Searching \ for '[EE]:: Vista madness' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=vista+madness
Search entire site for: ': Vista madness'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Vista madness'
2008\01\29@220724 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
A friend asked me to download Vista drivers for an HP C4180
printer for them as the download would have taken far too
long on their connection..


Basic drivers    35 MB
Full drivers     167 MB.

Maybe some apps as well in the full package. But,
Insanity.



           Russell

2008\01\29@230024 by Mario Mendes Jr.

flavicon
face
It's not just HP, and it's not just for Vista.  Logitech's driver download
for a quickcam pro 4000 is 85MB, for W2K and up (33MB for ME).  This does
include some of apps that you do have the choice to install of not.
Recently I've noticed this trend in Lexmak, HP and Logitech's driver
bloatware downloads.


-Mario



-----Original Message-----
From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspamMIT.EDU [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of
Apptech
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:35 PM
To: PIC List
Subject: [EE]:: Vista madness

A friend asked me to download Vista drivers for an HP C4180
printer for them as the download would have taken far too
long on their connection..


Basic drivers    35 MB
Full drivers     167 MB.

Maybe some apps as well in the full package. But,
Insanity.



           Russell

2008\01\29@231016 by Dr Skip

picon face
Vista IS insanity! It keeps 30 odd system logs, rather than the old 4, settings
revert on their own, it's so secure the owner can't do things (design target is
for IT departments to keep their users in a herd), it's too complex to manage
for any IT department I've ever seen, and has recursive mount points built in
that will break any copy or backup program you've got...

Services can't talk to the user anymore, so a lot of neat utilities (like one
of my favorites that monitors a directory and runs a program on a file change
event) won't work. The firewall is half decent, but why they chose not to ever
alert to any outbound events I'll never figure out... Even if you want it to!

One of it's ONLY good points is that compatibility mode for older programs
seems to be much better. I had a win 95 management program that xp would mangle
on the screen. It runs just like the days of old now...

My windows dir alone - no installs, no updates yet, 10GB!



Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\01\29@231325 by Forrest W Christian

flavicon
face
It's really sad when the drivers take many many many many many times the
space that an entire word processing (heck even a good desktop
publishing) app used to take, INCLUDING the printer drivers for dozens
of different printers.

-forrest

Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\01\30@071729 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 12:13 PM, Forrest W Christian <forrestcspamKILLspamimach.com> wrote:
> It's really sad when the drivers take many many many many many times the
> space that an entire word processing (heck even a good desktop
> publishing) app used to take, INCLUDING the printer drivers for dozens
> of different printers.
>

On the other hand, harddisk/RAMs becomes much bigger and cheaper now.
And processor becomes faster and faster as well. So the software will become
bigger and bigger. I think that is how the IT related companies are
earning money.

Actually I see similar trend in the embedded application as well. Your average
cell phone now mostly have a fast processor and the firmware is getting bigger
and bigger (buggier as well).

And tasks used to be handled by 8051s are now handled by (potentially cheaper)
ARM7 or even ARM9.


Xiaofan

2008\01\30@081603 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I think the question at hand is what does a print driver do now that
needs 160MB worth of driver that they didn't do 10 years ago.
Printers put ink on paper, that task hasn't changed that much in 10 years.

Credit to samsung and lanier on this front, they have network printer
drivers that are in the 3-6mb range.

Although the open source samsung driver is ~600KB last time i checked
(and in many cases has more features than the 10mb closed source one for
linux);->

2008\01\30@082202 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
Yesterday I saw a 320GB hard drive on sale for $60 (slickdeals.net)
That's got to be almost what the drive costs to make!

cue "I remember 13 foot floppy disks that held 2 bytes" comments ;)
-
Martin

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\01\30@082543 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Ah, for the days of CPM, when if you bought a printer or terminal (there
wasn't mice, plug in keyboards and monitors) and had to modify the bios
for such mundane operations as clear screen, line feed, etc. Things were
nice straight forward, there was aa jump table that took you to the
driver, a little assembly work, code it in hex (adecimal), and write it
to a 8" floppy, and if you could afford it, the Mitsubishi double sided,
double density gave you 1024k.( Think it was k and not m) ~)

Forrest W Christian wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\01\30@085803 by John Ferrell

face picon face
More than ever the asylum is now under control of the inmates!

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
      around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2008\01\30@092057 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
This application developer has summed up Vista very well...

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/ditips.php3#vist

--Bob A

2008\01\30@092712 by John Coppens

flavicon
face
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:15:26 +1100
Jake Anderson <EraseMEjakespam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTvapourforge.com> wrote:

> I think the question at hand is what does a print driver do now that
> needs 160MB worth of driver that they didn't do 10 years ago.
> Printers put ink on paper, that task hasn't changed that much in 10
> years.

Yes... But now they can develop (and sell) a printer that can't print.
They'll just include the firmware/character tables/patches etc in the
driver package. That's at least a couple of MB extra for each driver.

Of course you couldn't use a parallel interface, uploading megabytes of
driver firmware each power-up would take too long (even more impossible
is serial printing... remember that?)

So, now about half of the "printer driver", is what belonged inside
the printer in the first place.

John

2008\01\30@100712 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 8:25 AM, Carl Denk <cdenkspamspam_OUTalltel.net> wrote:
> Ah, for the days of CPM, when if you bought a printer or terminal (there
> wasn't mice, plug in keyboards and monitors) and had to modify the bios
> for such mundane operations as clear screen, line feed, etc. Things were
> nice straight forward, there was aa jump table that took you to the
> driver, a little assembly work, code it in hex (adecimal), and write it
> to a 8" floppy, and if you could afford it, the Mitsubishi double sided,
> double density gave you 1024k.( Think it was k and not m) ~)

ZCPR!   And yeah, you had to know a few things, but it booted in less
time than it took the power switch to stop clicking, and it got the
job done.

My Ampro LittleBoard mounted on top of the 5 1/4 floppy it booted
from, would run four floppys, and also had mult-initiator arbitrating
SCSI for the hard drive.  Two computers on one hard drive was just
fine.

2008\01\30@100940 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 8:21 AM, Martin Klingensmith <@spam@martinKILLspamspamnnytech.net> wrote:
> Yesterday I saw a 320GB hard drive on sale for $60 (slickdeals.net)
> That's got to be almost what the drive costs to make!
>
> cue "I remember 13 foot floppy disks that held 2 bytes" comments ;)

And we had to make the tools to make them, and the factory was two
miles away, uphill both ways, through three feet of snow.


Well, I do remember Integrand cases for $900.  And did you want a
power supply with that?   Today, I feel just slightly guilty about my
$400 Lian-Li water-cooled case.

2008\01\30@102034 by Brian Kraut

flavicon
face
Exactly why I just bought a Dell Inspiron laptop for more money and not
exactly the configuration I wanted because it was one of the few I could
still buy with XP.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
http://www.engalt.com

-----Original Message-----
From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu]On Behalf
Of Bob Axtell
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:20 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [EE]:: Vista madness


This application developer has summed up Vista very well...

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/ditips.php3#vist

--Bob A

2008\01\30@104139 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
This is an HP all in one machine with scanning, printing, photo cards,
etc.  No fax, though.

The basic driver has several aspects, including image processing, USB
driver, printer driver, scanner driver, HP maintenance utilities, and
a few server utilities that allow the user to initiate scanning and
other activites from the printer front panel.  I didn't check, but the
printer may also have memory card slots which require more drivers.

The 'full' drivers are merely the addition of HP's photo and document
management software.

So no, it really has nothing to do with Vista.  You'll find the files
are essentially the same size for XP as well.

-Adam

On 1/29/08, Apptech <spamBeGoneapptechspamBeGonespamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\30@110741 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
For years (maybe close to 30) I have building my own. Had problem with
motherboard mouse circuit, ordering today:

Old: Intel D845WN 1.6G P4 motherboard, ATI radeon 9800pro all in wonder
graphics w/NTSC tuner, 1 G ram

New: Intel DP965LT 3G P4 motherboard, ATI 650 tuner, ATI radeon 2600
video, 2 G DDR2 800 ram.

Keep: 320 G & 80G hard drives, DVD & DVD 2 layer drives,6 month old PSU,
flash card adapter, 3.5 & 5.25 floppys. XP PRO dual boot with Kubuntu
(still struggling with network to 2nd computer running XP.), Hp5550
inkjet, Microtek I700 scanner, Sony G400 monitor

Every couple of months or so, I just buy another something, just keep
upgrading

Oh, and the 2nd box is a Compaq 5310US, 1g Celeron, 256 ram, XP Home
inherited from granddaughter.

Not really happy, every day we know better why hermits are hermits.

Brian Kraut wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\30@121648 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> This is an HP all in one machine with scanning, printing, photo cards,
> etc.  No fax, though.

Nothing is so much fun as rambling along without looking at the facts, it
seems -- you don't want to spoil that, do you? :)

Gerhard

2008\01\30@125647 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
I think the printers themselves are just getting incredibly dumb. The
smarts (how to draw a character or whatever) has been moved over to the
"driver." It's the "WinModem" approach to printing.

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\01\30@131309 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 12:55 PM, Harold Hallikainen <haroldEraseMEspam.....hallikainen.org> wrote:
> I think the printers themselves are just getting incredibly dumb. The
> smarts (how to draw a character or whatever) has been moved over to the
> "driver." It's the "WinModem" approach to printing.

People want a cheap printer.
Let the PC rasterize everything, and send it as RLE compressed raster data.

The real scam is in the price of the ink/toner.  Last time I checked
it, HP inkjet ink was $6000/Gal.

Depending on the printer, very interesting means are used to keep you
from refilling the toner/ink carts.

2008\01\30@132157 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

>
> Actually I see similar trend in the embedded application as well. Your
> average
> cell phone now mostly have a fast processor and the firmware is getting
> bigger
> and bigger (buggier as well).
>


And I'm writing more and more PIC code in C. No more dealing with memory
banks, etc.

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\01\30@133336 by Jeff Findley

flavicon
face

"David VanHorn" <EraseMEmicrobrixspamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:RemoveME25b178740801301013nb347127v7d240c26ba2e2979EraseMEspamEraseMEmail.gmail.com...> > On Jan 30, 2008 12:55 PM, Harold Hallikainen <RemoveMEharoldspam_OUTspamKILLspamhallikainen.org>
> wrote:
>> I think the printers themselves are just getting incredibly dumb. The
>> smarts (how to draw a character or whatever) has been moved over to the
>> "driver." It's the "WinModem" approach to printing.
>
> People want a cheap printer.
> Let the PC rasterize everything, and send it as RLE compressed raster
> data.
>
> The real scam is in the price of the ink/toner.  Last time I checked
> it, HP inkjet ink was $6000/Gal.
>
> Depending on the printer, very interesting means are used to keep you
> from refilling the toner/ink carts.

For quite some time, I refilled my own Lexmark inkjet cartridges (I stopped
maybe four years ago).  Back then, those cartridges could be refilled
relatively easily.  I could get five or six refills out of a factory Lexmark
ink cartridge.  These cartridges had the print nozzles built in and they
eventually clogged.  It certainly saved me money, but it took some time and
effort to do it right.

