Vista are designed for people who can write their own driver.

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=, Feb 23, 2007.

  1. This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate decide
    that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for driver
    just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=, Feb 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    Theo Guest

    Microsoft is not responsible for the drivers of other
    companies hardware!

    You should be addressing this type of complaint to the
    hardware companies, not Microsoft!

    canixs wrote:
    > This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate decide
    > that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for driver
    > just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..
     
    Theo, Feb 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Which driver(s) are you looking for?
    --
    Cari (MS-MVP)
    Windows Technologies - Printing & Imaging
    http://www.coribright.com/windows

    "canixs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate
    > decide
    > that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for driver
    > just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..
     
    Cari \(MS-MVP\), Feb 23, 2007
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    canixs Guest

    I am desperately looking for conexant 64bit audio driver with ati
    southbridge chipset for my gateway 7510gx. Even a driver will only produce
    mono sound will be fine by me.... that desperate..

    "Cari (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Which driver(s) are you looking for?
    > --
    > Cari (MS-MVP)
    > Windows Technologies - Printing & Imaging
    > http://www.coribright.com/windows
    >
    > "canixs" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate
    >> decide
    >> that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for
    >> driver
    >> just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..

    >
     
    canixs, Feb 23, 2007
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    Dennis Pack Guest

    Canixs:
    You are just one among many needing signed x64 drivers for the
    Conexant 20468-31 chipset used on many laptop computers. The only avenue for
    us is to continually question the manufacturers to when the drivers will be
    available. Have a great day.

    --
    Dennis Pack
    XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
    Office2007
    "canixs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am desperately looking for conexant 64bit audio driver with ati
    >southbridge chipset for my gateway 7510gx. Even a driver will only produce
    >mono sound will be fine by me.... that desperate..
    >
    > "Cari (MS-MVP)" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Which driver(s) are you looking for?
    >> --
    >> Cari (MS-MVP)
    >> Windows Technologies - Printing & Imaging
    >> http://www.coribright.com/windows
    >>
    >> "canixs" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate
    >>> decide
    >>> that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for
    >>> driver
    >>> just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..

    >>

    >
     
    Dennis Pack, Feb 23, 2007
    #5
  6. Bill Gates is getting richer by the second on our problems. No 64-bit
    drivers/patches but 64-bit Windows? I wish I had known that before I bought
    it. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, Microsoft or the hardware/software
    manufacturers . . . it's the little people who have to suck it in. We've
    been snookered . . . again.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


    "canixs" wrote:

    > This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate decide
    > that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for driver
    > just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Feb 24, 2007
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    BSchnur Guest

    Denise, the trick with major new OS releases is research and no small
    amount of skepticism -- before the sale.

    With 64 bit Windows there was enough of a history of driver issues --
    it is one of the things which very much sidetracked XP64 into a
    specialty OS rather than the OS of choice (instead of XP 32).

    In the right setting, a 64 bit OS pays off and can be made to do things
    that are more difficult in 32 bit. (As a server OS, given the memory
    needs of Windows servers in larger settings, the 64 bit OS pays off big
    time -- again as long as the hardware driver support exists).

    My own view is that Vista 64 will have significantly better driver and
    application support than XP 64, and this will result in Vista 64
    gaining a larger piece of the Microsoft OS market -- *eventually*.

    For now, 'the little people' are most probably better served by Vista
    32 -- recognizing that even with Vista 32 there are driver issues that
    remain to be solved (and I'd guess with a much shorter resolution time
    frame than with Vista 64).

    The other thing that folks ought to be aware of, based on well over a
    decade of Windows release history, is that the first release of a new
    OS is often close to the mark, but not quite on target.

    Examples (my opinion here others may differ)

    Windows 95 -- cool -- but Windows 95 OSR2 was much better.

    Windows 98 -- cool -- but Windows 98 SE was much better

    Windows 2000 -- excellent -- *especially once SP3 was out*

    Windows ME -- well not all Windows is good windows.

    Windows XP -- cool -- but XP2 made a REAL difference.

