version, Windows 2015, for only $3,917 for the Home Starter Edition, with guaranteed backwards compatibility through Windows3.11." Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes :-) -- SC Tom
> Nil wrote: >> On 22 Feb 2010, mike <spam...@go.com> wrote in alt.windows7.general:
>>> It's Microsoft's responsibility to make their new OS compatible >>> with the hardware I already have. I'm sure they have a lot of >>> excuses. I don't want excuses. I want my (*(*& hardware to >>> continue to work!!! It may not support new features, but it should >>> do at least what it used to do. >>> Period!!!
>> Sorry, but you're living in a fantasy world - that's not the way it goes. >> Unless Microsoft makes an explicit claim that a certain piece of hardware >> will work, out-of-the-box with Windows, then it's up to the manufacturer >> to supply the device driver. That's the way it has ALWAYS worked with >> EVERY version of Windows. That's probably the way it will always work. >> Get used to it... and urge the hardware vendor to release updated >> drivers. You're more liable to get results doing that than complaining >> here or to Microsoft.
>> I just built myself this handy dandy digital butt-scratcher with a USB >> interface. Do you suppose Windows 7 supports it?
> You're welcome to your bend-over-and-take-it attitude. > If XP could run my hardware device, there's no reason that W7 can't. > The code is already written. It works just fine. > M$ CHOSE to change things in a manner that caused a perfectly working > driver to quit working. I don't care WHY they did it. I want them > to continue to include the support they already had.
> My C: drive is 9gigabytes of M$ bloat. Another bit of bloat for legacy > support wouldn't have killed them.
> Yes, I'm sure there are all kinds of excuses. I don't want excuses. > I want those M$ geniuses to figger out how to make it work. > You can bet if it had been a priority, it would have happened.
> This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta > stop!!!
> Dear valued customer, > Toyoter motor company announces an exciting new line of motor vehicles > chock full of features you'll never use. In order to support these > exciting new features, we had to change some parameters.
> Our new vehicles are no longer compatible with garages built prior > to 1998.
> Some parking spaces no longer work. You'll find that out when you > reach your destination and try to park.
> In order to use toll roads, you'll need to purchase the optional > toll upgrade that works...mostly...
> Our vehicles are no longer permitted in school zones.
> Standard gasoline from your corner filling station will still > work in compatibility mode with significantly reduced fuel mileage.
> If you have any child car seats or personal electronic items that were > used in your car, you will need to replace them. Legacy snow tires are no > longer supported. > Any towable trailers will need to be replaced.
> Our ULTIMATE upgrade is required for trips greater than 100 miles.
> Please remember that Toyoter motor company is the ONLY option available > to you. We trust you will continue to buy our products...because > you have no other choice.
> Sorry for any inconvenience.
Your analogy as a joke is actually the truth. We now have to use spark plugs that are more refined and expensive, no longer use a single coil that you can scavenge from one vehicle to another (most of the time), can't use that extra carburetor sitting on the shelf, can't use a cheater bar to tighten bolts down anymore--have to use a torque wrench. Can't check for spark by holding a plug wire a short distance from spark plug, and on and on and on and on. That's one of the reasons salvage yards get old vehicles, at some point in time the manufacturers stop producing parts for them and the only source is aftermarket, demand is so low that sources dry up, price goes way up and finally no-one wants to fix it, they sell it for salvage. If you think about this you can draw your own parallel to MS and hardware manufacturers and drivers. Sadly, you have to do the same with your old hardware. You can gently lay it next to some of those old monochrome (green and amber) monitors, dot-matrix printers and Intel 286 CPU motherboards. Or, if it makes you feel better, you can mutilate it first in any manner you choose except water boarding it as that's not PC. (Pun intended) Dave
>>>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>>stop!!!
>> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to >> your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled >> away?
>> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based >> on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to >> support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't >> expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS >> market.
> Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility with > outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible > for providing updated drivers? It would certainly be cheaper in the long > run for each manufacturer to write new drivers than it would be for > Microsoft to insure it, but then, HP and the rest wouldn't be selling > anything new if their 20 year old printer has Windows 7 drivers. Are you > willing to pay the extra big bucks for Windows to be compatible with every > piece of hardware ever made? Can you even imagine what that cost would be? > I can't. All I could see would be "You can have the latest Windows > version, Windows 2015, for only $3,917 for the Home Starter Edition, with > guaranteed backwards compatibility through Windows3.11." Ain't gonna > happen in our lifetimes :-) > -- > SC Tom
Epson has a Windows 7 driver for that scanner on their site. So, what's the problem?
>>>>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>>>stop!!!
>>> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to >>> your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled >>> away?
>>> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based >>> on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to >>> support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't >>> expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS >>> market.
>> Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility with >> outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible >> for providing updated drivers? It would certainly be cheaper in the long >> run for each manufacturer to write new drivers than it would be for >> Microsoft to insure it, but then, HP and the rest wouldn't be selling >> anything new if their 20 year old printer has Windows 7 drivers. Are you >> willing to pay the extra big bucks for Windows to be compatible with >> every piece of hardware ever made? Can you even imagine what that cost >> would be? I can't. All I could see would be "You can have the latest >> Windows version, Windows 2015, for only $3,917 for the Home Starter >> Edition, with guaranteed backwards compatibility through Windows3.11." >> Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes :-) >> -- >> SC Tom
> Epson has a Windows 7 driver for that scanner on their site. So, what's > the problem?
>>>>> This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>>>> stop!!!
>>>> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to >>>> your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled >>>> away?
>>>> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based >>>> on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to >>>> support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't >>>> expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS >>>> market.
>>> Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility >>> with outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be >>> responsible for providing updated drivers? It would certainly be >>> cheaper in the long run for each manufacturer to write new drivers >>> than it would be for Microsoft to insure it, but then, HP and the >>> rest wouldn't be selling anything new if their 20 year old printer >>> has Windows 7 drivers. Are you willing to pay the extra big bucks for >>> Windows to be compatible with every piece of hardware ever made? Can >>> you even imagine what that cost would be? I can't. All I could see >>> would be "You can have the latest Windows version, Windows 2015, for >>> only $3,917 for the Home Starter Edition, with guaranteed backwards >>> compatibility through Windows3.11." Ain't gonna happen in our >>> lifetimes :-) >>> -- >>> SC Tom
>> Epson has a Windows 7 driver for that scanner on their site. So, >> what's the problem?
> Not a problem for me; I don't own an Epson :-)
Probably writing to me. The last time I looked, Epson had no Windows 7 x64 driver for my Perfection 1260 scanner. Maybe they have come up with one, but I doubt it. I'll take a look, though.
>>>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>>stop!!!
>> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to >> your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled >> away?
>> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based >> on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to >> support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't >> expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS >> market.
>Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility with >outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible >for providing updated drivers?
To some extent I agree that would be nice, but I propose instead that MS should have a compatibility mode for drivers so a newer OS at the very least universally supports any driver that worked on the prior OS version.
I suggest this because inevitably there is more work to be done in total by thousands of hardware manufacturers than a single-point solution of backwards driver compatiblity.
Let's look at it a different way. Which would make more sense, that a new car requires every tire company to make a new tire for it, or the new car accepts standard rims and tires if the owner doesn't want something exotic?
>It would certainly be cheaper in the long run >for each manufacturer to write new drivers than it would be for Microsoft to >insure it,
No it certainly would not be cheaper. Remember, they already had the code developed to use the existing drivers, it was their choice to deviate and so it should be their responsiblity to accept upon themselves the consequences.
As already mentioned, they don't because they can thrust the cost onto others due to their monopoly position.
>but then, HP and the rest wouldn't be selling anything new if >their 20 year old printer has Windows 7 drivers.
Yes they would, obviously even the workhorse printers of years past don't typically last 20 years, even if you are skilled at repair after 10 years you start to find that replacement parts aren't being made, all those plastic and rubber bits that hardened and became brittle and cracked, have equally-old replacement parts.
Then there's upgrade for the sake of tech improvements. That 8 year old scanner can't perform as well as a new one in most cases, nor same age mouse, external hard drive, wifi card, etc, etc.
>Are you willing to pay the >extra big bucks for Windows to be compatible with every piece of hardware >ever made?