I don't bother refilling anymore.  I just pay the $60 or so dollars for all
the colors (and black) in our Epson.  The ink tanks on the Epson are pretty
big.  We also have an HP all-in-one that has pretty tiny cartridges.  The
Epson prints on CD/DVD's and does photos a bit better than the HP.  The HP
is a network printer, so it's easier to use when you have multiple PC's in
the house, but it likely costs us more per page.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein



2008\01\30@135728 by Brian Kraut

flavicon
face
I gave up on inkjet printers a long time ago.  A color laser is pretty
cheap, fast, and in the long run a whole lot less expensive and less hassle
than most inkjets.  I bought my first one when I needed to print a bunch of
color brochures.  Even with the low volume starter toner cartridges I was
able to buy the printer and print all my brochures cheaper than just having
Kinkos print them for me and I wound up with a basically free printer when I
was done.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
http://www.engalt.com

{Original Message removed}

2008\01\30@141410 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> The real scam is in the price of the ink/toner.  Last time I
> checked it, HP inkjet ink was $6000/Gal.
>
> Depending on the printer, very interesting means are used to
> keep you from refilling the toner/ink carts.

Anyone got references to the chip in HP Q6000A cartridges? I have a
bunch of 'empty' ones that need to be convinced that they can still be
used for a lot of prints :)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\01\30@142508 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 1:56 PM, Brian Kraut <RemoveMEbrian.krautTakeThisOuTspamspamengalt.com> wrote:
> I gave up on inkjet printers a long time ago.  A color laser is pretty
> cheap, fast, and in the long run a whole lot less expensive and less hassle
> than most inkjets.  I bought my first one when I needed to print a bunch of
> color brochures.  Even with the low volume starter toner cartridges I was
> able to buy the printer and print all my brochures cheaper than just having
> Kinkos print them for me and I wound up with a basically free printer when I
> was done.

Still, the efforts are well underway to make those carts unrefillable.
My laser costs more to refill, than to buy new.

2008\01\30@163028 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
In some printers yes, but the newer ones still have to balance data
transfer requirements with onboard smarts.  Processing power is cheap
enough that it's probably still common to download fonts tot he
printer and then position them rather than send the data to print a
full page as 600x1200 resolution in 4 colors.

Mine will do a ton of stuff when not connected to the computer at all,
one example is the memory card print feature:

This allows me to stick a memory card in, print one or more sheets
with thumbnails of the pictures and checkboxes next to each picture
and a set of check boxes on the bottom for options such as copies of
each picture selected, size to print, crop style, etc.

Once you've filled in the check boxes you scan the page and it
recognizes which sheet of thumbnails, all the checkboxes, and fills
the 'order'.  So we can merely load photo paper and very quickly and
easily select what we want to print from a given memory card, not
unlike going to a photo kiosk at the store.

Still, a ton of processing is done for computer printouts, and I bet
that most of it is performed on the computer.  I just suspect that
computer doesn't send anything near a raw image to the printer -
winprinters seem to have died out when people found they were very
slow and rather limited.  I don't think XP ever supported the official
winprinter (wrong name, but I like it) spec.  But of course each
manufacturer will do as their bottom line requires.

-Adam

On 1/30/08, Harold Hallikainen <EraseMEharoldspamspamspamBeGonehallikainen.org> wrote:
> I think the printers themselves are just getting incredibly dumb. The
> smarts (how to draw a character or whatever) has been moved over to the
> "driver." It's the "WinModem" approach to printing.
>
> Harold
>
>
> --
> FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
> opportunities available!
> -

2008\01\30@175325 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> This is an HP all in one machine with scanning, printing,
>> photo cards,
>> etc.  No fax, though.

> Nothing is so much fun as rambling along without looking
> at the facts, it
> seems

If you say so.
:-)

In fact, the XP drivers are even larger - 298MB and 48 MB
full and basic.
But, that doesn't alter the initial bare statement or the
general principle.

I still have the recollection of seeing a competent
Basketball scoring system with twin multiple 7 segment
displays, timers etc, implemented by a friend on an SC/MP
(ack!) in 512 BYTES of memory. (Just maybe that was 256
BYTES.). N decades on you can add as much functionality as
you like to a printer driver and, if it tops 10 MB in size,
let along 100 MB then the term "madness" is well enough
used.

We accept with little or no complaint or comment the most
ludicrous of offerings just because it has no great apparent
impact on us. The resultant overall bloated unresponsive
buggy and cotton-wooled nature of the outcomes just may have
something to do with this. Maybe not ;-).



       Russell

2008\01\30@175325 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> I think the question at hand is what does a print driver
> do now that
> needs 160MB worth of driver that they didn't do 10 years
> ago.
> Printers put ink on paper, that task hasn't changed that
> much in 10 years.

It's just that the new ones are written in COBOL, or ADA, or
.net.


:-)


       Russell


2008\01\30@183838 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 10:19 PM, Bob Axtell <RemoveMEengineerKILLspamspamcotse.net> wrote:
> This application developer has summed up Vista very well...
>
> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/ditips.php3#vist
>

That is quite biased and not true from my personal experiences.
Calling Vista "At JSWare we consider Windows Vista to be bloated,
overpriced, restrictive, DRM-infested spyware" is not justified at all.

Wait a bit longer and Vista will overtake XP. Do not forget
Vista SP1 will be out next year. And XP was not popular
initially. Only after XP SP1, XP became popular.

Power users can still do powerful things. And Vista protects
novice users better. Under the hood, Vista has also many
improvement over XP. And XP is a vast improvement over
Windows 98SE for home users and business users.

Xiaofan

2008\01\30@184251 by John Coppens

flavicon
face
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:26:28 +1300
Apptech <apptechSTOPspamspamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz> wrote:

> I still have the recollection of seeing a competent
> Basketball scoring system with twin multiple 7 segment
> displays, timers etc, implemented by a friend on an SC/MP
> (ack!) in 512 BYTES of memory. (Just maybe that was 256
> BYTES.).

Yes... That must've been the SC/MP kit - all of 256 bytes! My first ever
microprocessor!

John

2008\01\30@193553 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> I still have the recollection of seeing a competent
>> Basketball scoring system with twin multiple 7 segment
>> displays, timers etc, implemented by a friend on an SC/MP
>> (ack!) in 512 BYTES of memory. (Just maybe that was 256
>> BYTES.).

> Yes... That must've been the SC/MP kit - all of 256 bytes!
> My first ever
> microprocessor!


Not a kit - hand carved on phenolic PCB (!!) or using home
made PCBs. He was (and is) something of an artisan.


       Russell

2008\01\30@204529 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 10:19 PM, Bob Axtell <spamBeGoneengineerSTOPspamspamEraseMEcotse.net> wrote:
>  
>> This application developer has summed up Vista very well...
>>
>> http://www.jsware.net/jsware/ditips.php3#vist
>>
>>    
>
> That is quite biased and not true from my personal experiences.
> Calling Vista "At JSWare we consider Windows Vista to be bloated,
> overpriced, restrictive, DRM-infested spyware" is not justified at all.
>
>  
Not from where I look at it. I was offered  a Vista laptop. I refused it
after examining
another one closely for a few days.
> Wait a bit longer and Vista will overtake XP. Do not forget
> Vista SP1 will be out next year. And XP was not popular
> initially. Only after XP SP1, XP became popular.
>  
"overtake"? in what way? capabilities? what?
> Power users can still do powerful things. And Vista protects
> novice users better. Under the hood, Vista has also many
> improvement over XP. And XP is a vast improvement over
> Windows 98SE for home users and business users.
>  
XP was not supposed to be an improvement over Win98, it was supposed to be
an improvement over Win2K. It most certainly was NOT.

Win2K remains the pinnacle of Microsoft capabilities. Before and after Win2K
is simply downhill.

--Bob A
> Xiaofan
>  

2008\01\30@220215 by Dr Skip

picon face
I run all 3 and wholeheartedly agree.

The problem is, the best approach would have been to offer add-in
commands/features to address the needs of various market groups (like policy
enforcement, etc for IT) since one will never suit all. HOWEVER, a few added
tools/functions doesn't bring in the revenue like churning the users does with
something they can sell as 'all new'.

We don't need the churn, they do, but we pay for it - in cash one way or
another and in time spent trying to get back to making it work. If you just use
MS Office, or just got your first PC, you may never know it, but try to do
anything more complex or really use the machine as a 'system' and you'll pull
your hair out! You can back some things out of it - mostly user interface junk,
but things like services talking to the user is a hard, cold stop that MS said
they won't relent on.


Bob Axtell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\01\30@220920 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/31/08, Bob Axtell <KILLspamengineerspamBeGonespamcotse.net> wrote:
> > Power users can still do powerful things. And Vista protects
> > novice users better. Under the hood, Vista has also many
> > improvement over XP. And XP is a vast improvement over
> > Windows 98SE for home users and business users.
> >
> XP was not supposed to be an improvement over Win98, it
> was supposed to be an improvement over Win2K. It most
> certainly was NOT.
>
> Win2K remains the pinnacle of Microsoft capabilities. Before and
> after Win2K is simply downhill.

Windows XP is the replacement for Windows 98SE for home
users. And it is the replacement of Windows 98SE/Win2k for
business users.

Compared to Win2k, Windows XP is much better in terms
of the support of hardwares for home users. For business
laptop users, it is also a vast improvement compared to
Win2k -- just for the reduced boot-up time. It takes "forever"
for Win2k to boot up in a networked (espeically Novell)
environment.

I feel strange that many users here seem to like Windows
2k. I only had short experiences with Win2k and I did not think
it was any better than XP.

And do not blame Microsoft for what Microchip did wrong. ;-)
Example: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=312114

The biggest complain to Windows XP is the security issue.
And Vista has made a lot of improvement in that front and
it may be perceived as in the way for some power users
but I think it is in the right direction in that front. Not so sure
about Aero.

Xiaofan

2008\01\30@222019 by John Gardner

picon face
Xiaofan - Security is THE issue, IMHO.

best regards, Jack

On 1/30/08, Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\30@225020 by Brian Kraut

flavicon
face
I agree completely.  If it was not for the boat load of hard drive
partitions and growing lack of support for newer hardware I would still be
running it on my desktop computer.

Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
http://www.engalt.com

Win2K remains the pinnacle of Microsoft capabilities. Before and after Win2K
is simply downhill.

--Bob A
> Xiaofan
>

2008\01\30@231852 by John Coppens

flavicon
face
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:35:52 +1300
Apptech <spamBeGoneapptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:

> > Yes... That must've been the SC/MP kit - all of 256 bytes!
> > My first ever
> > microprocessor!
>
>
> Not a kit - hand carved on phenolic PCB (!!) or using home
> made PCBs. He was (and is) something of an artisan.

Wow... craftsmanship. The original kit, if I remember right, was also
on phenolic board - about the only kit I have ever seen on phenolic
board.

Cheers,
John

2008\01\31@044253 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:


> Win2K remains the pinnacle of Microsoft capabilities. Before and after Win2K
> is simply downhill.

though I agree with most of Xiaofan points about Vista,
I still agree with this.