    I'm not an early 'deployer' -- that is I run the new OS on some
    systems, but certainly don't push a new OS on my client base. If they
    ask, I present my view of the plusses and minuses -- and then when they
    make an informed choice, do my best to support that.


    By the way, this 'update-itis' is not unique to Microsoft and Windows.

    --
    Barry Schnur
     
    BSchnur, Feb 24, 2007
    #7
  8. Microsoft as much as said "here's an operating system but you won't be able
    to do much with it because I'm leaving it up to everyone else to update their
    hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,
    2000XP. It was a smooth transition from one release to the next. People who
    are computer knowledgable might have known of the incompatibility that never
    existed before but most people didn't, as demonstrated by the number of angry
    posts about the os. I have a new HP All-in-One printer. Before it was
    purchased, I contacted HP Tech Support and asked if it would be compatible
    with X64. I was told that it was but it isn't. I lost it's faxing
    capability and HP obnoxiously and clearly states that on their update
    website. My 3-month old all-in-one printer no longer in their product line.
    They reduced the price before Christmas to make it very alluring then dropped
    it like a hot potatoe because they knew that it wasn't compatible with X64.
    Snookered.

    Denise
    --
    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


    "BSchnur" wrote:

    > Denise, the trick with major new OS releases is research and no small
    > amount of skepticism -- before the sale.
    >
    > With 64 bit Windows there was enough of a history of driver issues --
    > it is one of the things which very much sidetracked XP64 into a
    > specialty OS rather than the OS of choice (instead of XP 32).
    >
    > In the right setting, a 64 bit OS pays off and can be made to do things
    > that are more difficult in 32 bit. (As a server OS, given the memory
    > needs of Windows servers in larger settings, the 64 bit OS pays off big
    > time -- again as long as the hardware driver support exists).
    >
    > My own view is that Vista 64 will have significantly better driver and
    > application support than XP 64, and this will result in Vista 64
    > gaining a larger piece of the Microsoft OS market -- *eventually*.
    >
    > For now, 'the little people' are most probably better served by Vista
    > 32 -- recognizing that even with Vista 32 there are driver issues that
    > remain to be solved (and I'd guess with a much shorter resolution time
    > frame than with Vista 64).
    >
    > The other thing that folks ought to be aware of, based on well over a
    > decade of Windows release history, is that the first release of a new
    > OS is often close to the mark, but not quite on target.
    >
    > Examples (my opinion here others may differ)
    >
    > Windows 95 -- cool -- but Windows 95 OSR2 was much better.
    >
    > Windows 98 -- cool -- but Windows 98 SE was much better
    >
    > Windows 2000 -- excellent -- *especially once SP3 was out*
    >
    > Windows ME -- well not all Windows is good windows.
    >
    > Windows XP -- cool -- but XP2 made a REAL difference.
    >
    > I'm not an early 'deployer' -- that is I run the new OS on some
    > systems, but certainly don't push a new OS on my client base. If they
    > ask, I present my view of the plusses and minuses -- and then when they
    > make an informed choice, do my best to support that.
    >
    >
    > By the way, this 'update-itis' is not unique to Microsoft and Windows.
    >
    > --
    > Barry Schnur
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Feb 24, 2007
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    BSchnur Guest

    > hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,
    > 2000XP.


    But they did and it wasn't a smooth transition. By the time the
    'second cuts' of those OS's were out, driver support was quite good.
    About the only exception has been XP 64.

    I'm not saying Microsoft is blameless here -- rather it is a collective
    accountability, Microsoft, hardware (and software) vendors, AND
    consumers.

    I support, build and sell systems for my client base. So for me it is
    a case of been there done that.


    --
    Barry Schnur
     
    BSchnur, Feb 25, 2007
    #9
  10. I never had a problem with the transition between 95, 98 and 2000 XP Pro. If
    it was the second cut, as you said, they must've come out with it pretty
    fast. Now all they do is blame the other guy for it, and some people blame
    the people who bought the operating system which, I would like to add, came
    with no warning that it was incompatible with a lot of hardware and software.
    If it was a baby car seat or just about most other products that had
    defects, the item would have been recalled at once. Microsoft gets away with
    this kind of thing because they have the bucks to back them up and the good
    ole USA is looking the other way instead of getting involved.

