Al Borg,
I just purchased a Dell dual core with Vista Home; as soon as it arrives I plan on changing the disk back to Win XP SP2. Why? I just don't need to look at the dancing 3D bubbles and I need for the laptop to interface well with all of the printers both at my office and at the hospital. Check out the discussion from the Microsoft site about multiple HP printers that hang with Vista here: http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpost.aspx?postid=525283&siteid=17&sb=0&d=1&at=7&ft=11&tf=0&pageid=1 If Microsoft doesn't fix this soon, then might as well scrap Vista and just keep XP for the next 10 years. digital-doc is quite correct. Microsoft does not write drivers for third party hardware for Windows. Even the drivers that come on the CD/DVD with Vista are not made by Microsoft and MS had to ask permission from the third party to include said drivers on the CD/DVD. Whenever upgrading OS's, you should always check to make sure the vendors of your third-party software/hardware have updates in place or certify their stuff as being compatible. In HP's case, new drivers for their printers can be found on their website at www.hp.com. And don't think this is a Vista only problem. Linux is notorius for breaking backwards compatibility with older drivers - and people who use linux really think this is OK. The same is true for the Mac. OSX had this thing called Classic Environment that many said was horrible. Apps could not directly access hardware Apps that wanted to draw full screen often crashed. Classic was not supported on Intel based Macs. Classic would often fail to draw window frames for old apps correctly Also, Classic was the only way to run old apps sold on computers after 2002 all the way to 2006 at which point Mac went over to Intel and Classic is not supported there. Wow. A 4 year run. I have apps that were made in 2000 for Windows 2000 that run on Vista now - 8.5 years later. Zentech, I honestly just want to see a change. I was amazed when apple went from os 9 to os x. That was a huge change for the apple community. I still have OS 9 machines that I love and play with often but OS X was a welcomed change. Microsoft hasn't done anything that dramatic since Win3.1 to Win95 in my opinion. I want more than visual eye candy, I want an os that enhances my ability to use my computer more intuitively, that protects me from viruses out of the box, that my wife and my child can use but isn't too dumbed down for when I want to tinker with it. We need a change and Microsoft is the only one with the power and marketshare to ecompass that change. I find this interesting. Al Borg makes a post about the horrors of no backwards compatibility and then you make a post more or less advocating breaking backwards compatibility. When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, many like yourself were amazed - but that upgrade came at a cost. As I mentioned before, Mac broke all kinds of back compat when they switched architectures. But that's OK. The purity of the OS must be maintained, right? Those old apps be damned. The most incredible thing about going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was not only going from 16-bit to 32-bit, but also because of the incredible backwards compatibility Win95 had with old 16-bit apps and drivers. You guys remember DOS, don't you? You remember being able to run only one app at a time and that app had FULL CONTROL of your computer until you exited it. Drivers and other programs accessed hardware willy nilly and you had better have thost jumpers on your expansion cards set right. Windows 95 changed all that. Apps and drivers that were never designed to run in a cooperative environent ran in a cooperative environment! You got the shiny new OS and most of you old 16-bit stuff worked with little effort on your part. It wasn't perfect, but it was damn good. Plug and play was a welcome change - when is the last time you had to change a jumper for a card to work on Windows? Hell, plug and play in Windows 95 worked for cards that were never designed with plug and play in mind! That's why Windows 95 was so popular and people loved it so much - the transition from 16-bit computing to 32-bit computing moved the industry forward and computers finally became useful for the masses. As we moved forward from Windows 95 an on and over to Windows 2000, all that back compat had to be maintained. One thing that really started screwing with back compat was security. Windows XP SP2 proved that. Another thing that started screwing with back compat was graphics - again Windows XP proved that. But overall things worked out pretty good - you didn't have that many developers scambling to re-write their apps as you did with OSX on Intel. Will Microsoft ever make another OS like Windows 95? No. For one thing, people aren't going to tolerate breaking that much back compat at one time. Secondly, people aren't going to tolerate that much retraining to learn how to use a radically new interface. Thirdly, moving from 32-bit to 64-bit for most people will not be as exciting as moving from 16-bit to 32-bit was. Believe me, you want incremental change. You want evolution and not the continuous rip-and-replace revolution advocated by those who think MS should rewrite everything from the ground up. JamesNT Regards, JamesNT | Post Points: 20
I just purchased a Dell dual core with Vista Home; as soon as it arrives I plan on changing the disk back to Win XP SP2. Why? I just don't need to look at the dancing 3D bubbles and I need for the laptop to interface well with all of the printers both at my office and at the hospital.