--
Ciao, Dario

2008\01\31@044802 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> I feel strange that many users here seem to like Windows
> 2k. I only had short experiences with Win2k and I did not think
> it was any better than XP.

You know: it does less, and better - to some extent like Linux does.
And, my biggest concern is that Win2K does what you ask it - XP does
"something else" all the time.
My favourite example is:

Shift-move cursor into an Explorer folder to select some files;
leave the keys;
Press shift-DEL to delete them all, and press RETURN to confirm.

On 2K, it will work as expected; on XP, the OS will attempt to run all
of those files (maybe asking for confirmation - this is smart, I agree)...
Looks like the RETURN reached the OS *before* the shift-DEL.

I like to do the above quite fast, I like to fly on my keyboard :)
and I find the above amusing.
And something similar happens all the time. In my opinion, all of the
"background" tasks that the OS executes to make a user's life easier, do
slow down the experienced users.


> And do not blame Microsoft for what Microchip did wrong. ;-)
> Example: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=312114

definitely agreed!

> The biggest complain to Windows XP is the security issue.

well, of course :) though it can be blamed on the internet and all of
those hackers out there!

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\01\31@110007 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

>
>
>> And do not blame Microsoft for what Microchip did wrong. ;-)
>> Example: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=312114
>
> definitely agreed!


I didn't write the error message, I just copied and pasted it as it showed
up on the screen. It MAY have been an error message out of the runtime
code of a Microsoft compiler that Microchip used. No blame... just posting
the error message!

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\01\31@113602 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 1/30/08, Dr Skip <.....drskipspam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Axtell wrote:
> > Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > XP was not supposed to be an improvement over Win98, it was supposed to be
> > an improvement over Win2K. It most certainly was NOT.
> >
> > Win2K remains the pinnacle of Microsoft capabilities. Before and after Win2K
> > is simply downhill.
>
> I run all 3 and wholeheartedly agree.

Well, I run Vista 64 on a custom built system and while it has its
annoyances, I just don't see why people are having such difficulty.
Just as in XP I've disabled certain 'features' and changed some
defaults, but I can use all three interchangeably and really not think
about it.

Vista has a lot of under the hood changes - many subsystems are
rewritten.  It supports No Execute now included on modern desktop and
server processors, which can only be a good thing.  It has a different
tasking model which better suits how people use their computers now.

But no one is going to upgrade for invisible under the hood changes,
and the hardware has progressed to the point where it finally makes
sense to render everything using the 3D graphics processor's
capabilities.  So MS has also added a lot of bloaty graphical features
to make it flashy.

Keep in mind that when 95 was released people had the same reaction -
3.1 is faster, more stable, and everyone was used to it.

Win2k had the same reaction from NT, although neither was meant to be
a desktop OS, and it seems that no one here remembers the pain of
getting some applications working on 2k - it simply was not backwards
compatible with 98 (and some fringe NT apps) to a significant degree
until a service pack or two later.

Further, every new operating system was slower then its predecessor.
2k was slow and bloated compared to NT.  95 was horrible compared to
3.1.  XP awful compared to 2k.  Microsoft knows that a given OS is
going to last for 2-5 years, and so develops the OS to target machines
a year or so away.

Vista is as different from XP/2k as 95 was from 3.1 - this is a bigger
change than the move from 98 to 2k/XP.  There are going to be
problems, and people are going to complain because it's very
different.  But 5 years from now most people will be using Vista and
complaining about the next version.

But at the end of the day, if you want to complain about speed, the
constant upgrade mill, DRM, bloatware, etc then you should probably
just move to Linux.

I guess we have to have this same conversation every time a new OS
escapes from Redmond...

-Adam

2008\01\31@115511 by Bob Blick

face picon face

--- "M. Adam Davis" <TakeThisOuTstienman.....spamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I run Vista 64 on a custom built system and
> while it has its
> annoyances, I just don't see why people are having
> such difficulty.

If you run Vista 64 on a custom built system, I'd say
that you like fiddling with computers and there's not
much you'd consider an "annoyance" or "difficulty".
Perhaps you are not a "fanboy" or "apologist", but
clearly you are not an average home or business user.
But people like me need people like you to work out
the bugs, because I don't like it when computers need
to be coaxed to work. How well does MPLAB run on Vista
64? How many versions of it have you installed? Was
that fun?

When I sit at a computer I want the time to be
billable hours.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

2008\01\31@121451 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


> But at the end of the day, if you want to complain about speed, the
> constant upgrade mill, DRM, bloatware, etc then you should probably
> just move to Linux.

IME most Linux distributions 'suffer' from the same fate as MS's
offerings.  Every new generation seems runs slower and require more
hardware resources.

I bought a new laptop (in a hurry as previous one died) that
unfortunately came with Vista.  I decided to stick with it to see if I
could learn to like it, but even with all the fancy graphics turned off,
and the interface set to "classic" mode I still end up getting
frustrated with it, so it will be replaced with XP as soon as I have
time.

A major screw up (IMO) is the omission of the "Up" toolbar button in
Windows Explorer.  When I first started using Vista I thought I had
simply missed it, or maybe not enabled it, as surely MS couldn't have
removed such a vital part of explorer?  Unfortunately a quick search on
Google revealed that they had, and many other users were frustrated with
the same issue.  The ridiculously named "breadcrumb" is quite handy, but
it doesn't replace the up button.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2008\01\31@123740 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 1/31/08, Bob Blick <TakeThisOuTbbblickKILLspamspamspamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> clearly you are not an average home or business user.

True.

> But people like me need people like you to work out
> the bugs, because I don't like it when computers need
> to be coaxed to work. How well does MPLAB run on Vista
> 64? How many versions of it have you installed? Was
> that fun?

MPLAB doesn't run on Vista 64, and since the ICD 2 doesn't run on
Vista at all I keep an XP laptop next to my dev bench.  This would be
akin to keeping an older OS around because you wanted to use a printer
that didn't have updated drivers.

Although in my case I keep it more for the extra screen realestate and
ability to perform more work on two computers than simply for
backwards compatability.

> When I sit at a computer I want the time to be
> billable hours.

Then you will always have to wait at least 2-4 years after an OS
release before considering moving over to it.  This is especially true
if you want to have only one system and have it do everything you need
to do.  Hardware drivers for it aren't out yet, software doesn't
support new features, and some software simply doesn't work, few
people know how to deal with it so you'll get more blank stares than
you'll want.

There are three groups of people where Vista is concerned:
1. Regular home users that use the software that comes with their PC,
and don't have a lot of software baggage they have to move each time
they upgrade.  They typically buy a new machine rather than upgrade
the old one. (ie, you don't need backwards compatability)
2. Work users that have a lot of software which they must continue to
use through any upgrade, and typically try to keep to one windows
machine.  They typically continuously upgrade a single machine when
needed and buy a new one occasionally. (You need backwards
compatability, but you don't want to deal with it if it's not trivial)
3. Power users that can afford to keep more than one machine, and
generally phase into an upgrade slowly - they can be early adoptors
and always have access to the latest technology.  They typically
perform major upgrades to existing PCs, and/or buy/build new machines
as needed.  (You may or may not need backwards compatability, but
you're willing and able to support your backwards compatible needs
using a variety of methods and resources such as time)

Vista is ready, right now, for #1 and #3.  It isn't ready for #2.

I suppose what I'm saying is that Vista in and of itself isn't a bad
operating system, those that are claiming it is and pledging never to
use or develop for it are rather short-sighted, and remember history
poorly.  Vista is just a tool like any other tool.  It doesn't do
certain things, it does do certain things, ti will eventually do most
things.  I don't understand why all the negativity.  "I've got the
microsoft Vista screwdriver, but the triwing bit which I use all the
time doesn't fit, but it does fit the XP screwdriver.  Therefore
Microsoft failed, the vista screwdriver is completely useless, and
quite frankly I really only ever liked the 2k screwdriver."

The only bad part in all this that I see is difficulty in getting new,
complete machines with on older, preferred OS.  Once MS stops allowing
downgrades, then some people are going to be in a pickle.

I recommend that if your business or livelihood depends on a
particular set of software and operating system then (aside from
diversifying!) consider using virtual machines where possible, and
keep a physical machine or two around for older hardware and drivers
(which don't always run under virtual machines).  Older XP systems
will be available on the used market for years to come, so it
shouldn't be paralyzing.

-Adam

2008\01\31@125321 by Dr Skip

picon face
You forgot new users... I've been helping some 'older' folks learn windows and
even under XP it is frustrating, but at least consistent. With Vista's
ever-self-changing settings, combined with the users' memory, it would be
impossible!

Vista's interaction with the user is like a teenager with an attitude....


M. Adam Davis wrote:
>
> There are three groups of people where Vista is concerned:

2008\01\31@125914 by Neil Cherry

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> I recommend that if your business or livelihood depends on a
> particular set of software and operating system then (aside from
> diversifying!) consider using virtual machines where possible, and
> keep a physical machine or two around for older hardware and drivers
> (which don't always run under virtual machines).

Give that man a cigar! I've been supporting some rather old stuff
and I've found that emulation helps. I need to support older DOS
apps for that I use Linux. Add a VM and I can use the new that
only works with Windows latest and greatest, my Linux stuff and
whatever emulator that I can run under Linux (there are a bunch).

I really need to sit down and get VM working on my laptop but I'm
too busy with everything else at the moment. I should search out
a nice howto and just do it.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       .....ncherryspamRemoveMElinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\01\31@134121 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> Keep in mind that when 95 was released people had the same reaction -
> 3.1 is faster, more stable, and everyone was used to it.

I'm sorry but I feel like disagreeing on this - if my memory serves me well.
It was a big leap towards (though bad years for me :) )

I don't disagree with your other points, of course.

> Vista is as different from XP/2k as 95 was from 3.1 - this is a bigger

This might be true: but 95 brought "good" and useful things, while Vista
just brings eye-candy and User-Passwords with just drive crazy us who
work with the PC.

--
Ciao, Dario

2008\01\31@190804 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 1, 2008 12:54 AM, Bob Blick <RemoveMEbbblickspamspamBeGonesbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> --- "M. Adam Davis" <spamBeGonestienman@spam@spamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I run Vista 64 on a custom built system and
> > while it has its
> > annoyances, I just don't see why people are having
> > such difficulty.

I agree with Adam. I just do not know why people in this
list (mostly not average home users). My wife is
an average user and she is happy with Vista now.

{Quote hidden}

MPLAB is not supported under Vista 64 since the drivers
(ICD2 etc) are not ported to Vista 64 yet. However
Vista 32 works fine.

> When I sit at a computer I want the time to be
> billable hours.

Now it will be interesting to see how Linux compares
to Vista 32 if you want to use MPLAB as the example.
Simply put, MPLAB does not work under Linux. And
doing PIC work under Linux will not be smooth at
all since the hardware components of MPLAB do
not work under Linux. You can use VMWare/Windows
to get it work but that is Windows and Linux after all.