Actually, it costs more to make windows NON-compatible, they already had the code for existing drivers and spent money altering and/or replacing it.
>Can you even imagine what that cost would be? I can't.
... because you're taking a backwards approach. MS definitely makes some improvements with each successive OS version, but at the same time their interest is in people buying new PCs with new components instead of pirating their new OS to use with existing systems. I can't fault them for wanting to prevent piracy, but I can fault them for causing massive waste of hardware that ends up in landfills, the energy and resources to make yet more hardware, and the increased cost for everyone.
>All I >could see would be "You can have the latest Windows version, Windows 2015, >for only $3,917 for the Home Starter Edition, with guaranteed backwards >compatibility through Windows3.11." Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes :-)
Then you aren't looking very hard. Random assumptions of an extreme price approaching $4000 are obviously random numbers pulled out of thin air that serve no reasonable argument.
>>>>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>>>stop!!!
>>> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to >>> your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled >>> away?
>>> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based >>> on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to >>> support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't >>> expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS >>> market.
>>Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility with >>outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible >>for providing updated drivers?
> To some extent I agree that would be nice, but I propose > instead that MS should have a compatibility mode for drivers > so a newer OS at the very least universally supports any > driver that worked on the prior OS version.
But then MS would have to have a cache of all the older drivers that they had nothing to do with. MS didn't write them, HP, dell, etc. did.
> I suggest this because inevitably there is more work to be > done in total by thousands of hardware manufacturers than a > single-point solution of backwards driver compatiblity.
> Let's look at it a different way. Which would make more > sense, that a new car requires every tire company to make a > new tire for it, or the new car accepts standard rims and > tires if the owner doesn't want something exotic?
>>It would certainly be cheaper in the long run >>for each manufacturer to write new drivers than it would be for Microsoft >>to >>insure it,
> No it certainly would not be cheaper. Remember, they > already had the code developed to use the existing drivers, > it was their choice to deviate and so it should be their > responsiblity to accept upon themselves the consequences.
Who had the code developed? Not MS; it wasn't their hardware or drivers.
> As already mentioned, they don't because they can thrust the > cost onto others due to their monopoly position.
>>but then, HP and the rest wouldn't be selling anything new if >>their 20 year old printer has Windows 7 drivers.
> Yes they would, obviously even the workhorse printers of > years past don't typically last 20 years, even if you are > skilled at repair after 10 years you start to find that > replacement parts aren't being made, all those plastic and > rubber bits that hardened and became brittle and cracked, > have equally-old replacement parts.
> Then there's upgrade for the sake of tech improvements. > That 8 year old scanner can't perform as well as a new one > in most cases, nor same age mouse, external hard drive, wifi > card, etc, etc.
>>Are you willing to pay the >>extra big bucks for Windows to be compatible with every piece of hardware >>ever made?
> Actually, it costs more to make windows NON-compatible, they > already had the code for existing drivers and spent money > altering and/or replacing it.
>>Can you even imagine what that cost would be? I can't.
> ... because you're taking a backwards approach. MS > definitely makes some improvements with each successive OS > version, but at the same time their interest is in people > buying new PCs with new components instead of pirating their > new OS to use with existing systems. I can't fault them for > wanting to prevent piracy, but I can fault them for causing > massive waste of hardware that ends up in landfills, the > energy and resources to make yet more hardware, and the > increased cost for everyone.
>>All I >>could see would be "You can have the latest Windows version, Windows 2015, >>for only $3,917 for the Home Starter Edition, with guaranteed backwards >>compatibility through Windows3.11." Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes >>:-)
> Then you aren't looking very hard. Random assumptions of > an extreme price approaching $4000 are obviously random > numbers pulled out of thin air that serve no reasonable > argument.
It's a "what if." It wasn't meant to be taken as fact.
>>>>>This "throw away everything and start over" every few years has gotta >>>>>stop!!!
>>>> Why not just call the police so the person holding a gun to >>>> your head, forcing you to use Win7 instead of XP, is hauled >>>> away?
>>>> Remember, you're the one who chooses what OS to use, based >>>> on its merits. I agree MS should take greater measures to >>>> support backwards compatibility with drivers but we can't >>>> expect it since they have a monopoly position in the PC OS >>>> market.
