Why can't Windows 10 install a simple HP LaserJet 2100m printer driver?

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:42:51 -0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:05:35 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I missed the early part of this thread, so I don't know what printer
you are talking about. But writing a driver for a new version of
Windows takes time and money. HP, like all manufacturers, does so only
if the printer is not very old and they are still selling it in
sufficient quantities. It does not pay for them to invest the time and
money to write drivers for products that are obsolescent.

I understand what you said, but I also disagree, from a practical
standpoint.


Do you disagree with my saying why they do what they do, or do you
disagree with whether they *should* do what they do?

Assuming the latter, I agree with you.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 01:11:51 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:

On 22.08.16 18:40, Danny D. wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:23:21 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

Hewlett Packard. OS makers are not responsible for drivers.

That makes sense.
But then why didn't HP have the driver on their web site?
And, why didn't Windows just *find* the driver in the first place?

Because that wont sell any new printers.



Yes, an important point, and one that I should have mentioned in the
message I posted.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:49:14 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I understand what you said, but I also disagree, from a practical
standpoint.

Do you disagree with my saying why they do what they do, or do you
disagree with whether they *should* do what they do?

Assuming the latter, I agree with you.

We are in agreement.
What "is" isn't the same as what "should be".

However, what "is" isn't even what we think what is.

For example, I used to sell software which we had three versions of, which,
for simplicity, I'll call the (a) base model, (b) the select model, and (c)
the deluxe model.

We would guarantee 10% performance improvement in the select model over the
base model. And we'd guarantee 20% improvement in the deluxe model over the
select model.

Guess what?
Ever heard of a "no op" (NOP)?

Yup. All we did was insert as many NOPs as we needed to slow down the
deluxe model so that it was the state model and we inserted a few more nops
in the select model to get to the base model (which sold at half the cost).

The only difference in the software was MARKETING.
Marketing drives EVERYTHING.

What people THINK is always wrong when MARKETING is powerful.
And never forget how powerful HP marketing is.

I suspect (but I do not know this for sure) that HP does the same thing.

They write a great printer/driver and then they break that printer/driver
to make the various "lower" models.

On the outside, they look different; but they're all the same (essentially)
on the inside (except for those NOPs).

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:17:15 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

You have obviously never done any coding.

Have a good life,

You have no idea how much I've done.
I started in the Fortran days *before* 77!
I wrote assembly code for the IBM 370 assembler.
I've used MASM, WASM, DASM, and CHASM on the PC.
I've written entire DOS debug application notes.
I last coded in COBOL and PL/1, so that tells you when I got bored with
coding.
But I've been shell scripting ever since (bash, awk, sed, grep, etc.).

I know coding extremely well.
From the ground up.

And I realize most coders write one-offs, because it's a hellova lot harder
to write good code than it is to hack out bad code.

Anyway, if I worked at HP as a high-level manager, there would be a single
program that all drivers went through which did the writing, testing, and
porting.

It's easy to do.
Very easy.

I would be bored to tears writing it, and I no longer have the skills.
But I have the knowledge to know that a printer driver isn't a big deal for
a printer company.

To imply otherwise is to not understand HP marketing.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:46:19 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

A printer does *not* scan. A device that both prints and scan is
usually called an all-in-one printer or a multifunction printer, but
as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't be called a "printer" at all;
that's like calling a steak and lobster dinner a steak dinner.

And further, as far as I'm concerned, those multifunction devices
should be avoided. If either one fails, you lose both and have to
replace devices; I'd much rather have separate devices so I only have
to replace one if it fails.

This is a good point that the multifunction devices are actually three
devices in one:
1. Printer
2. Scanner
3. Faxer

I know the printer has a driver.
And I know the scanner has a TWAIN driver.
I presume the fax has its own driver?

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:15:51 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

That's like saying human moves two ways: a) walking; and b) running.
Which is easy but not simple.

I'm not a printer expert but I would wager that, from the standpoint of the
software driver on Windows, a laser printer today prints the same as a
laser printer yesterday.

Prints 2-up, 4-up, book style, two-sided, draft and high quality
printing, etc. And so on. And so forth.

Is that stuff in the printer driver?
Even if it is in the printer driver, I don't think I've ever seen a printer
*not* do those things - and even if they didn't - I'd use a PDF printer
driver to do those things - and then print the PDF using the standard HP
printer driver if it couldn't do those things.

But are those things (one up, two up, book style, etc.) in the printer
driver or somewhere else?

Not to mention number of ink cartridges, draft vs HQ printing, etc. And
so on, And so forth.

I don't see how the ink cartridges affect the printer driver for a B&W
laser printer.

Is the draft versus high quality printing part of the printer driver?