Xiaofan

2008\01\31@210251 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 2/1/08, Michael Rigby-Jones <TakeThisOuTMichael.Rigby-Jonesspamspambookham.com> wrote:
>
>
> > But at the end of the day, if you want to complain about speed, the
> > constant upgrade mill, DRM, bloatware, etc then you should probably
> > just move to Linux.
>
> IME most Linux distributions 'suffer' from the same fate as MS's
> offerings.  Every new generation seems runs slower and require more
> hardware resources.

That is if you are doing the same type of work and use the same
type of software. In that case, I think that is the norm for the IT
industry as a whole. So you have to live with it.

But the new (and hence the "greatest") software will enable you
to do new things right out of the box.

You can always keep your old stuff around.

> I bought a new laptop (in a hurry as previous one died) that
> unfortunately came with Vista.  I decided to stick with it to see if I
> could learn to like it, but even with all the fancy graphics turned off,
> and the interface set to "classic" mode I still end up getting
> frustrated with it, so it will be replaced with XP as soon as I have
> time.

If you get frustrated by Vista so soon, no wonder you get frustrated
with Linux as well.

Anyway, XP will still be around and usable for most of the things.
So I think it is also nothing wrong to replace Vista with XP for now.
Maybe you will bring back Vista in the future.



Xiaofan

2008\01\31@210850 by Dr Skip

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I agree with Adam. I just do not know why people in this
> list (mostly not average home users). My wife is
> an average user and she is happy with Vista now.


That's EXACTLY why... ;)

Run just simple stuff, or "Vista approved" stuff, don't dig too far, trust
Microsoft, and you will be happy.

However, those on the list also expect it to be (as it should be) a Win32
system. It should be backwards compatible, we have work to do and have numerous
apps that do our tasks and expect the next incarnation of the Win32 type OS to
work with it. These are apps made to use Microsoft's win32 architecture and
API. They should work. Use just a few basic apps, like the stuff that ships
with it, and you won't notice.

I suspect she also doesn't much care about firewalls, assorted odd services,
etc, that run, as well as any and all auto-updating from Microsoft or such.

However, those of us that have apps that may break after some errant update by
Microsoft choose to read what they apply to and pick what we need. We may not
trust the firewall, etc. <I noticed the Comodo firewall has built in
permissions to go out to Comodo, non-revokable. A DNS hijack and they're all at
risk.>

I get settings that go back to original all the time. If I just accept the
defaults on everything, then I guess life would be fine, but that's not what
I've come to expect, and the defaults are not appropriate for me. So, a lot of
wasted time and frustration, just at that level. Throw in the slow file copies
to anywhere (MS admits it), the firewall deficiencies, the services
incompatibilities, the numerous services that do phone home all the time, the
odd API breakages, UAC and having to wrestle ownership of files all the time,
junction points that recurse forever... the list goes on...

Is it stable? Perhaps, although IE7 has 'unexpectedly terminated' many times so
far on a vanilla Vista system. Other apps do off and on too. It recovers fine,
maybe better than XP might have for whatever it didn't like, but the session is
still lost (multiple tabs). Life isn't perfect even with the apps it ships with...



2008\01\31@211416 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 2/1/08, Dr Skip <drskipEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
> You forgot new users... I've been helping some 'older' folks learn windows and
> even under XP it is frustrating, but at least consistent. With Vista's
> ever-self-changing settings, combined with the users' memory, it would be
> impossible!

I think Adam's analysis is great. But for the folks who do not like changes,
'older' system may be better. So my mum is still using the 8-year old Windows
98SE Lenovo system since she only uses two programs at home (IE and
a Chinese poker game). My dad, on the other hand, would like to use
faster and greater machine. So we bought him a Lenovo Windows XP
computer last year so he could play on-line games (I do not play
games) faster and enjoy better surfing.

Xiaofan

2008\01\31@212823 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 2/1/08, Dr Skip <RemoveMEdrskipEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> I get settings that go back to original all the time. If I just accept the
> defaults on everything, then I guess life would be fine, but that's not what
> I've come to expect, and the defaults are not appropriate for me. So, a lot of
> wasted time and frustration, just at that level. Throw in the slow file copies
> to anywhere (MS admits it), the firewall deficiencies, the services
> incompatibilities, the numerous services that do phone home all the time, the
> odd API breakages, UAC and having to wrestle ownership of files all the time,
> junction points that recurse forever... the list goes on...

In this case, I think this has something to do with the fact that you
are using Vista Home Premium. I am also dissappointed that some
great features in Vista (Business/Ultimate) is not available under
Vista Home Premium. For example, group policy settings.

And you may have to wait for SP1 or even SP2 to get better user
experiences. But take note when Windows XP SP2 came out, a lot
of the applications also broke. And if you move to Linux, most
Windows application will break.

> Is it stable? Perhaps, although IE7 has 'unexpectedly terminated' many times so
> far on a vanilla Vista system. Other apps do off and on too. It recovers fine,
> maybe better than XP might have for whatever it didn't like, but the session is
> still lost (multiple tabs). Life isn't perfect even with the apps it ships with...
>

That is the norm for the software industry as a whole now. I will say I have
more problems with IBM (Lotus notes) and Firefox than Microsoft Outlook/IE.
So life is not perfect with the IT industry as a whole. And occassionally
SAP still comes out with some error message in German.

Even in the automation industry I am in, the hardware (PLC/DCS) is usually
great. But I am not convinced that the software is that great. Compared
to the software packages I am using now, I will say the Windows built-in
programs are very good already.

All in all, we may have to lower the expectations when it comes to the
commercial software packages.

Xiaofan


'[EE]:: Vista madness'
2008\02\01@040655 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On 1/31/08, Harold Hallikainen <@spam@haroldRemoveMEspamEraseMEhallikainen.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> And do not blame Microsoft for what Microchip did wrong. ;-)
> >> Example: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.aspx?m=312114
> >
> > definitely agreed!
>
>
> I didn't write the error message, I just copied and pasted it as it showed
> up on the screen. It MAY have been an error message out of the runtime
> code of a Microsoft compiler that Microchip used. No blame... just posting
> the error message!

Oops, sorry about that. I assumed it is a typo but apparently I am wrong.

Xiaofan

2008\02\01@041010 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/31/08, Apptech <EraseMEapptechspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> In fact, the XP drivers are even larger - 298MB and 48 MB
> full and basic. But, that doesn't alter the initial bare statement or the
> general principle.
>

So XP is no better than Vista in this front. It is not the fault
of Microsoft but the fault of HP the printer vendor. Other vendors
are making the same mistakes. Take a look at Nvidia
and ATI graphics driver.

Xiaofan

2008\02\01@062820 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> So XP is no better than Vista in this front. It is not the
> fault
> of Microsoft but the fault of HP the printer vendor. Other
> vendors
> are making the same mistakes. Take a look at Nvidia
> and ATI graphics driver.

When all or even many vendors are making the "mistake" of
producing drivers that you could park an Edsel * in with
room to spare then the argument that "it's not Microsoft's
fault" starts to ring a little hollow.


       Russell

* The King's own car in Kingman

  http://others.servebeer.com/AroundTheWorldIn60Days/RandomPhotoCollection/RPa161.jpg

Crasser fare in Vegas (and me), but smaller than an Edsel
(and than Vista printer drivers)

  http://others.servebeer.com/AroundTheWorldIn60Days/RandomPhotoCollection/RPa609.jpg

This is the size a print driver SHOULD be

      others.servebeer.com/AroundTheWorldIn60Days/RandomPhotoCollection/RPb433.jpg
      http://others.servebeer.com/AroundTheWorldIn60Days/RandomPhotoCollection/RPb441.jpg


QNX has/had them this size

      http://others.servebeer.com/AroundTheWorldIn60Days/RandomPhotoCollection/RPb465.jpg

Bigger than a Vista printer driver (just)
But, with more class.

      others.servebeer.com/AroundTheWorldIn60Days/RandomPhotoCollection/RPb434.jpg

2008\02\01@104640 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

>> So XP is no better than Vista in this front. It is not the fault of
>> Microsoft but the fault of HP the printer vendor. Other vendors are
>> making the same mistakes. Take a look at Nvidia and ATI graphics
>> driver.
>
> When all or even many vendors are making the "mistake" of producing
> drivers that you could park an Edsel * in with room to spare then the
> argument that "it's not Microsoft's fault" starts to ring a little
> hollow.

Drivers are not the same as drivers :)

My Epson Stylus printer driver features preview, several print correction
and quality adjustment options, allows printing several pages of the
original document on one page of paper, printing two-sided (with manually
turning the stack, but still) and a number of other facilities. I don't
want to get started on the features of my graphics card driver. Earlier,
smaller drivers didn't have all that, but today stuff like that is pretty
much mainstream.

Also, the drivers often are "integrated"; that is, they include the
software for several models or several versions of a model. Have you
checked how much of the download is actually installed? And what it is that
is installed?

You can say "but I don't want this, I don't even know it's there" -- but
then think of the cost of 40MB vs having to develop and maintain several
different driver versions (the stripped-down for the purist and the normal
one for everybody else). And how many would actually use the stripped-down
version -- and how many purists would not use the stripped-down version out
of fear to miss out on a feature :)

With all the junk I myself collect on my disks that I don't have the time
nor the inclination to properly clean up and that stays there "just in
case", the installed drivers are the least of my worries when it comes to
disk space.

Gerhard

2008\02\01@112245 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 2/1/08, Apptech <@spam@apptechspam_OUTspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> When all or even many vendors are making the "mistake" of
> producing drivers that you could park an Edsel * in with
> room to spare then the argument that "it's not Microsoft's
> fault" starts to ring a little hollow.

It may ring a little hollow, but it would only take one example of a
small print driver running on Windows to prove that it's not
Microsoft's fault.  Let's see... I'll go with a very simple, very
small postscript printer driver:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=44&platform=Windows

Please note that the 'full' version includes drivers for essentially
three (maybe 5) different operating systems: 95/98/ME, NT, 2K/XP at
minimum.  Might have separate ME and XP drivers.  Assuming the
installer is a pared down, but still graphical, program we can easily
subtract 1.5MB of that for the installer, leaving about 2MB per
driver.

So I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault.  I'm sure you could
develop a printer driver that is far smaller if you had the desire (
and documentation/resources ) to, but given that bandwidth, HD space,
and processing power is stupid cheap I don't see the benefit of doing
so.  I can certainly understand the printer manufacturer's position -
fast and cheap development at the expense of size and performance.

Yes, MS software is generally bloated, buggy, and annoying in a
variety of ways, but it seems you may be letting assumptions and a
small sample set get in the way of critical thinking...

-Adam

2008\02\01@120033 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

The facilities you mention are quite simple to implement in software from
a graphics manipulation point of view. What is much harder is the user
interface to interact with the s/w and set it up, and I'll bet this is
what takes the lions share of the so called driver that is being
downloaded.

> I don't
> want to get started on the features of my graphics card driver. Earlier,
> smaller drivers didn't have all that, but today stuff like that is pretty
> much mainstream.

