• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

WIN 7 Major USB Hardware Incompatibilities ?

  • Thread starter Trimble Bracegirdle
  • Start date
K

kony

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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.
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible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
 
M

milt

Flightless Bird
On 2/22/2010 7:49 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 2/22/10, milt posted:
>> Oh wait, I think I get it now, you're just an anti-MS troll.

>
> Note that mike seems to be unable to type "MS" without using a dollar
> sign. In my view, that totally corroborates your remark.
>


Yup, I noticed that as well, that was the obvious clue right there. As
if making money is a BAD thing!
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"mike" <spamme0@go.com> wrote in message
news:hluuvk$g1p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Nil wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2010, mike <spamme0@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
 
B

Bogey Man

Flightless Bird
"SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
news:R%Wgn.62810$Ee1.55699@newsfe12.iad...
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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



Epson has a Windows 7 driver for that scanner on their site. So, what's the
problem?
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"Bogey Man" <newdoverman@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hm3ikf$5i3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
> news:R%Wgn.62810$Ee1.55699@newsfe12.iad...
>>
>> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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

>
>
> 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 :)
 
A

Al Smith

Flightless Bird
SC Tom wrote:
>
> "Bogey Man" <newdoverman@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:hm3ikf$5i3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net> wrote in message
>> news:R%Wgn.62810$Ee1.55699@newsfe12.iad...
>>>
>>> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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

>>
>>
>> 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.

-Al-
 
K

kony

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:37:06 -0500, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net>
wrote:

>
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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?


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.
 
S

SC Tom

Flightless Bird
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:k32bo513j079th0tct43hb28mv06unjcbo@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:37:06 -0500, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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?

>
> 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.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On 2/24/10, SC Tom posted:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:k32bo513j079th0tct43hb28mv06unjcbo@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:37:06 -0500, "SC Tom" <sc@tom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0mc8o5lft3dj99tk5ki9a5qorbs3t5j7ab@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike <spamme0@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?

>>
>> 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.

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
 
K

kony

Flightless Bird
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:34:21 -0500, "SC Tom" <sc@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.
 
Top