In message , Tom Lake
writes:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message ,
Mortimer writes:

No, I would say it _is_ Microsoft's, for making an OS (or OS variant)
which can't use older drivers. Why should hardware manufacturers have
to keep producing new drivers (especially for kit they no longer make
- don't know if that's the case in this case)?

Why should MS (or ANY OS maker) support all old hardware ad infinitum?

I didn't say they should. I said they should work with older _drivers_.
So it's not "all old hardware" - it's one aspect of the older OS. They
do provide (especially recent upgrades, such as XP to Vista to 7) at
least some level of compatibility with older _software_: you don't have
to replace all your software when you move to 7, you can carry on using
quite a lot of it. (Yes, there are versions of - for example - Office
that _take advantage of new FEATURES of the new variant: but older
versions, at least to some extent, will still _work_ under the new OS.)

In order to
advance the OS, keep it able to use the latest hardware and keep it
secure, some things
must be left behind or you'd end up with a huge, ungainly mess. If the
manufacturer
doesn't support the newest OS, then MS certainly doesn't have the
resources to write
drivers for every piece of obsolete equipment out there.

Tom L

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ here. Sure, I can see there
are some things that could hold things back (though I think the security
card is often overplayed - I can't really see the likelihood of using an
old printer driver _realistically_ being much of a security risk: that's
not dissimilar to companies who use "health and safety" as a getout for
all sorts of things), but equally, it can go too far the other way,
making users have to replace all (or most of) their hardware.

I would say, it isn't realistic to expect 7 to support all those old
"dot matrix" (i. e. impact-through-a-ribbon) printers; however, it does
support a surprising number of them! (Assuming your 7 computer has a
parallel port that is!) There is clearly some standard protocol that
works with them. Maybe it is the industry as a whole that needs to agree
on standard printer driving algorithms for more advanced printers
(inkjet, laser), rather than each manufacturer (presumably?) having
their own way.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

On the other hand, you have different fingers.