If it's so mainstream surely M$ should be doing more of the work rather
than getting everyone else to do so much.

>
> Also, the drivers often are "integrated"; that is, they include the
> software for several models or several versions of a model. Have you
> checked how much of the download is actually installed? And what it is that
> is installed?

Yes, but isn't the whole point of having specialised printer control
languages like PCL (HP), ESC-P2 (Epson) and PostScript (big commercial
printers) the fact that they simplify your drivers.

Granted older HP printers wont know about newer versions of PCL but even
so there are only a small number of versions of PCL. Honestly, writing a
bit of s/w to print graphics using PCL to a HP printer is rediculasly easy
even if you need to do colour correction and resizing.

Regards
Sergio Masci

2008\02\01@124907 by Dr Skip

picon face
As David Letterman says (here in the US):

And the number one reason Vista stinks...<drum roll>...

Copying 3.5GB between drives takes 12 hours, 31 minutes, 31 seconds!!!

:O


The facts, in case one wonders:

The Vista machine: 2GHz dual core, 2GB RAM, USB 2.0 built in.

The XP machine: 1 core, Celeron, 1GHz, 512MB RAM, USB 2 from a cardbus card
giving real measured throughput at only 2-3 times real USB2.0 at best.

The jump drive: my new 8GB generic...

Test 1:
I put a truecrypt container on the jump drive, which writes 7.5GB onto the file
in encrypted bits - 20 minutes on the Vista pc.

Copy 3.5GB, 80,000 files to it - 12 hours 31 minutes + on the Vista machine

erase it.

Copy the exact same files on the XP: a little over 30 minutes with its sorry
usb adapter.

Note - this includes trying all mods with and without listed on various "speed
up your Vista sites, including Microsoft Technet... Average displayed copy rate
in the Vista dialog: 20 KB/s

I then found several discussions on this, including a 37 page one at
Microsoft's own site, yet not a peep from them on it... And reports are that
SP1 will NOT fix it!

Note that if you do the math, it would take more than 24 hours to copy from
this jump drive..... Enough reason to hate Vista alone!!!

Since the truecrypt driver can reach normal speeds, and I've had quicker copies
in a vm on Vista than in Vista itself over the net (also subject to the same
speeds), it's some layer in Vista at fault. I regularly transfer GB worth of
files. If I have to wait a day to do it, how do I bill that?????? How does the
average corp justify keeping their employees waiting? And it IS proportional,
although seems to increase over time. Even 1GB per hour is very serious wasted
productivity.......





2008\02\01@132547 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Dr Skip wrote:
{Quote hidden}

BTW, Doc, that truecrypt container in a 4GB USB Flash drive works GREAT!
I can't find a single program that doesn't
work so far.

--Bob A

2008\02\01@135900 by Dr Skip

picon face
Glad to hear it!

BTW, in looking at my post in your reply, I see I quoted the cardbus USB at 2-3
times usb2.0 speed... typo... that's 2-3 times usb1.1 speed.... sorry.


Bob Axtell wrote:
> Dr Skip wrote:
> BTW, Doc, that truecrypt container in a 4GB USB Flash drive works GREAT!
> I can't find a single program that doesn't
> work so far.
>
> --Bob A
>

2008\02\01@143740 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I've used USB hard drives and flash drives on my vista machine with no
problem - a 4GB flash drive to USB hard drive copy (many, many
thousands of small files) took minutes.  A 2GB copy to the internal HD
was no issue either.  I haven't done any significant writing to the
flash drives, perhaps that's the issue?

Is this an issue with flash drives in general, jump drives in
particular, or just an oddity for some people on some machines?  I
certainly don't want to be caught later waiting many hours for a copy
to a flash drive when I'm in a rush...

-Adam

On 2/1/08, Dr Skip <spamBeGonedrskipEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\01@145742 by Dr Skip

picon face
It appears to be related to get slower over time, it happens on the network,
hard disk to hard disk, or to usb devices. It seems on the various forums that
1 out of 100 don't have the problem, and of those that have it, it magically
appeared one day. The affected folks seem like a large group, and in my case,
it was like this from the first day it powered on.

There are a few 'tweaks' one can try, and some add a KB/s but none fix it. The
problem has existed for over a year it seems - both networking and disk copies.
the only possibly relevant hotfix addresses the time calculation showing 0 and
hanging on large transfers, which some advertise as a possible fix for
everything, but it isn't.

M. Adam Davis wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\02\01@151136 by David VanHorn

picon face
On Feb 1, 2008 2:57 PM, Dr Skip <RemoveMEdrskip@spam@spamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
> It appears to be related to get slower over time, it happens on the network,
> hard disk to hard disk, or to usb devices. It seems on the various forums that
> 1 out of 100 don't have the problem, and of those that have it, it magically
> appeared one day. The affected folks seem like a large group, and in my case,
> it was like this from the first day it powered on.

Me too, this seems like something that shouldn't have made it out of
"alpha" testing.

2008\02\01@152219 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 2/1/08, Dr Skip <.....drskip@spam@spamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> It appears to be related to get slower over time, it happens on the network,
> hard disk to hard disk, or to usb devices. It seems on the various forums that
> 1 out of 100 don't have the problem, and of those that have it, it magically
> appeared one day. The affected folks seem like a large group, and in my case,
> it was like this from the first day it powered on.

Ouch!  I'll have to watch out for that, it certainly limits the
usefulness of the computer.  Maybe I can run some tests tonight...

-Adam

2008\02\01@170649 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
sergio masci wrote:

{Quote hidden}

It doesn't really matter whether it's the core functionality, the GUI or a
interface to the user's weather station that takes up the space -- fact is
that there are additional functions in many drivers that were not in the
drivers from ten years ago.

>> I don't want to get started on the features of my graphics card driver.
>> Earlier, smaller drivers didn't have all that, but today stuff like
>> that is pretty much mainstream.
>
> If it's so mainstream surely M$ should be doing more of the work rather
> than getting everyone else to do so much.

I'm pretty sure they thought about it... "Hey, should we spend a few
millions to do the work that the hardware manufacturers do now spend money
for?" :)  

Also, don't forget, they already got blamed (in court, no less) for putting
too much into Windows. People can't have it both ways. Fancy print
postprocessing is not necessarily an operating system feature.

>> Also, the drivers often are "integrated"; that is, they include the
>> software for several models or several versions of a model. Have you
>> checked how much of the download is actually installed? And what it is
>> that is installed?
>
> Yes, but isn't the whole point of having specialised printer control
> languages like PCL (HP), ESC-P2 (Epson) and PostScript (big commercial
> printers) the fact that they simplify your drivers.

I'm no printer driver specialist, but I'm pretty sure that while they
simplify some things, there is enough left to do. Experience shows that
things look generally a lot easier before you get into the details.

Gerhard

2008\02\01@201703 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> It doesn't really matter whether it's the core
> functionality, the GUI or a
> interface to the user's weather station that takes up the
> space -- fact is
> that there are additional functions in many drivers that
> were not in the
> drivers from ten years ago.


Arguable, it's a matter of perspective.

Rearranging:

'It doesn't really matter whether there are additional
functions in many drivers that were not in the drivers from
ten years ago -- "fact is" it's the GUI that takes up the
space.'

ie While there is (or may be) SOME additonal functionality
(although much of waht is described above applies to what my
now ancient and now defunt HP G85 would do) I think we are
seeing expectation-bloat and because-we-can-bloat and
if-we-make-it-bigger-they-will-buy-more RAM/disk/cpu cycles
/ .... bloat and
if-we-program-it-in-favorite-language-here-and-that-how-big-it-is-who-cares
bloat, and ...


       Russell





2008\02\01@205558 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 2, 2008 4:21 AM, M. Adam Davis <.....stienmanRemoveMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/08, Dr Skip <.....drskipSTOPspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It appears to be related to get slower over time, it happens on the network,
> > hard disk to hard disk, or to usb devices. It seems on the various forums that
> > 1 out of 100 don't have the problem, and of those that have it, it magically
> > appeared one day. The affected folks seem like a large group, and in my case,
> > it was like this from the first day it powered on.
>
> Ouch!  I'll have to watch out for that, it certainly limits the
> usefulness of the computer.  Maybe I can run some tests tonight...
>

Personally I have not noticed this problem. In fact the Vista notebook
is doing better than my XP SP2 desktop in terms of USB disk transfer
speed. But that is not a fair comparison either since the Vista notebook
is new and the desktop is 3 year old. Both are powered by Nvidia chipsets
and AMD CPU. And Nvidia chipsets are not as good as Intel chipsets in
terms of USB support.

And since most people who do not have a problem will not complain
in the forum, so I think that 1 out 100 does not mean too much.

But still I agree that this can be annoying if the problem happens
and you can not do anything about it. In this case, open source is
an advantage. Example: if you have similar problems under Linux
and you are capable of digging deep enough to solve the problem
and Linux USB developers are willing to add quirks to support you.


Xiaofan

2008\02\01@212151 by Mario Mendes Jr.

flavicon
face
I've just recently finished reading "Developing Drivers with the Windows
Driver Foundation".  I picked it up thinking that the new driver framework
might make things a bit easier to code a device driver, and it does, but it
is still far from simple do develop a driver.

Having said, that, Windows drivers are supposed to be very thing and light.
Its only job is to get data from the user and send it to a device and vice
versa, maybe do a little of work on that data but very little work, but the
grunt of it is supposed to be done by the device or the application using
the device, and that is it.  What I do see going on with a lot of drivers
recently though is the addition of GUI stuff that only gets on the way and
make things bloated.

I recently installed a Lexmark driver for a friend and the download was
almost 90 megs.  It had a few apps in it, but the driver only install was
still quite large.  In this instance, not only the driver gets installed,
but other GUI crap that you really don't need gets installed too and you
don't have a choice during install time.  There is GUI stuff there to ask
the user things from the user in a pretty way, there's animation, there's
stuff to bypass, or add onto, the progress indication in the usual Windows
Printer Status window and etc.

Manufacturers are putting all sorts of crap in the drivers to appeal to the
dumb masses who will later tell their friends to buy the same printer
because the install was so easy and there are so many cool things that
happen when you try to print that you can't possibly have a problem with the
printer, and if something does go wrong, there's something in there to help
you troubleshoot the system too.

In other words, manufacturers are putting tons of crap into their drivers
just to make things look cool and sell more.

Here's something you can try with your drivers.  It has worked for a lot of
stuff but not others, and it seems to work mainly for USB stuff.  A driver
is really a file or two (well maybe 4 or 5, but they're small) and it's
cached by windows after install.  After installing your device driver and
verifying it all works well, uninstall the driver from the Control Panel Add
Remove Programs, reboot and then just plug in your device back in.    When
you uninstall the drivers, all of the GUI crap is taken out of the system,
but the actual cached driver files, the ones that do all of the grunt work,
are still in the system folders.  Once you plug the device back into the USB
port, Windows takes a copy of those files and reinstalls only the drivers.
I don't guarantee it'll work for all of your devices, but give it a try


-Mario



{Original Message removed}

2008\02\02@073120 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mario Mendes Jr. wrote:

> Having said, that, Windows drivers are supposed to be very thing and light.