    I guess I can say that I've been there and done that now too.

    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don''t know where you came from, you won''t know where you''re going.


    "BSchnur" wrote:

    > > hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,
    > > 2000XP.

    >
    > But they did and it wasn't a smooth transition. By the time the
    > 'second cuts' of those OS's were out, driver support was quite good.
    > About the only exception has been XP 64.
    >
    > I'm not saying Microsoft is blameless here -- rather it is a collective
    > accountability, Microsoft, hardware (and software) vendors, AND
    > consumers.
    >
    > I support, build and sell systems for my client base. So for me it is
    > a case of been there done that.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Barry Schnur
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Feb 25, 2007
    #10
  11. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    BSchnur Guest

    Fair enough, perhaps I was closer to the ongoing support/test side of
    things -- I've been involved in personal computer use and support since
    the early days (my first work PC was the original IBM 8088 based
    system, my first home computer was the Compaq 'Portable'), and I've
    doing online support since early days (Borland TeamB on CompuServe --
    along with Charlie Russel who does MVP support in this newsgroup
    amongst others).

    Regarding drivers, there is a limit to what Microsoft can do -- drivers
    that are included in Vista (and were included in past OS images) are
    those written by the manufacturers themselves, working with Microsoft
    as the OS goes thru beta phases. So it is a collective effort.
    Microsoft upped the security ante with Vista 64 -- the drivers get
    security checked in a way not seen before. That likely slows up the
    effort. As it is, on the 64 bit side things have been at least
    somewhat problematic since day one (as XP 64 driver issues
    demonstrate). On the manufacturer side, they need to allocate
    resources to develop code - and they will allocate those resources in a
    way which is viewed as 'revenue smart'.

    That certainly is one of the things that hurt XP 64 (at least for non-
    server hardware). With the concurrent Vista 32 and Vista 64 release, I
    think Microsoft is pushing the manufacturers of end user hardware to
    develop drivers for the 64 bit OS by increasing the market and thus the
    reason for manufacturers to allocate resources for the effort. At the
    same time, those manufacturers are pretty much *compelled* by the
    market to work on (and optimize) the 32 bit drivers for Vista. The
    thing for the manufacturers -- where is the revenue for their efforts.
    Certainly Microsoft isn't *paying* them to do this. So they need to
    see it as new hardware sales.

    Well with Vista 32 that's what is going on. With Vista 64 it is going
    on no doubt to a lesser degree. But the thing is, in addition to
    driver development for *new* sales, the manufacturers are under end
    user pressure for development of drivers for already sold product. And
    Microsoft increases this pressure by marketing the upgrade versions to
    customers who expect Vista to suddenly make their existing Windows ME,
    Windows 2K or Windows XP environment a 'WOW'.

    So, I'm not 'angry' at Microsoft, the hardware suppliers, or for that
    matter the end users. It is just that the first few months are (as
    they actually were -- your perception notwithstanding -- with previous
    new Windows releases) the most difficult for all involved -- with only
    Microsoft actually seeing the new revenues. Then again, the 5 year
    plus development effort cost Microsoft hundreds of millions of dollars
    if not in the billion plus range.


    --
    Barry Schnur
     
    BSchnur, Feb 25, 2007
    #11
  12. As if Microsoft couldn't afford to lose a billion or two . . .

