Re: Windows 7 I like it

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Tony Neville, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. Tony Neville

    Mary Hanna Guest

    On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:45:48 +1300, "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:

    >"Carnations" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:52:07 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >>
    >>> Carnations wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:38:49 +1300, Allistar wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
    >>>>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS
    >>>>> and drivers inside it were developed?
    >>>>
    >>>> Would you care to try saying that in English?
    >>>
    >>> So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
    >>>
    >>> Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand
    >>> new hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that
    >>> hardware is purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is the
    >>> OS supposed to recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver?

    >>
    >> Easy.
    >>
    >> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?

    >
    >I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or allow
    >my OS to pull down from the Internet) any drivers that I may need for new
    >hardware rather than have Windows update automatically pull down every
    >bloody driver that I may or may not ever end up needing.




    I tried WIN 7 and found that there are no drivers for a lot of things I have
    to 4 year old printers that work in XP 100% but not in WIN7, but I have a 20
    year old HP laser printers that MS has a new driver for it.
     
    Mary Hanna, Nov 11, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:06:00 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    >> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?

    >
    > You said "The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
    > driver already supplied and installed when the OS was installed". I'm
    > saying it's impossible for an appropriate driver to have been present
    > when the OS was installed because the hardware didn't even exist then.


    You're farting.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 12, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:45:48 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:

    >>>>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
    >>>>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS
    >>>>> and drivers inside it were developed?
    >>>>
    >>>> Would you care to try saying that in English?
    >>>
    >>> So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
    >>>
    >>> Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand
    >>> new hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that
    >>> hardware is purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is
    >>> the OS supposed to recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
    >>> driver?

    >>
    >> Easy.
    >>
    >> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?

    >
    > I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or
    > allow my OS to pull down from the Internet) any drivers that I may need
    > for new hardware rather than have Windows update automatically pull down
    > every bloody driver that I may or may not ever end up needing.


    OK. You've just gotten your brand new shiny Microsoft OS installed onto your brand new shiny
    hardware. The OS was in development for about 24 years.

    The hardware... the fundamentals were developed decades ago, and there is presently little happening
    by way of actual true innovation.

    Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them and work with them.

    Why should a driver for, for example, a drawing tablet consist of megabytes of data when the OS
    should already have a module that fundamentally know how to drive drawing tablets and should simply
    know parameters etc for the tablet.

    Why should a driver for, for example, a video card likewise consists of megabytes of data when all
    video cards do fundamentally the same things and many of them even use the same chipsets with the
    same functionality.

    Likewise it should be sufficient for the OS to have a module that understands the basic concepts
    behind outputting to a video card and need only be told the various parameters of the card in question.

    If the card is so bleeding-edge new that the OS doesn't know how to drive it, then the manufacturer of
    the new type of hardware should be working with the developers of the OS to enable the OS to be
    updated to be capable of at least recognizing the hardware and pulling down a module from the Internet.

    I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the work in producing drivers.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 12, 2009
    #23
  4. Tony Neville

    EMB Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    >
    > OK. You've just gotten your brand new shiny Microsoft OS installed onto your brand new shiny
    > hardware. The OS was in development for about 24 years.
    >
    > The hardware... the fundamentals were developed decades ago, and there is presently little happening
    > by way of actual true innovation.
    >
    > Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them and work with them.


    Which is pretty much what Windows 7 does. I have installed in on
    several different models of PC and am happy to report that it
    JustWorksâ„¢. I had to feed it neither drivers nor an internet connection
    in order to get all the hardware working.

