WIN 7 Major USB Hardware Incompatibilities ?

"Bogey Man" wrote in message
...
"SC Tom" wrote in message
...

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike
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outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be responsible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 :-)

SC Tom wrote:

"Bogey Man" wrote in message
...
"SC Tom" wrote in message
...

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike
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with outdated hardware, why shouldn't the hardware manufacturer be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-

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:37:06 -0500, "SC Tom"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike
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.

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:37:06 -0500, "SC Tom"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike
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.

On 2/24/10, SC Tom posted:
"kony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:37:06 -0500, "SC Tom"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:02:06 -0800, mike
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

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:34:21 -0500, "SC Tom"
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.