Check out the discussion from the Microsoft site about multiple HP printers that hang with Vista here: http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpost.aspx?postid=525283&siteid=17&sb=0&d=1&at=7&ft=11&tf=0&pageid=1
If Microsoft doesn't fix this soon, then might as well scrap Vista and just keep XP for the next 10 years.
Also, Classic was the only way to run old apps sold on computers after 2002 all the way to 2006 at which point Mac went over to Intel and Classic is not supported there. Wow. A 4 year run.
I have apps that were made in 2000 for Windows 2000 that run on Vista now - 8.5 years later.
Zentech,
I honestly just want to see a change. I was amazed when apple went from os 9 to os x. That was a huge change for the apple community. I still have OS 9 machines that I love and play with often but OS X was a welcomed change. Microsoft hasn't done anything that dramatic since Win3.1 to Win95 in my opinion. I want more than visual eye candy, I want an os that enhances my ability to use my computer more intuitively, that protects me from viruses out of the box, that my wife and my child can use but isn't too dumbed down for when I want to tinker with it. We need a change and Microsoft is the only one with the power and marketshare to ecompass that change. I find this interesting. Al Borg makes a post about the horrors of no backwards compatibility and then you make a post more or less advocating breaking backwards compatibility. When Apple went from OS9 to OSX, many like yourself were amazed - but that upgrade came at a cost. As I mentioned before, Mac broke all kinds of back compat when they switched architectures. But that's OK. The purity of the OS must be maintained, right? Those old apps be damned. The most incredible thing about going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was not only going from 16-bit to 32-bit, but also because of the incredible backwards compatibility Win95 had with old 16-bit apps and drivers. You guys remember DOS, don't you? You remember being able to run only one app at a time and that app had FULL CONTROL of your computer until you exited it. Drivers and other programs accessed hardware willy nilly and you had better have thost jumpers on your expansion cards set right. Windows 95 changed all that. Apps and drivers that were never designed to run in a cooperative environent ran in a cooperative environment! You got the shiny new OS and most of you old 16-bit stuff worked with little effort on your part. It wasn't perfect, but it was damn good. Plug and play was a welcome change - when is the last time you had to change a jumper for a card to work on Windows? Hell, plug and play in Windows 95 worked for cards that were never designed with plug and play in mind! That's why Windows 95 was so popular and people loved it so much - the transition from 16-bit computing to 32-bit computing moved the industry forward and computers finally became useful for the masses. As we moved forward from Windows 95 an on and over to Windows 2000, all that back compat had to be maintained. One thing that really started screwing with back compat was security. Windows XP SP2 proved that. Another thing that started screwing with back compat was graphics - again Windows XP proved that. But overall things worked out pretty good - you didn't have that many developers scambling to re-write their apps as you did with OSX on Intel. Will Microsoft ever make another OS like Windows 95? No. For one thing, people aren't going to tolerate breaking that much back compat at one time. Secondly, people aren't going to tolerate that much retraining to learn how to use a radically new interface. Thirdly, moving from 32-bit to 64-bit for most people will not be as exciting as moving from 16-bit to 32-bit was. Believe me, you want incremental change. You want evolution and not the continuous rip-and-replace revolution advocated by those who think MS should rewrite everything from the ground up. JamesNT Regards, JamesNT | Post Points: 20
I honestly just want to see a change. I was amazed when apple went from os 9 to os x. That was a huge change for the apple community. I still have OS 9 machines that I love and play with often but OS X was a welcomed change. Microsoft hasn't done anything that dramatic since Win3.1 to Win95 in my opinion. I want more than visual eye candy, I want an os that enhances my ability to use my computer more intuitively, that protects me from viruses out of the box, that my wife and my child can use but isn't too dumbed down for when I want to tinker with it. We need a change and Microsoft is the only one with the power and marketshare to ecompass that change.
JamesNT: Linux is notorius for breaking backwards compatibility with older drivers - and people who use linux really think this is OK.
I don't think it is OK to suffer the loss of access to drivers, but what you are saying is not entirely correct. Most Linux distributions use the CUPS project for interfacing with printers (at least since I started using Linux in 2002). CUPS keeps drivers on hand for most printers, with updates coming from the CUPS project on a regular basis (and propagating to individuals' machines through their regular updates).
Thus, I can hook up my laptop (running ubuntu 8.04) to almost any printer and have the printer automatically recognized and printing available within ~20 seconds. I printed some documents at the nursing home last week in exactly this fashion. I might add that HP printers are especially compatible with Linux because HP has made a special effort to ensure compatibility. I would suspect that this effort on their part has cost them less $$ and time than their Windows efforts, because they don't have to bother with all the extras (like an HP updater and so on - the distro handles that).