Here we go... that is the part that's relevant WRT Vista, XP etc :)

> Manufacturers are putting all sorts of crap in the drivers to appeal to
> the dumb masses who will later tell their friends to buy the same
> printer because the install was so easy and there are so many cool
> things that happen when you try to print that you can't possibly have a
> problem with the printer, and if something does go wrong, there's
> something in there to help you troubleshoot the system too.

I think that this may be quite important for some part of the "dumb
masses". (And don't forget, depending on the issue, almost everybody is
part of some "dumb mass" :)

> When you uninstall the drivers, all of the GUI crap is taken out of the
> system, but the actual cached driver files, the ones that do all of the
> grunt work, are still in the system folders.  Once you plug the device
> back into the USB port, Windows takes a copy of those files and
> reinstalls only the drivers. I don't guarantee it'll work for all of
> your devices, but give it a try

The net gain is more often than not a few ten MB of disk space, maybe even
a few hundred MB (just for the sake of the argument). That's less than a
dollar, even after including the additional space that the backups need.
Don't be surprised that I won't spend not even 15 minutes on that...


Before that, Russell wrote:

>> Arguable, it's a matter of perspective.

I won't argue this... Isn't everything? :)

>> 'It doesn't really matter whether there are additional functions in many
>> drivers that were not in the drivers from ten years ago -- "fact is"
>> it's the GUI that takes up the space.'

This is correct. You probably won't believe how much work goes into any UI
(whether G or not G) until you try to write an "idiot-proof" UI. I'm right
in the middle of writing the code for parsing a configuration file. 20%
core, 80% dealing with the out of boundary situations.

>> ie While there is (or may be) SOME additonal functionality (although
>> much of waht is described above applies to what my now ancient and now
>> defunt HP G85 would do) I think we are seeing expectation-bloat and
>> because-we-can-bloat and if-we-make-it-bigger-they-will-buy-more
>> RAM/disk/cpu cycles / .... bloat and
>> if-we-program-it-in-favorite-language-here-and-that-how-big-it-is-who-cares
>> bloat, and ...

Fully agreed. It's just a matter of perspective (relative position). Many
of the electronic devices that are designed using today's standard
techniques use much more power than they would have to use, if you use the
extreme that is possible as measure. Just like most of the programs
designed using today's standard techniques use much more memory than they
would have to use, if you use the extreme that is possible as a measure.
It's most of the time about the basic engineering principle: get the job
done with the least amount of (relevant) resources. And some ten MB more or
less, in that context, is probably not relevant for a large majority -- not
so much, at least, that the printer manufacturer would pay the driver
designer considerably more to get rid of it. (Just like in most cases, our
customers won't pay anything extra for squeezing out the last few mA of
current consumption in a mains-powered device.)

Gerhard

2008\02\02@080404 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I disagree. When I write a prog that accesses a file I don't expect to
have to write all the low level disc access code as well. I expect the OS
to do that for me. In fact I expect the OS to do a lot of things that are
common to all (most) apps running on the OS. Outputing to a printer is as
fundamental as receiving input from a keyboard.

But even forgetting the convenience of having the OS doing common chores
for your app, there is the fundamental necessity that the OS protect my
apps from other (maybe badly written) apps. If my app writes to the
printer it should be safe. It should not be possible for the output to get
corrupted because some other app is also trying to use the printer at the
same time.

So I stand by my statement that a lot of the core functionality for
driving the printer belongs in the OS and not some third party S/W that
may introduce problems into the OS and impact on the reliabilty of the
apps running on it.

{Quote hidden}

I agree with you. Why should M$ spend money when they can get someone else
to do the work instead. But the reality is that it wouldn't cost them
millions - in fact they might even make more money out of it by offering a
validation service to printer manufacturers.

The interfaces to these printers are very well defined in both hardware
and software. Yes you do get inovations and non-standard hardware. But
come on, a printer is a printer is a printer. If you want to get it to
scan, use a scanner driver (remember TWAIN?), if you want to enter input,
use an aux keyboard or mouse driver.

>
> Also, don't forget, they already got blamed (in court, no less) for putting
> too much into Windows. People can't have it both ways. Fancy print
> postprocessing is not necessarily an operating system feature.

I beg to differ. Outputing to a printer in colour is far more of a common
requirement of other apps running on the computer than the ability to
browes the web in human readable form.

{Quote hidden}

Actually my comment was a dig at the printer manufacturers. For years
they've made a big thing about their printer interfaces (the printer
control languages) to get specialist s/w to support them (remember how
much a PostScript capable laser printer used to cost?). Now that we have
these well estabilshed interfaces we are being lumbered with tons of
useless eye candy because not enough people are standing up and saying:
"I paid for my hard disc, stop dumping stuff I don't need onto it"

I agree with you about the details. But take it from someone who has
actually been through the details and written low level graphics and
printer s/w. It really is simple stuff.


Regards
Sergio masci

2008\02\02@122253 by Dr Skip

picon face
Just a comment... Most printer install disks have multiple directories, and one
will be named something that makes it obvious that it's the real 'driver'. The
rest is usually the fluff. Of that, there are usually drivers for all different
versions of windows in there. It also contains an install or .inf file, which
can be installed manually by its default action. These drivers will contain the
preview functions, etc, but not be anywhere near as big and you don't install
the fluff if you go there to do it.

Case in point: My Brother usb and network printer/scanner/fax incl email
functionality. The adobe fluff and other junk fill the cd. A download of just
the 'drivers' from the website is 160MB. Install just what one needs to print,
scan and fax and it put just over 5 MB on my machine. I still preview, view ink
levels, all that stuff too.


sergio masci wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

2008\02\02@124603 by Dr Skip

picon face
Interesting reading:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Has-Microsoft-Disavowed-Vista/

2008\02\02@125159 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I am becoming more intrigued by the minute.....

No offense is intended, but you seem to NEVER have the same problems we
have over here
in the US. Are you living on the same planet I am? Where do you buy YOUR
$MS stuff?
Mine rarely works right, maybe we are not getting the right stuff. Maybe
Bill G likes you guys
in Asia more than us in the US...? so he ships better stuff?

--    Bob

2008\02\02@170149 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Dr Skip wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Thanks for the info.

Regards
Sergio Masci

2008\02\02@204911 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 3, 2008 1:53 AM, Bob Axtell <spamBeGoneengineerKILLspamspam@spam@cotse.net> wrote:
> I am becoming more intrigued by the minute.....
>
> No offense is intended, but you seem to NEVER have the same problems we
> have over here in the US. Are you living on the same planet I am?
> Where do you buy YOUR $MS stuff?
> Mine rarely works right, maybe we are not getting the right stuff. Maybe
> Bill G likes you guys in Asia more than us in the US...? so he ships better stuff?
>

Windows comes with the desktop/notebook we (or the company) buy (typically
Dell or HP).

I am not saying I do not have problems occasionally. On the notebook
at work, there are crashes of certain programs, but typically Lotus Notes
and other programs and not MS Office XP. Occasionally Windows
crashes as well because of odd drivers we use. At home I use Windows
less and less. But I support my wife's Vista Notebook.

Maybe the feeling matters more than the real world experiences. Maybe
the threshold of me getting frustrated with software is higher than many
people here as I always think I can sort it out (no matter it is Windows
or Linux) so I will try my best to solve it. I am quite patient when it
comes to software.

Maybe it is also related to the usage pattern. I do not go to dubious
websites. I do not install a software unless I really need it and I never want
to install a shareware and seldom install any beta/demo software unless
I have to. And my wife's usage pattern is really quite simple so she will not
have major problems once she is educated not to do certain things.

Xiaofan

2008\02\02@210740 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 3, 2008 9:49 AM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancspam_OUTspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe the feeling matters more than the real world experiences. Maybe
> the threshold of me getting frustrated with software is higher than many
> people here as I always think I can sort it out (no matter it is Windows
> or Linux) so I will try my best to solve it. I am quite patient when it
> comes to software.

Interestingly this patience came from two places:
1) supporting Windows 95/98 during my initial encounter with Windows
back in 1997-1999 when I just came to Singapore to study. Windows
95/98 simply crashed a lot. Office 95/97 also crahed a lot. Before that
I had very limited access to computers.

2) experimenting with various Linux distributions back in 1998-2002.
You could say it was pretty frustrating experinece. But I learned
quite a bit and enjoyed the learning experiences. So when I returned
to Linux again after finally found a good Linux distro (Ubuntu 5.04),
I was quite happy. And now I am experimenting with FreeBSD,
you really need quite some patience when you deal with FreeBSD.


Xiaofan

2008\02\02@214626 by rwuest

flavicon
face
It's amusing to read that, Xiaofan.  You feel linux was frustrating in
'98. I won't disagree that it was a bit of work to get things going back
then, but POV is so important here....

I started with DOS 2.something in the early 80's and went through the
worst of the worst Microsoft ever produced: which is everything before XP.
They have made some real bad stuff over the years. When I got hold of a
Linux distro in '94 (Slackware something on a CD you had to copy to a big
stack of floppies ti install), I thought I was in heaven :)  Once it was
up, it stayed up.  OS Crashes were, and still are, very very rare.  I
won't say never, but I can't remember the last one I had (that wasn't the
result of me doing something to the kernel) and I've been working with
dozens of Linux desktops for the past several years. Different hardware,
different Linux distros, all as stable as can be.

Next week will be interesting for me because I have not had a windows
computer for over 12 years now (a Dell laptop with win '95).  Yeah, I have
had to use them now and then, but I have the first brand name Desktop, an
HP, that I have ever owned coming ( it's a woot refurb that was too good a
deal to turn down), and it is coming with Vista Home Edition on it.
Hopefully, it is not going to be too hard to resize and repartition the
disks so I can get Fedora 8 on it by Monday night and have it dual
booting.

I intend to keep Vista on there to play. Or something. I don't really know
why because I probably will never use it.  Then again, curiosity wil
probably get the better of me and I'm gonna have to see what it can do and
then I'll get all mad and frustrated with it because it's still stupid.
I don't have high expectations for it. That's pretty much how I remember
Windows: constantly getting mad and frustrated with it's poor design.

Robert


On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\02\02@215231 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> Case in point: My Brother usb and network
>> printer/scanner/fax incl email
>> functionality. The adobe fluff and other junk fill the
>> cd. A download of just
>> the 'drivers' from the website is 160MB. Install just
>> what one needs to print,
>> scan and fax and it put just over 5 MB on my machine. I
>> still preview, view ink
>> levels, all that stuff too.

What does it take to make a 5MB object file?
If you allowed an average of say 10 bytes per source code
line, that's 500,000 lines of code.
Halve that if you like to 250,000 lines.
Allow 'quite a bit' for the library items.
Say 60%.

How much functionality would YOU expect to produce with
100,000 lines of code ?



       Russell


2008\02\02@215234 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Has-Microsoft-Disavowed-Vista/
>
> --

2008\02\02@235714 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 2, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Apptech wrote:

> What does it take to make a 5MB object file?