>>>Instead of Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility with >>>outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible >>>for providing updated drivers?
>> To some extent I agree that would be nice, but I propose >> instead that MS should have a compatibility mode for drivers >> so a newer OS at the very least universally supports any >> driver that worked on the prior OS version. > But then MS would have to have a cache of all the older drivers that they had > nothing to do with. MS didn't write them, HP, dell, etc. did.
>> I suggest this because inevitably there is more work to be >> done in total by thousands of hardware manufacturers than a >> single-point solution of backwards driver compatiblity.
>> Let's look at it a different way. Which would make more >> sense, that a new car requires every tire company to make a >> new tire for it, or the new car accepts standard rims and >> tires if the owner doesn't want something exotic?
>>>It would certainly be cheaper in the long run >>>for each manufacturer to write new drivers than it would be for Microsoft >>> to >>>insure it,
>> No it certainly would not be cheaper. Remember, they >> already had the code developed to use the existing drivers, >> it was their choice to deviate and so it should be their >> responsiblity to accept upon themselves the consequences. > Who had the code developed? Not MS; it wasn't their hardware or drivers.
>> As already mentioned, they don't because they can thrust the >> cost onto others due to their monopoly position.
>>>but then, HP and the rest wouldn't be selling anything new if >>>their 20 year old printer has Windows 7 drivers.
>> Yes they would, obviously even the workhorse printers of >> years past don't typically last 20 years, even if you are >> skilled at repair after 10 years you start to find that >> replacement parts aren't being made, all those plastic and >> rubber bits that hardened and became brittle and cracked, >> have equally-old replacement parts.
>> Then there's upgrade for the sake of tech improvements. >> That 8 year old scanner can't perform as well as a new one >> in most cases, nor same age mouse, external hard drive, wifi >> card, etc, etc.
>>>Are you willing to pay the >>>extra big bucks for Windows to be compatible with every piece of hardware >>>ever made?
>> Actually, it costs more to make windows NON-compatible, they >> already had the code for existing drivers and spent money >> altering and/or replacing it.
>>>Can you even imagine what that cost would be? I can't.
>> ... because you're taking a backwards approach. MS >> definitely makes some improvements with each successive OS >> version, but at the same time their interest is in people >> buying new PCs with new components instead of pirating their >> new OS to use with existing systems. I can't fault them for >> wanting to prevent piracy, but I can fault them for causing >> massive waste of hardware that ends up in landfills, the >> energy and resources to make yet more hardware, and the >> increased cost for everyone.
>>>All I >>>could see would be "You can have the latest Windows version, Windows 2015, >>>for only $3,917 for the Home Starter Edition, with guaranteed backwards >>>compatibility through Windows3.11." Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes :-)
>> Then you aren't looking very hard. Random assumptions of >> an extreme price approaching $4000 are obviously random >> numbers pulled out of thin air that serve no reasonable >> argument.
> It's a "what if." It wasn't meant to be taken as fact.
Absolutely. You even said it: "Can you even imagine what that cost would be? I can't" before you introduce the numbers.
I am good at noticing that sort of thing. Mostly because I do it a lot, and I also don't (intentionally) hide from others that I'm doing it.
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:34:21 -0500, "SC Tom" <s...@tom.net> wrote:
>> To some extent I agree that would be nice, but I propose >> instead that MS should have a compatibility mode for drivers >> so a newer OS at the very least universally supports any >> driver that worked on the prior OS version.
>But then MS would have to have a cache of all the older drivers that they >had nothing to do with. MS didn't write them, HP, dell, etc. did.
No, it is ridiculous to think MS is somehow obligated to maintain drivers. I'm completely against the idea they need to provide any drivers at all... if somone can't get a driver installed they aren't fit to set up a PC in the first place, period.
>> No it certainly would not be cheaper. Remember, they >> already had the code developed to use the existing drivers, >> it was their choice to deviate and so it should be their >> responsiblity to accept upon themselves the consequences.
>Who had the code developed? Not MS; it wasn't their hardware or drivers.
Which leads back to the central idea, that if MS doesn't control drivers, then their best position in a *competitive* market would be not changing code so the vast, vast amount of drivers that exist no longer work.
|
