On 2010-02-28, SC Tom <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>
> "paul_36" <guest@this.site.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hmem86$c7v$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 2010-02-28, Ken Blake, MVP <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:48:53 -0500, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Win7" <Win7@theinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:iY5in.10153$pv.3548@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> > The driver that Windows7 downloads for the HP LaserJet 3380 only works
>>>> > at
>>>> > 600dpi resolution
>>>> >
>>>> > - compare this to the driver HP provided for Windows XP which allowed
>>>> > the
>>>> > printer to work at 1200dpi.
>>>> >
>>>> > HP will not provide a Windows7 driver for the LJ 3380 because they say
>>>> > MS
>>>> > has already provided one.
>>>>
>>>> This is HP's way of saying that Win7 has a generic driver that works, so
>>>> why
>>>> should we be bothered to write one for a 5+ year old printer?
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly right!
>>>
>>>
>>>> > Please fix this MS.
>>>>
>>>> It's not Microsoft's problem; it's HP's.
>>
>> Then why the "warning" that a driver hasn't been signed? by m$?
>> and why are some drivers have m$ as the one who did the driver in the
>> details?
>>
>> If m$ claims the driver is "good", then m$ is responsible as the
>> checker.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly right! Drivers are the responsibility of the hardware
>>> manufacturer, not Microsoft.
>>>
>
> Is m$ the variable in the question? What's the rest of the formula?
>
> The driver may have been digitally signed by *Microsoft* for Windows XP (or
> another version), but that doesn't mean that the signature is "good" for
> Windows 7.
>
If the Microsoft signed driver is supplied with windows 7, then it
it should be "good" for win7. Also doesn't the microsoft logo
indicate that the hardware/software will work with windows?