    Microsoft cares about Microsoft. It has the money to put into the
    development of code to help the manufacturers and end users. Too many people
    are angry about this and with Microsoft in a way they never have been before.
    That in itself speaks volumes. Microsoft should get its a$$ whacked but it
    won't even get a sideways glance. I lost the fax capability with my new
    printer. Oh well, I guess I can take a couple hundred dollars that I could
    use for food, heat, telephone, rent, etc, to buy another printer so that Bill
    Gates can buy a luxury liner or his 10th chateau somewhere. No warning that
    it's not compatible with a lot of hardware and software is not only shoving
    it into our faces but smearing it around also and, the entity that is
    supposed to protect us from this type of non-declaration, our federal
    government, is letting Microsoft get away with it. No matter how you look at
    it, it's wrong. I guess Bush is too glad to be stimulating the US economy
    for the fortune 500 by sending our young soldiers to Iraq, away from their
    families, spending billions of dollars to do so, to be concerned about
    anything else. He's not a lame duck but he's not interested in the welfare
    of this country's citizens either.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.



    "BSchnur" wrote:

    > Fair enough, perhaps I was closer to the ongoing support/test side of
    > things -- I've been involved in personal computer use and support since
    > the early days (my first work PC was the original IBM 8088 based
    > system, my first home computer was the Compaq 'Portable'), and I've
    > doing online support since early days (Borland TeamB on CompuServe --
    > along with Charlie Russel who does MVP support in this newsgroup
    > amongst others).
    >
    > Regarding drivers, there is a limit to what Microsoft can do -- drivers
    > that are included in Vista (and were included in past OS images) are
    > those written by the manufacturers themselves, working with Microsoft
    > as the OS goes thru beta phases. So it is a collective effort.
    > Microsoft upped the security ante with Vista 64 -- the drivers get
    > security checked in a way not seen before. That likely slows up the
    > effort. As it is, on the 64 bit side things have been at least
    > somewhat problematic since day one (as XP 64 driver issues
    > demonstrate). On the manufacturer side, they need to allocate
    > resources to develop code - and they will allocate those resources in a
    > way which is viewed as 'revenue smart'.
    >
    > That certainly is one of the things that hurt XP 64 (at least for non-
    > server hardware). With the concurrent Vista 32 and Vista 64 release, I
    > think Microsoft is pushing the manufacturers of end user hardware to
    > develop drivers for the 64 bit OS by increasing the market and thus the
    > reason for manufacturers to allocate resources for the effort. At the
    > same time, those manufacturers are pretty much *compelled* by the
    > market to work on (and optimize) the 32 bit drivers for Vista. The
    > thing for the manufacturers -- where is the revenue for their efforts.
    > Certainly Microsoft isn't *paying* them to do this. So they need to
    > see it as new hardware sales.
    >
    > Well with Vista 32 that's what is going on. With Vista 64 it is going
    > on no doubt to a lesser degree. But the thing is, in addition to
    > driver development for *new* sales, the manufacturers are under end
    > user pressure for development of drivers for already sold product. And
    > Microsoft increases this pressure by marketing the upgrade versions to
    > customers who expect Vista to suddenly make their existing Windows ME,
    > Windows 2K or Windows XP environment a 'WOW'.
    >
    > So, I'm not 'angry' at Microsoft, the hardware suppliers, or for that
    > matter the end users. It is just that the first few months are (as
    > they actually were -- your perception notwithstanding -- with previous
    > new Windows releases) the most difficult for all involved -- with only
    > Microsoft actually seeing the new revenues. Then again, the 5 year
    > plus development effort cost Microsoft hundreds of millions of dollars
    > if not in the billion plus range.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Barry Schnur
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Feb 25, 2007
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    Theo Guest

    I think you have a very short memory. Win 95 had the exact
    same problems with drivers when it first came out. One
    difference though was that Win 95 could load a lot of the
    16-bit drivers, but that prevented it from booting into the
    32-bit mode. There were some hardware that took awhile for
    drivers to be published. I had a Sony CD-ROM drive with a
    proprietary interface board and the best I remember it was
    at least 6 months after Win 95 was released before Win 95
    compatible drivers were published. The 16-bit drivers
    (MS-DOS) wouldn't work with Win 95.

    Also, when Win XP first came out there were a few drivers I
    had to wait for. So, it wasn't all rosy with the previous
    OS's either!