Even if it is in the printer driver, I don't think I've ever seen a printer
*not* do those things. And, if they didn't do it, I'd get a third party
printer program that did do it.

I really think that all printers do the same thing.
- They print images and text to paper (high quality or draft quality).
- They scan (and copy)
- Some fax

My point is that one printer does nothing more (essentially) than another
printer - so - a universal printer driver is apropos.

If it doesn't exist - there is only one reason - and that would be that it
doesn't server HP's marketing plan.


Not to mention photo-paper, matte paper, transparencies, textiles,
plastics, etc. And differentw eights of paper and card stock. Plus
different sizes.

All of *that* is in the printer driver?
Are you sure about what you're intimating?
Or am I inferring too much?

I can't believe that the paper is part of the printer driver - but even if
it is, - it would be in every printer driver.

The point is that the printer just prints.
It's not all that fancy that you need different printer drivers.

One universal printer driver would work fine for almost all of us.

Scan is just a variation on Copy. No big deal.

I didn't think scan/copy was a big deal and, it doesn't seen to be part of
the printer driver, per se, since I had to get a TWAIN driver for one of my
printers.

It's no longer as simple as it was in the dot-matrix ASCII-only days.

I disagree.
I think there are three kinds of printers (essentially).
Multiply that by color or B&W.

1. dot matrix
2. ink
3. laser

Three universal drivers would do us just fine.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:14:33 -0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:46:19 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

A printer does *not* scan. A device that both prints and scan is
usually called an all-in-one printer or a multifunction printer, but
as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't be called a "printer" at all;
that's like calling a steak and lobster dinner a steak dinner.

And further, as far as I'm concerned, those multifunction devices
should be avoided. If either one fails, you lose both and have to
replace devices; I'd much rather have separate devices so I only have
to replace one if it fails.

This is a good point that the multifunction devices are actually three
devices in one:
1. Printer
2. Scanner
3. Faxer


*Some* of them also fax, but some of them don't. At least that used to
be true. Perhaps today, nobody makes one that doesn't fax anymore.

And by the way, most of the printers in these multifunction devices
are ink-jets. I don't want an ink-jet printer. I greatly prefer a
laser.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:14:29 -0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:49:14 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I understand what you said, but I also disagree, from a practical
standpoint.

Do you disagree with my saying why they do what they do, or do you
disagree with whether they *should* do what they do?

Assuming the latter, I agree with you.

We are in agreement.
What "is" isn't the same as what "should be".

However, what "is" isn't even what we think what is.

For example, I used to sell software which we had three versions of, which,
for simplicity, I'll call the (a) base model, (b) the select model, and (c)
the deluxe model.

We would guarantee 10% performance improvement in the select model over the
base model. And we'd guarantee 20% improvement in the deluxe model over the
select model.

Guess what?
Ever heard of a "no op" (NOP)?


Yep! Like you, I used to code. I started in 1962, and coded in many
languages, but I've been retired since 1993.


Yup. All we did was insert as many NOPs as we needed to slow down the
deluxe model so that it was the state model and we inserted a few more nops
in the select model to get to the base model (which sold at half the cost).


Terrible, but believable!

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:14:26 -0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:50:18 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

Because that wont sell any new printers.

Yes, an important point, and one that I should have mentioned in the
message I posted.

I must agree.
HP is a highly marketing driven company.


Aren't they all!

FredW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:42:42 -0500, Tony lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz wrote:
FredW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:30:34 -0500, Tony lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz wrote:
"s|b" wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:11:51 -0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

Where on earth is the HP laserjet 2100m (model c4172a) printer driver
for
64bit Windows 10?

Why can't you ask this in alt.comp.os.windows-10?


It isn't an OS problem, it is a printer driver problem.


Who are you trying to fool?
It is a printer driver problem for a specific OS.
Not a problem in Windows 7.


I never try to fool people. Printer drivers for specific printers are and
have
for decades been provided by the printer manufacturer. I you think about it
you
must come to that realisation - how the hell could any OS provider know how
to
interface with hundreds of different printers?
Tony


And what has you rant to do with Windows 7 ?
READ the original question.

--
Fred W. (NLD)
I never wrote about Windows 7, you did when you incorrectly accused me of
trying to fool someone and incorrectly assumed that Microsoft wrote printer
specific drivers. I am not the fool here!!!
Tony

FredW wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:36:08 -0500, Tony lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz wrote:
FredW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:42:42 -0500, Tony lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz wrote:
FredW wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:30:34 -0500, Tony lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz wrote:
"s|b" wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:11:51 -0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:

Where on earth is the HP laserjet 2100m (model c4172a) printer driver
for
64bit Windows 10?