    Generally I find current linux releases do much the same.
    >
    > Why should a driver for, for example, a drawing tablet consist of megabytes of data when the OS
    > should already have a module that fundamentally know how to drive drawing tablets and should simply
    > know parameters etc for the tablet.
    >
    > Why should a driver for, for example, a video card likewise consists of megabytes of data when all
    > video cards do fundamentally the same things and many of them even use the same chipsets with the
    > same functionality.
    >
    > Likewise it should be sufficient for the OS to have a module that understands the basic concepts
    > behind outputting to a video card and need only be told the various parameters of the card in question.
    >
    > If the card is so bleeding-edge new that the OS doesn't know how to drive it, then the manufacturer of
    > the new type of hardware should be working with the developers of the OS to enable the OS to be
    > updated to be capable of at least recognizing the hardware and pulling down a module from the Internet.


    As opposed to the linux model of an infinite number of nerds sat in
    their darkened bedrooms hacking out driver code on the "so long as it
    sort of works we don't care about performance" model that seems to apply
    to high-end graphics card drivers under linux.
    >
    > I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the work in producing drivers.


    I think it is perfectly acceptable they do this - Microsoft provide all
    the OS information needed to write the driver, the hardware manufacturer
    writes it, and then Microsoft certify it. That system is efficient,
    effective and provides an undertaking as to the quality of the driver
    from the OS authors.
     
    EMB, Nov 12, 2009
    #24
  5. Tony Neville

    victor Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:45:48 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
    >>>>>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
    >>>>>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS
    >>>>>> and drivers inside it were developed?
    >>>>> Would you care to try saying that in English?
    >>>> So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand
    >>>> new hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that
    >>>> hardware is purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is
    >>>> the OS supposed to recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
    >>>> driver?
    >>> Easy.
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?

    >> I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or
    >> allow my OS to pull down from the Internet) any drivers that I may need
    >> for new hardware rather than have Windows update automatically pull down
    >> every bloody driver that I may or may not ever end up needing.

    >
    > OK. You've just gotten your brand new shiny Microsoft OS installed onto your brand new shiny
    > hardware. The OS was in development for about 24 years.
    >
    > The hardware... the fundamentals were developed decades ago, and there is presently little happening
    > by way of actual true innovation.
    >
    > Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them and work with them.
    >
    > Why should a driver for, for example, a drawing tablet consist of megabytes of data when the OS
    > should already have a module that fundamentally know how to drive drawing tablets and should simply
    > know parameters etc for the tablet.


    Because the manufacturer may have introduced better pressure sensitivity
    or multi touch or gestures that are not in simple generic legacy driver
    they contributed to the kernel earlier.
    Thats why its modular.


    >
    > Why should a driver for, for example, a video card likewise consists of megabytes of data when all
    > video cards do fundamentally the same things and many of them even use the same chipsets with the
    > same functionality.


    Why are cars different when they fundamentally all just have a wheel at
    each corner ?
    Video card drivers are integrations of the chipset driver and the tv-out
    drivers and other I/O in different combinations.


    >
    > Likewise it should be sufficient for the OS to have a module that understands the basic concepts
    > behind outputting to a video card and need only be told the various parameters of the card in question.
    >
    > If the card is so bleeding-edge new that the OS doesn't know how to drive it, then the manufacturer of
    > the new type of hardware should be working with the developers of the OS to enable the OS to be
    > updated to be capable of at least recognizing the hardware and pulling down a module from the Internet.
    >
    > I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the work in producing drivers.
    >
    >


    Thats what happens with linux kernel modules ideally
     
    victor, Nov 12, 2009
    #25
  6. Tony Neville

    AD. Guest

    On Nov 13, 7:44 am, EMB <> wrote:
    > As opposed to the linux model of an infinite number of nerds sat in
    > their darkened bedrooms hacking out driver code on the "so long as it
    > sort of works we don't care about performance" model that seems to apply
    > to high-end graphics card drivers under linux.


    The old "hobbyist nerds in their bedrooms" meme is a bit of a myth
    these days. The bulk of the work done to Linux and most of the
    surrounding projects (including drivers) is done by people employed to
    work on them.

    The main Linux video card drivers these days are mostly written by the
    manufacturers themselves. Intel and more recently AMD/ATI do it in an
    open source manner (with some help from outside eg Redhat), and Nvidia
    does it in a closed source manner.