    Denise wrote:
    > Microsoft as much as said "here's an operating system but you won't be able
    > to do much with it because I'm leaving it up to everyone else to update their
    > hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,
    > 2000XP. It was a smooth transition from one release to the next. People who
    > are computer knowledgable might have known of the incompatibility that never
    > existed before but most people didn't, as demonstrated by the number of angry
    > posts about the os. I have a new HP All-in-One printer. Before it was
    > purchased, I contacted HP Tech Support and asked if it would be compatible
    > with X64. I was told that it was but it isn't. I lost it's faxing
    > capability and HP obnoxiously and clearly states that on their update
    > website. My 3-month old all-in-one printer no longer in their product line.
    > They reduced the price before Christmas to make it very alluring then dropped
    > it like a hot potatoe because they knew that it wasn't compatible with X64.
    > Snookered.
    >
    > Denise
     
    Theo, Feb 25, 2007
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Developers of small useful programs, many free, are just not going to
    support Vista64. This is the response I received from one as an example

    I know. You send me the $200 for the registration and I will consider it.
    :)



    "BSchnur" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Fair enough, perhaps I was closer to the ongoing support/test side of
    > things -- I've been involved in personal computer use and support since
    > the early days (my first work PC was the original IBM 8088 based
    > system, my first home computer was the Compaq 'Portable'), and I've
    > doing online support since early days (Borland TeamB on CompuServe --
    > along with Charlie Russel who does MVP support in this newsgroup
    > amongst others).
    >
    > Regarding drivers, there is a limit to what Microsoft can do -- drivers
    > that are included in Vista (and were included in past OS images) are
    > those written by the manufacturers themselves, working with Microsoft
    > as the OS goes thru beta phases. So it is a collective effort.
    > Microsoft upped the security ante with Vista 64 -- the drivers get
    > security checked in a way not seen before. That likely slows up the
    > effort. As it is, on the 64 bit side things have been at least
    > somewhat problematic since day one (as XP 64 driver issues
    > demonstrate). On the manufacturer side, they need to allocate
    > resources to develop code - and they will allocate those resources in a
    > way which is viewed as 'revenue smart'.
    >
    > That certainly is one of the things that hurt XP 64 (at least for non-
    > server hardware). With the concurrent Vista 32 and Vista 64 release, I
    > think Microsoft is pushing the manufacturers of end user hardware to
    > develop drivers for the 64 bit OS by increasing the market and thus the
    > reason for manufacturers to allocate resources for the effort. At the
    > same time, those manufacturers are pretty much *compelled* by the
    > market to work on (and optimize) the 32 bit drivers for Vista. The
    > thing for the manufacturers -- where is the revenue for their efforts.
    > Certainly Microsoft isn't *paying* them to do this. So they need to
    > see it as new hardware sales.
    >
    > Well with Vista 32 that's what is going on. With Vista 64 it is going
    > on no doubt to a lesser degree. But the thing is, in addition to
    > driver development for *new* sales, the manufacturers are under end
    > user pressure for development of drivers for already sold product. And
    > Microsoft increases this pressure by marketing the upgrade versions to
    > customers who expect Vista to suddenly make their existing Windows ME,
    > Windows 2K or Windows XP environment a 'WOW'.
    >
    > So, I'm not 'angry' at Microsoft, the hardware suppliers, or for that
    > matter the end users. It is just that the first few months are (as
    > they actually were -- your perception notwithstanding -- with previous
    > new Windows releases) the most difficult for all involved -- with only
    > Microsoft actually seeing the new revenues. Then again, the 5 year
    > plus development effort cost Microsoft hundreds of millions of dollars
    > if not in the billion plus range.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Barry Schnur
     
    John Barnes, Feb 25, 2007
    #14
  15. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    BSchnur Guest

    Fair enough -- I realize at a certain point that instead of a dialog,
    discussions of this sort can become a series of monologues -- I suspect
    we've reached this point here. I'll respectfully agree to disagree
    with your vantage point.