Object oriented programming permits your object file to be
full of relatively massive objects without the programmer
trying very hard.  Store all your window backgrounds, icons,
shapes, and other graphics as .BMP with no compression, all
your custom sounds (you've GOT to have custom sounds, right?)
as .WAV structures, etc, etc...

BillW

2008\02\03@005918 by Dr Skip

picon face
I suspect most of that is due to the Windows API and object oriented
programming. OO doesn't worry about code size ;)

However, it has drivers for getting to the printer over the net, over usb,
manipulating the printout all sorts of ways incl color correction options,
twain driver for usb and net, fax, scan to pdf, jpeg, tiff, etc in their app,
and daemons to monitor ink level, status, transfer incoming faxes to disk,
communication with the front panel buttons, etc.

Pretty good functionality for 5MB these days, especially if done with
Microsoft's tools!

Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\02\03@045005 by wouter van ooijen

face picon face
> What does it take to make a 5MB object file?

Including some framework or interpreter. I write xwisp in Python. That
requires the user to install Python first, which some find a nuisance.
So the alternative is an installer that essentiatlly wraps the whole
Python distribution in a 2Mb DLL and bundels it with my 230Kb xwisp
source. Not pretty, but the alternative is not to use something like
Python, which would seriously affect the time I would need to write the
application.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2008\02\03@054053 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 30, 2008 10:35 AM, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechEraseMEspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> A friend asked me to download Vista drivers for an HP C4180
> printer for them as the download would have taken far too
> long on their connection..
>
>
> Basic drivers    35 MB
> Full drivers     167 MB.

We just bought a relative cheap Samsung SCX-4200 Mono Laser
Printer/Copier/Scanner for my wife's coursework purpose. The printer
driver/scanner driver are of similar size as the above.

By the way, I need to use the same trick to get the Vista driver
work (Samsung provides the seperate Vista disk).
mcuee.blogspot.com/2007/12/vista-first-impression.html
(to allow full control of the file C:\windows\inf\INFCACHE.1 and
delete it).

Xiaofan

2008\02\04@080544 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
A short summary up front:

1) A claim was that it's somehow related to Vista that some drivers are
big. I don't use Vista, but the inclusion of whatever goes into those big
driver downloads doesn't seem to have much to do with Vista.

2) A claim was that it's somehow related to Microsoft that some
(non-Microsoft) drivers are big. This may be true, but since there are
smaller and bigger drivers for Microsoft systems, it seems to be more
related to the driver designer than to Microsoft.

3) A claim was that this costs the user. Yet, nobody has brought up a cost
analysis about how much this cost is. I attempted a (very short and naive)
cost analysis with a result that's under one USD. Hardly worth losing any
sleep over (or life time of any sort).


sergio masci wrote:

> Outputing to a printer is as fundamental as receiving input from a
> keyboard.

Agreed. It's usually handled in the same way: through drivers. Some come
with the OS (but often not written by Microsoft), others have to be
installed by the user.

{Quote hidden}

In a way, you could say that the core functionality is part of Windows.
Driving the specific printer is not. If you buy a PostScript printer, you
can use a standard PS printer driver that comes with Windows and you're
done. Of course, you'll be missing out on any specific features of your
printer, and some people might want to use them -- and will have to install
the specific printer driver for their specific printer.

Also, I'm sure that Microsoft would face a monopoly law suit immediately
after following this advice of yours and restricting the possibility to
print with just any 3rd party printer from a Windows system. This is simply
a no-go; they are /required/ to provide the possibility to connect /any/
printer (using an appropriately written driver) to Windows.

>> I'm pretty sure they thought about it... "Hey, should we spend a few
>> millions to do the work that the hardware manufacturers do now spend money
>> for?" :)  
>
> I agree with you. Why should M$ spend money when they can get someone else
> to do the work instead. But the reality is that it wouldn't cost them
> millions - in fact they might even make more money out of it by offering a
> validation service to printer manufacturers.

They do provide that. Of course it's quite some pain to bring your driver
up to the standard for validation, and validation is not free. Most big
name companies validate their drivers, but not everybody does.

> The interfaces to these printers are very well defined in both hardware
> and software. Yes you do get inovations and non-standard hardware. But
> come on, a printer is a printer is a printer. If you want to get it to
> scan, use a scanner driver (remember TWAIN?), if you want to enter
> input, use an aux keyboard or mouse driver.

That's exactly how it is... what's your point? There are a number of
drivers that come with Windows; pretty much all big names are represented.
The only problem is when you have a printer that doesn't match one of these
-- and that's then because the printer manufacturer changed the interface
of the printer.

>> Also, don't forget, they already got blamed (in court, no less) for
>> putting too much into Windows. People can't have it both ways. Fancy
>> print postprocessing is not necessarily an operating system feature.
>
> I beg to differ. Outputing to a printer in colour is far more of a
> common requirement of other apps running on the computer than the
> ability to browes the web in human readable form.

Not sure about this one. Do you have reliable estimates how many pages the
typical user browses on the web per day/month/year, and how many that same
typical user prints in the same period? I'd guess that the browsed page
numbers are higher.

{Quote hidden}

Come on... What /did/ you pay for the space that the printer driver is on?
And how big are the files your printer driver installs anyway? As already
pointed out by others and me, there's a whole lot in a printer driver
download that is not the printer driver for your printer model. There is
the installer (fancy GUI, multi-language); there often are drivers for a
number of models, system versions and languages; there is often 3rd party
software bundled (like Adobe Acrobat Reader or some graphics program) that
you don't need to install if you don't want to. This is sad for the ones on
dial-up when it happens, and they should complain to the driver
manufacturer. But I fail to see how Microsoft enters the picture here.

Gerhard

2008\02\05@013511 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 4, 2008 9:05 PM, Gerhard Fiedler <spamBeGonelistsspam_OUTspamRemoveMEconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> A short summary up front:
>
> 1) A claim was that it's somehow related to Vista that some drivers are
> big. I don't use Vista, but the inclusion of whatever goes into those big
> driver downloads doesn't seem to have much to do with Vista.
>
> 2) A claim was that it's somehow related to Microsoft that some
> (non-Microsoft) drivers are big. This may be true, but since there are
> smaller and bigger drivers for Microsoft systems, it seems to be more
> related to the driver designer than to Microsoft.
>
> 3) A claim was that this costs the user. Yet, nobody has brought up a cost
> analysis about how much this cost is. I attempted a (very short and naive)
> cost analysis with a result that's under one USD. Hardly worth losing any
> sleep over (or life time of any sort).
>

I think this summary is a very good one if we refer back to the original post.

Of course the subject being "Vista madness" makes it a popular thread
even though the OP later revealed that the XP driver is actually of bigger size.

Xiaofan

2008\02\05@014452 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 3, 2008 10:46 AM,  <.....rwuestspamRemoveMEwuest.org> wrote:
> I intend to keep Vista on there to play. Or something. I don't really know
> why because I probably will never use it.  Then again, curiosity wil
> probably get the better of me and I'm gonna have to see what it can do and
> then I'll get all mad and frustrated with it because it's still stupid.
> I don't have high expectations for it. That's pretty much how I remember
> Windows: constantly getting mad and frustrated with it's poor design.

Please tell us your experiences with Vista. But I feel it is too objective
to label it as stupid before even using it. It may really be stupid according
to your experiences, but at least you need to try it to say it is stupid.

Things changes fast in the IT world. When I first tried Redhat 5.x, it
was not bad compared to other Linux at its time. Then when I tried
Redhat 9.0 it was pretty bad. Then when I tried Fedora 3/4/5/6/7,
they are not bad. However when I tried Fedora 8, it is again quite bad
since it did not even boot in my machine. But Fedora 8 can be a good
distro for many people. So it is all based on the experiences, and not
what you heard from the internet.

Xiaofan

2008\02\05@023235 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Of course the subject being "Vista madness" makes it a
> popular thread
> even though the OP later revealed that the XP driver is
> actually of bigger size.

Madness is madness, no matter what else is also mad, and
where-ever it occurs :-)


       R

2008\02\05@100609 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 5, 2008 2:35 PM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course the subject being "Vista madness" makes it a popular thread
> even though the OP later revealed that the XP driver is actually of bigger size.

Often the subject or the summary can be misleading.

An example:
www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2008020501426INSW

2008\02\05@100930 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 5, 2008 3:21 PM, Apptech <EraseMEapptechRemoveMEspamSTOPspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > Of course the subject being "Vista madness" makes it a
> > popular thread even though the OP later revealed that the
> > XP driver is actually of bigger size.
>
> Madness is madness, no matter what else is also mad, and
> where-ever it occurs :-)

I see. So the subject should be changed to "Microsoft Madness"
to be more popular. ;-)

2008\02\05@105328 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> A short summary up front:
>
> 1) A claim was that it's somehow related to Vista that some drivers are
> big. I don't use Vista, but the inclusion of whatever goes into those big
> driver downloads doesn't seem to have much to do with Vista.

Ok, I got side tracked. I was not blaming Vista but M$ for this.

>
> 2) A claim was that it's somehow related to Microsoft that some
> (non-Microsoft) drivers are big. This may be true, but since there are
> smaller and bigger drivers for Microsoft systems, it seems to be more
> related to the driver designer than to Microsoft.

And I contend that if M$ was responsible for writing all the drivers and
that the drivers were actually part of the OS that there would be some
consistancy and that hopefully all drivers would be small and streamlined.

>
> 3) A claim was that this costs the user. Yet, nobody has brought up a cost
> analysis about how much this cost is. I attempted a (very short and naive)
> cost analysis with a result that's under one USD. Hardly worth losing any
> sleep over (or life time of any sort).

This isn't the case. If someone can sell me a gig of space so that I can
just add it to my HD, or maybe 5MB to add to my RAM, or maybe an extra
50MIPS, for under a USD then fine. But the truth is that many older
systems need to be scrapped and replaced with newer systems purely because
of bloat.

So it's not simply costing me a fraction of a USD, it's costing me a new
machine. Trying to recycle the old machine is also difficult because
everyone wants the new "super" software they've been told they must have.

Do you remember the fiasco with the 8GB HD limit on older computers? When
you ran out of space you couldn't simple replace it with a bigger drive.

What about the Win98 joke: yes it will run in 16MB of RAM - yes, sure.

The fact is an OS is there for one reason and one reason only. It is there
to provide an environment for us to run our apps on (to provide services
for these apps). Windows is a user interface gone out of control.

{Quote hidden}

But what is it about two different printers that can possibly make them so
incompatible? The only thing I can think of is that one uses raster and
the other uses vector which is basically PS and "everthing else". So
ignoring PS which is very well defined and well implemented all you really
have is a graphics image that needs to be dumped from the PC's memory to
the printers memory so that the printer can transfer it to paper. This is
fundamentally a mapping function from the PC's memory to the printer's
memory with a tiny bit of WELL DEFINED protocol to do the transfer. Colour
correction, scaling and everything else is simply a case of applying a
s/w filter while you are doing the mapping.

I've done this myself for colour printers - it really is trivial.