    There are niche community driven driver efforts though (eg nouveau,
    radeonhd etc), but the drivers most people use are the ones worked on
    by the manufacturers.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Nov 12, 2009
    #26
  7. Re: Dimdows 7 I like it

    In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > People who make hardware get to design the drivers or interfaces to that
    > hardware any way they see fit - it is theirs after all.


    Experience shows that people who make hardware tend to be lousy at writing
    software.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 12, 2009
    #27
  8. Tony Neville

    Gordon Guest

    Re: Dimdows 7 I like it

    On 2009-11-12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> People who make hardware get to design the drivers or interfaces to that
    >> hardware any way they see fit - it is theirs after all.

    >
    > Experience shows that people who make hardware tend to be lousy at writing
    > software.


    Right on! So they empoly people who are able to. Strange thing is that Adam
    found this out long thing ago with Eve.
     
    Gordon, Nov 13, 2009
    #28
  9. Re: Dimdows 7 I like it

    In message <>, Gordon wrote:

    > On 2009-11-12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In message <>, Allistar
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> People who make hardware get to design the drivers or interfaces to that
    >>> hardware any way they see fit - it is theirs after all.

    >>
    >> Experience shows that people who make hardware tend to be lousy at
    >> writing software.

    >
    > Right on! So they empoly people who are able to.


    The don’t seem to be able to employ good ones either.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 13, 2009
    #29
  10. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +1300, EMB wrote:

    > That system is efficient,
    > effective and provides an undertaking as to the quality of the driver
    > from the OS authors.


    Are you actually serious?!!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 13, 2009
    #30
  11. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +1300, EMB wrote:

    >> Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them
    >> and work with them.

    >
    > Which is pretty much what Windows 7 does.


    "Pretty much" means "not always".


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 13, 2009
    #31
  12. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:24:42 +1300, Allistar wrote:

    >>>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
    >>>
    >>> You said "The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
    >>> driver already supplied and installed when the OS was installed". I'm
    >>> saying it's impossible for an appropriate driver to have been present
    >>> when the OS was installed because the hardware didn't even exist then.

    >>
    >> You're farting.

    >
    > Is that what you call a reasoned debate?


    No.

    It is what I call an accurate description of the noise you made.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 13, 2009
    #32
  13. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:13:04 +1300, victor wrote:

    > Because the manufacturer may have introduced better pressure sensitivity
    > or multi touch or gestures that are not in simple generic legacy driver
    > they contributed to the kernel earlier.
    > Thats why its modular.


    _That's_ why the OS can be updated!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 13, 2009
    #33
  14. Tony Neville

    EMB Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +1300, EMB wrote:
    >
    >>> Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them
    >>> and work with them.

    >> Which is pretty much what Windows 7 does.

    >
    > "Pretty much" means "not always".


    Ok, it has with every install I have done, but I'm not stupid enough to
    say "always" when I'm talking about a sample of 10 or so differing chipsets.
     
    EMB, Nov 13, 2009
    #34
  15. Tony Neville

    EMB Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +1300, EMB wrote:
    >
    >> That system is efficient,
    >> effective and provides an undertaking as to the quality of the driver
    >> from the OS authors.

    >
    > Are you actually serious?!!


    I sure am. I have working Windows drivers that do not cause system
    instability for all the hardware[1] that is hanging around both at home
    and at work.

    [1] Which includes some fairly uncommon peripherals.
     
    EMB, Nov 13, 2009
    #35
  16. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:10:44 +1300, EMB wrote:

    >>> That system is efficient,
    >>> effective and provides an undertaking as to the quality of the driver
    >>> from the OS authors.

    >>
    >> Are you actually serious?!!

    >
    > I sure am. I have working Windows drivers that do not cause system
    > instability for all the hardware[1] that is hanging around both at home
    > and at work.