Why can't you ask this in alt.comp.os.windows-10?


It isn't an OS problem, it is a printer driver problem.


Who are you trying to fool?
It is a printer driver problem for a specific OS.
Not a problem in Windows 7.


I never try to fool people. Printer drivers for specific printers are and
have
for decades been provided by the printer manufacturer. I you think about it
you
must come to that realisation - how the hell could any OS provider know how
to
interface with hundreds of different printers?
Tony


And what has you rant to do with Windows 7 ?
READ the original question.


I never wrote about Windows 7, you did when you incorrectly accused me of
trying to fool someone and incorrectly assumed that Microsoft wrote printer
specific drivers. I am not the fool here!!!


OP multiposted in alt.windows7.general and comp.sys.hardware
asking for drivers for Windows 10.
(I told you to READ the original question but clearly you did not.)

YOU are now writing in alt.windows7.general.

What has your ranting to do with Windows 7?
Or did you never hear about Windows 7 and Windows 10?
(and that they require different drivers???)

Where did I assume that Microsoft wrote printer specific drivers?
Go back to school and find some reading skills.

--
Fred W. (NLD)
You really are a fool aren't you. This post is in the same set of newsgroups
that the OP used. I was simply responding but you got it wrong.
You are not worthy of my time so please go away.
Tony

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:47:43 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

I must agree.
HP is a highly marketing driven company.

Aren't they all!

The brand names are (HP, Apple, Microsoft) but many companies are more
performance focused.

For example, I love Ubiquiti for their cheap but powerful radios. Mine
connects to a WiFi access point 10 miles away, which is how I get my
Internet.

And I love Leatherman all-in-one pliers.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:46:38 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

Yup. All we did was insert as many NOPs as we needed to slow down the
deluxe model so that it was the state model and we inserted a few more nops
in the select model to get to the base model (which sold at half the cost).

Terrible, but believable!

The funny thing was the customers were amazed we could guarantee the
performance improvement!

It was almost always right on the percent that we said it would be.

Heh heh heh ... gotta love MARKETING!

HP is a MARKETING MACHINE!

So, nothing HP does makes sense if we don't know how they're gonna profit
from doing it.

They don't sell printers, for example - simply because the money isn't in
hardware. The money is in colored water.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:20:24 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

I apologise for misjudging your expertise.

Actually, you didn't.
While I have coded, and written assembly language programs so often in the
past that, at one point, I wrote my code in hex (since it all had to be in
hex anyway for the microcontrollers I was playing with in the 80s), I
haven't coded in decades (except to shell script).

I guess I'll have to revise my notions.

How about this:
Coding isn't the same as programming which isn't the same as designing
software which isn't the same as designing system architecture.

I worked as a program manager for a few years at a software company, where
the PHILOSOPHY of the top-level managers CHANGED EVERYTHING!

If the philosophy was to hack out code - everyone hacked out code.
Things are a total mess when that happens.
Coders come and go. They inherit junk and make it worse. They tack on calls
to their code, and IPCs and all sorts of garbage just to make it work and
close the book on the code (and punch the clock, so to speak).

It takes a hugely cross functional team to write good code - and it all
starts with the PHILOSOPHY of the top dog.

If the philosophy is to design a single nugget which is then transformed to
all the printer drivers via a comprehensive well vetted process - then good
code comes out.

The
peripheral driver problems begin at the level of system architecture
(where system = computer + peripherals + user).

Fair enough assessment.

IOW, as implied in previous posts, I agree with your sentiment: There's
really no need for a driver, just a standard communication protocol. Let
the printer figure how to do what you want it to do. But that would
require a smart printer, which nobody could sell for $39.95.

I am not a printer expert but I agree that the printer is one "black box"
that only needs a bit of data. For example, all it needs is to be able to
interpret PS code, and act on that PS code.

Where's the need for a driver?
All it needs is a computer that can "execute" (actually interpret most
likely, but for our purpose, that's the same thing) the PostScript code.

The printer language doesn't matter so if it's not postscript it doesn't
matter. I just has to be a "language" that describes what the output needs
to look like. Sort of what JCL was in my punch card days on the IBM
mainframe or the WRITE statement was in Fortran IV.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:42:53 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

*Some* of them also fax, but some of them don't. At least that used to
be true. Perhaps today, nobody makes one that doesn't fax anymore.

But isn't the fax driver a different driver than the printer driver?
Or is it the same driver?

And by the way, most of the printers in these multifunction devices
are ink-jets. I don't want an ink-jet printer. I greatly prefer a
laser.

I gave up on expensive colored water.
I go laser only now.
If the kids need color, we go to a copy shop but that only happens for
school projects.