    --
    Barry Schnur
     
    BSchnur, Feb 25, 2007
    #15
  16. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    BSchnur Guest

    > Developers of small useful programs, many free, are just not going to
    > support Vista64. This is the response I received from one as an example
    >
    > I know. You send me the $200 for the registration and I will consider it.
    > :)
    >

    Understood -- for that matter developers of other software can take
    that position. Novell elected to NOT develop a client for XP 64. The
    downside there was not having a client for the 64 bit server.

    Novell is developing a client for Vista (both 32 and 64), but only for
    the Novell servers which use pure TCPIP. This cuts off those folks
    with Netware 4.2 and older. The reason there -- with Vista, IPX is not
    supported by Microsoft and Novell isn't in the business of developing
    protocol support -- especially for long discontinued (but still
    actively used) versions of NetWare.


    --
    Barry Schnur
    Novell Support Connection Volunteer Sysop
     
    BSchnur, Feb 25, 2007
    #16
  17. =?Utf-8?B?Y2FuaXhz?=

    BSchnur Guest

    > I think you have a very short memory.

    It may be a case of selective memory -- my wife claims I manifest that
    myself <smile>.


    --
    Barry Schnur
     
    BSchnur, Feb 25, 2007
    #17
  18. I never had a problem with 95, 98 or 2000 XP.

    It's been over 12 months since X64 came out. One year is long enough for
    drivers to be developed if Microsoft has a desire to do so. It looks like it
    doesn't.
    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won''t know where you're going.


    "Theo" wrote:

    > I think you have a very short memory. Win 95 had the exact
    > same problems with drivers when it first came out. One
    > difference though was that Win 95 could load a lot of the
    > 16-bit drivers, but that prevented it from booting into the
    > 32-bit mode. There were some hardware that took awhile for
    > drivers to be published. I had a Sony CD-ROM drive with a
    > proprietary interface board and the best I remember it was
    > at least 6 months after Win 95 was released before Win 95
    > compatible drivers were published. The 16-bit drivers
    > (MS-DOS) wouldn't work with Win 95.
    >
    > Also, when Win XP first came out there were a few drivers I
    > had to wait for. So, it wasn't all rosy with the previous
    > OS's either!
    >
    >
    > Denise wrote:
    > > Microsoft as much as said "here's an operating system but you won't be able
    > > to do much with it because I'm leaving it up to everyone else to update their
    > > hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,
    > > 2000XP. It was a smooth transition from one release to the next. People who
    > > are computer knowledgable might have known of the incompatibility that never
    > > existed before but most people didn't, as demonstrated by the number of angry
    > > posts about the os. I have a new HP All-in-One printer. Before it was
    > > purchased, I contacted HP Tech Support and asked if it would be compatible
    > > with X64. I was told that it was but it isn't. I lost it's faxing
    > > capability and HP obnoxiously and clearly states that on their update
    > > website. My 3-month old all-in-one printer no longer in their product line.
    > > They reduced the price before Christmas to make it very alluring then dropped
    > > it like a hot potatoe because they knew that it wasn't compatible with X64.
    > > Snookered.
    > >
    > > Denise

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Feb 25, 2007
    #18
  19. My memory is just fine. I'm talking about basic features, such as a printer,
    that isn't compatible with X64. I'm not talking any more high tech than
    that. It was never a problem to go from 95 to 98 to XP Pro with the same
    printer. You're seeing it from an angle that's different than must end
    users. We expect at least the basics to work and they don't.

    I agree with what John said . . . "I'll respectfully agree to disagree with
    your vantage point." But why did you continue to post, John. I'm out of
    here.

    --
    Denise

    ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


    "BSchnur" wrote:

    > > I think you have a very short memory.

    >
    > It may be a case of selective memory -- my wife claims I manifest that
    > myself <smile>.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Barry Schnur
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVuaXNl?=, Feb 25, 2007
    #19
    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. Nibbler
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    1,150
    Ron Hunter
    Mar 6, 2004
  2. DeMoN LaG
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    428
    DeMoN LaG
    Nov 17, 2003
  3. Eljee
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    443
    ½ Confused
    Sep 21, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,018
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Rob Moir
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    387
    Dominic Payer
    May 5, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page