    Wow! That is remarkable. Actual good Microsoft drivers.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 13, 2009
    #36
  17. Re: Dimdows 7 I like it

    In message <hdhl18$t8l$>, EMB wrote:

    > ... Microsoft provide all the OS information needed to write the driver,
    > the hardware manufacturer writes it, and then Microsoft certify it. That
    > system is efficient, effective and provides an undertaking as to the
    > quality of the driver from the OS authors.


    Funny you should say that. The December issue of “PC Authority†magazine has
    a special feature on crapware, with a section focusing on printer drivers.
    Turns out the software provided by vendors like HP, Epson, Canon and so on
    add a minute or more to the boot time of Windows. Call that “efficient�

    On top of that, they are starting to include ads in the drivers as well
    <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=hcj6pe$5fr$>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 13, 2009
    #37
  18. Tony Neville

    greg Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <hdhl18$t8l$>, EMB wrote:
    >
    >> ... Microsoft provide all the OS information needed to write the driver,
    >> the hardware manufacturer writes it, and then Microsoft certify it. That
    >> system is efficient, effective and provides an undertaking as to the
    >> quality of the driver from the OS authors.

    >
    > Funny you should say that. The December issue of “PC Authority†magazine has
    > a special feature on crapware, with a section focusing on printer drivers.
    > Turns out the software provided by vendors like HP, Epson, Canon and so on
    > add a minute or more to the boot time of Windows. Call that “efficient�
    >
    > On top of that, they are starting to include ads in the drivers as well
    > <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=hcj6pe$5fr$>.


    exactly how is your brand of dribble any help to this thread?
     
    greg, Nov 14, 2009
    #38
  19. Tony Neville

    victor Guest

    Collector_NZ wrote:
    > greg wrote:
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> In message <hdhl18$t8l$>, EMB wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ... Microsoft provide all the OS information needed to write the
    >>>> driver,
    >>>> the hardware manufacturer writes it, and then Microsoft certify it.
    >>>> That
    >>>> system is efficient, effective and provides an undertaking as to the
    >>>> quality of the driver from the OS authors.
    >>>
    >>> Funny you should say that. The December issue of “PC Authorityâ€
    >>> magazine has
    >>> a special feature on crapware, with a section focusing on printer
    >>> drivers.
    >>> Turns out the software provided by vendors like HP, Epson, Canon and
    >>> so on
    >>> add a minute or more to the boot time of Windows. Call that “efficient�
    >>>
    >>> On top of that, they are starting to include ads in the drivers as well
    >>> <http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=hcj6pe$5fr$>.

    >>
    >> exactly how is your brand of dribble any help to this thread?

    > It is extremely useful ^h^h^hless as is the fact he ignored a post of
    > mine called 12 weeks of Linux


    Why not ignore haters ?
    They add nothing.
     
    victor, Nov 14, 2009
    #39
  20. Tony Neville

    Carnations Guest

    On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:50:27 +0000, paul wrote:

    > Quote > Just trawl the normal support forums (which I did for Gentoo
    > users as a way of finding bug reports often because the users were
    > afraid to tell me) and see how many obvious kernel related issues there
    > are. I'd love to tell them all to suddenly flood lkml with their reports
    > of failed boots with various kernels, hardware disappearing, stopping
    > working suddenly, memory disappearing, trying to use software suspend
    > and having your balls blown off by your laptop, and so on.


    It is a good thing for users to report back to developers what issues they are having with the free
    software that they're using.

    It is a better thing for posters to Usenet to stick to the subject and not resort to ad hominem attacks!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. { Listerine Enema }

    My wife's like kinda what my wife's like

    { Listerine Enema }, Jun 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    966
    { Listerine Enema }
    Jun 1, 2004
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    429
    DVD Verdict
    Jun 18, 2004
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    362
    Stewart Vane-Tempest
    Nov 1, 2005
  4. ~BD~
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    638
  5. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,309
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page