I just thought I would elaborate on your point, since it seemed more like FUD. Now does everything work with Linux? Probably not, but this is a manufacturer issue. If the manufacturer does not write an open source driver, or release the specs to the CUPS project, then a driver can't be written. Even in that case, the printer can be tested with fairly standard protocols like PCL and postcript. However, if you use Linux, it is only a matter of checking on the CUPS website, or in the reviews on sites like newegg.com to see what works best. Often, printers are more limited by drivers than its hardware's capability, whatever operating system is being considered.
However, you are absolutely right that grumbling about Microsoft over Vista drivers is misplaced. It is the manufacturers' fault when they claim their hardware is Vista ready/capable when in fact their drivers are very buggy.
You may be able to print but you won't necessarily have the full capabilities of the printer available.
If it's a multi-function with fax, scanner etc ... well, good luck.
That's why I prefer to purchase postscript printers where feasible rather than host based printers.
Graham http://www.synapsedirect.com/ Synapse - the EMR for smart users
gchiu: You may be able to print but you won't necessarily have the full capabilities of the printer available. If it's a multi-function with fax, scanner etc ... well, good luck. That's why I prefer to purchase postscript printers where feasible rather than host based printers.
My HP multifunction printers work great. You're right that this vaires, but HP multifunctions have been a good choice for years because of the active HPLIP project. See the HPLIP Project Page and the Supported Devices pages for more information. I have a HP multifunction at home that I bought at Wal-Mart that I do all my home stuff with - scanning with the ADF, printing regular pages and photos. My laptop finds it on the network with no problem, and automatically recognizes it for scanning when plugged intot he USB port. I never installed anything special on it other than the software that came with the ubuntu distro.
Depending on the printer, the print drivers often can even choose which tray to print from and so on. Supporting a printer for Linux or Mac is actually more straightforward than for Windows (both Linux and OSX use the CUPS project, by the way - in fact now Apple owns the CUPS project.). That's why a small group out of HP can support their entire range of HP multifunction devices while Windows requires a much broader effort of software support.
NEW IDEA for Microsoft:
Microsoft’s also claiming to be in a caring/sharing kinda mood: “Starting from the first days of developing Windows 7, we have committed as a team to ‘promise and deliver’. That’s our goal – share with you what we’re going to get done, why we’re doing it, and deliver it with high quality and on time.”
Hahaha.
(1) We'll see.
(2) Sad that this is a new approach.
(3) Who cares, I don't believe you.
(4) If Windows 7 needs more hardware than Vista, you are doomed.
(5) if Windows 7, or some flavour isn't "Almost instant ON" (ie. will boot to Desktop in under 15 seconds), you are in trouble.
source
DrMurdoch: (2) Sad that this is a new approach.
Now that's very true. Maybe they don't have to tell us everything (Apple certainly doesn't), but they could at least let the hardware folks in on it enough to have good drivers from the get-go.
DrMurdoch: (3) Who cares, I don't believe you.
I agree with that one, too. Don't fear the penguins!
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/mg_clouds_01.asp
This guy tells it like he sees it. Nothing wrong with that. Reminds me of Dr. Murdoch. Both opinionated, but only one is wrong or right or postive or negative
Chris Wilkerson, D.C. Carson Doctors Group TabletPCs in Medicine Editor-in-Chief www.MedicalTabletPC.com Home: www.Digital-Doc.com
Oh Gosh. I see Microsoft is off on a bad tangent already. Playing up MultiTouch for Desktops and Laptops ? They really are clueless. MultiTouch will not be all that useful for businesses by the release of Windows 7. Period.
Good article here: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/151326/did_microsoft_learn_its_lessons_with_vista.html
Haha. That is so funny. Intel is skipping over Vista, waiting for Windows 7. That is a major slap in the face. LOL.
Of course Windows XP has now been extended until six months before Windows 7 will supposedly be out.
heh.
I love this account of Longhorn ... because it illustrates how it unfolded.
Microsoft made another vapor-ware announcement of "Longhorn". They promised dozens of new features, almost all of which were already included in Linux, and over the next SIX YEARS, Microsoft castrated Longhorn and turned into a Steer, then they renamed it Vista and even the "cool new features" turned out to be a mirage, because it required special hardware that most PCs didn't have. As a result, "Vista Ready" machines were sold that couldn't support Aeroglass.
Vista = the castrated Longhorn ! For sure ! The only thing I looked forward to was WinFS. Gone.