> If you buy a PostScript printer, you
> can use a standard PS printer driver that comes with Windows and you're
> done. Of course, you'll be missing out on any specific features of your
> printer, and some people might want to use them -- and will have to install
> the specific printer driver for their specific printer.

But what specific features?

Please help me out here, I cannot think of anything that cannot be handled
by an extra driver cloned from a standard existing driver (e.g. keyboard,
mouse, disc drive).

>
> Also, I'm sure that Microsoft would face a monopoly law suit immediately
> after following this advice of yours and restricting the possibility to
> print with just any 3rd party printer from a Windows system. This is simply
> a no-go; they are /required/ to provide the possibility to connect /any/
> printer (using an appropriately written driver) to Windows.

Says who?

They already have a monopoly. When DEC wanted to run NT on their Alpha
machines they couldn't sue M$ and force them to port it across. DEC had to
pay a rediculas license fee for the source and a ton of money to do the
port themselves. Then M$ released a new version of NT and DEC couldn't get
access to it without paying another huge chunk of cash which they didn't
do. So how is restricting which CPUs and motherboards will run M$' OS any
different to specifying a take it or leave it interface?

Maybe we could sue Apple for not making it's OS "standard PC compatible".

{Quote hidden}

Yes I know about this, but I actually meant turning this around and having
the printer validated for its compatibilty to an existing M$ driver.

{Quote hidden}

My point?

My point is the same as that of many others here. Everyone is generating
bloated s/w where there doesn't need to be any.

{Quote hidden}

I have failed to make myself understood here. I was not looking at the
human operators requirement to print and browse, but an applications
ability to do it. Apps don't generally need to be able to browse but they
do need to be able to print.

{Quote hidden}

How much have I paid? I've paid a hell of a lot and so have a lot of other
people that don't even use my computer directly. Last week I had to junk a
perfectly good dual Pentium Pro machine that I couldn't even give away
because it can't even run Win98. Not to mention countles perfectly good
hard drives and interface cards over the years. I took the PPro to the tip
and I was asked to put it with the pile of other PCs.

Ok Gerhard, I understand your point of view. You have a nice new shiny
machine with maybe a 500GB drive on it and you don't really care about
loseing the odd gig here and there. Many people feel like this. They are
happy and they don't care as long as they can use their machines the way
they want to. Personally I feel I'm being dictated to. I have to upgrade
my machine just to be able to run new software to overcome bugs in old
software which I've already paid for but isn't supported anymore. What
would it take to make YOU stamp your foot and say "enough"?

Regards
Sergio Masci

2008\02\05@120510 by Dr Skip

picon face
sergio masci wrote:
> This isn't the case. If someone can sell me a gig of space so that I can
> just add it to my HD, or maybe 5MB to add to my RAM, or maybe an extra
> 50MIPS, for under a USD then fine. But the truth is that many older
> systems need to be scrapped and replaced with newer systems purely because
> of bloat.

Very true, although I have several systems that have been incrementally
upgraded to accommodate such things. It makes them a challenge to use and I am
told that mere mortals should not be allowed on them... ;)

> The fact is an OS is there for one reason and one reason only. It is there
> to provide an environment for us to run our apps on (to provide services
> for these apps). Windows is a user interface gone out of control.

Amen!

Despite most big manufacturers making it easy to downgrade to XP per the
Microsoft policy and announcement, Acer has decided differently. At first, they
refused. They told me to buy a retail XP and lose my warranty if I wanted to do
it. Then I pressed back.

Their final word is:

- wipe the C drive clean

- package the machine up and send to their repair depot

- wait an undetermined amount of time

- they will strip the vista and microsoft stickers, including keys, off the
machine case

- they will install a plain vanilla xp

- there will be no warranty on it

- I will have to buy Vista in the future should it be improved or I want it
again (this is not an MS requirement)

- I will have to download and install drivers myself (which obviously has to be
done ahead of time...)

- It will be returned to me.

No option to revert back to Vista as Microsoft announced, no options, nothing.

I am impressed with the hardware. I can't describe my feelings towards their
support however, since the required vocabulary isn't allowed here...





2008\02\05@154542 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > Of course the subject being "Vista madness" makes it a
>> > popular thread even though the OP later revealed that
>> > the
>> > XP driver is actually of bigger size.

>> Madness is madness, no matter what else is also mad, and
>> where-ever it occurs :-)

> I see. So the subject should be changed to "Microsoft
> Madness"
> to be more popular. ;-)

It could if one wished, but that would be missing the point.

The original post related to what I considered to be an
absurd situation. I considered it absurd in absolute terms.
That it was, or may have been, somewhat less absurd than an
example for the previous version of uS's O/S was not the
main point, although the 'extra information' did provide
some useful perspective.

The "Columbine Massacre" occurred in 1927 when a group of
Colorado State Trooper machine gunned 6 unarmed strikers.
The title of the event continued to have some usefulness,
though largely lost to history for about 73 years until
another event buried it for good. The second event does not
negate or replace or excuse the first.

In the one example given of XP versus Vista driver sizes
there seems to have been "some" improvement with Vista. But
that doesn't alter the fact that the reason that I wrote
about it at all was because a friend asked me to download
the files because on their connection the download time was
reported to be 30 hours. That's in the order of 2000 bps so,
as they do have a notionally broadband connection there may
have been summat aglae. I won't even start to think about
wondering whether such madness was due to them attempting
the feat with an Apple notebook.
:-)


       Russell

2008\02\06@091320 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
sergio masci wrote:

>> 2) A claim was that it's somehow related to Microsoft that some
>> (non-Microsoft) drivers are big. This may be true, but since there are
>> smaller and bigger drivers for Microsoft systems, it seems to be more
>> related to the driver designer than to Microsoft.
>
> And I contend that if M$ was responsible for writing all the drivers and
> that the drivers were actually part of the OS that there would be some
> consistancy and that hopefully all drivers would be small and
> streamlined.

But Microsoft ships their OS with quite a number of drivers, including
printer drivers. What is your point here? That the printer manufacturers
change their interfaces all the time, from one model to the next? Doesn't
seem to have anything to do with Microsoft.

{Quote hidden}

I missed the point where RAM or MIPS came into the picture. But upgrading
the HD of older systems is mostly trivial. Also, since we're talking about
Vista (and possibly XP) drivers, those "older" systems are capable of
running XP or Vista. We're not talking about old CP/M or MS-DOS boxes.

> So it's not simply costing me a fraction of a USD, it's costing me a new
> machine.

How? Remember, the issue was that a Vista (or XP) printer driver was big.
Also consider that even though it might be a big download, the actually
installed files may occupy much less, maybe 5MB... anybody checked? You can
throw the download away after that if (when) you need the space.

> Trying to recycle the old machine is also difficult because everyone
> wants the new "super" software they've been told they must have.

You probably should take that up with "everybody"... What's wrong with
nobody wanting the machine you don't want anymore? That's kind of
expected... :)

> Do you remember the fiasco with the 8GB HD limit on older computers? When
> you ran out of space you couldn't simple replace it with a bigger drive.

I don't think you find many Vista or XP capable machines with that limit.
(Always remembering the issue: driver bloat with Vista or XP printer
drivers.)

{Quote hidden}

Ask the printer manufacturers about that. It has nothing to do with Windows
or Microsoft.

> The only thing I can think of is that one uses raster and the other uses
> vector which is basically PS and "everthing else". So ignoring PS which
> is very well defined and well implemented all you really have is a
> graphics image that needs to be dumped from the PC's memory to the
> printers memory so that the printer can transfer it to paper.

Ever wondered why there are so many different printer drivers for PS
printers? I wonder, too, but this is really with the printer manufacturers.

{Quote hidden}

Mostly maintenance management, probably, and possibly details in
transforming the image into printed dots. I don't really know. But I know
that this has nothing to do with the OS. You have to take that up with the
printer manufacturers, and them alone. Windows comes with a number of
printer drivers. These could be enough. If the printer manufacturers didn't
change their printer interfaces all the time, there probably could be by
now a well established (and small) set of solid printer drivers that would
cover pretty much everything. I fully agree with you on that. But I fail to
see how that has anything to do with Windows or Microsoft -- they don't
make the printers. This is completely under the control of the individual
printer manufacturers, and they apparently gain something out of doing what
they are doing.

> They already have a monopoly. When DEC wanted to run NT on their Alpha
> machines they couldn't sue M$ and force them to port it across. DEC had
> to pay a rediculas license fee for the source and a ton of money to do
> the port themselves. Then M$ released a new version of NT and DEC
> couldn't get access to it without paying another huge chunk of cash
> which they didn't do.

Huh? Next is that Forrest sues Olin to force him to provide a DOS
compatible interface for his ProProg? And who know who will sue Microchip
to force them to provide a version of MPLAB for the Mac? What has that to
do with monopoly? Windows only works on platforms that conform to certain
specs. These specs are rather wide, compared to most other OSes. Ever tried
to run a DEC system on a PC?

> So how is restricting which CPUs and motherboards will run M$' OS any
> different to specifying a take it or leave it interface?

I really fail to see the relevance of this to the printer drivers. All
these systems provide a "take it or leave it" interface. In fact, they are
"take it or leave it" systems. I make my money working on a Windows system,
and there are times when I don't like it. But it's still "take it or leave
it" -- nobody to blame but me when I don't like it. I can switch jobs right
after the current contracts are fulfilled. What has that to do with the
fact that the printer manufacturers seem to go to lengths of making their
newer printers not fully compatible with their previous drivers?

> Maybe we could sue Apple for not making it's OS "standard PC compatible".

Good luck. But also, maybe think about the consequences of a world where
this has a chance of winning. Where everybody who provides /something/ all
of a sudden can be forced by law to provide every variation of this that
anybody may want.

A major feature of Apple's systems always was and continues to be is that
they are closed, not open. If you like that, buy an Apple system. I've
never owned one, but since OSX they seem to be really nice. But then, this
"closedness" comes with a few downsides of its own. I guess you can't have
it all: the flexibility and 3rd party resources of an open system and the
control and stability of a closed system. You have to choose, sometimes.


>> They do provide that. Of course it's quite some pain to bring your driver
>> up to the standard for validation, and validation is not free. Most big
>> name companies validate their drivers, but not everybody does.
>
> Yes I know about this, but I actually meant turning this around and having
> the printer validated for its compatibilty to an existing M$ driver.

Good idea. But it probably would only go so far. How many products did you
not buy (or return) after you initially liked them, when you found out that
their drivers were not Microsoft certified? You probably just clicked on
"Yes, I want to install that uncertified driver and expose my system to
unknown damage" and went on with it. Like I did countless times, and so
many others also.

There are a number of printers that work with drivers that ship with
Windows. You can shop for these printers. They may not be the least
expensive, they may not provide the features you want, they may use more
consumables than another one, but they don't require installation of a
driver. So you /do/ have the choice -- it's just that most people seem to
give other considerations a higher priority. (And if you complain about
printer driver bloat, it seems that even you didn't give this issue the
high priority you seem to say it deserves.)

{Quote hidden}

"Everyone" in this case is not Microsoft. (They do generate bloated
software, but they don't generate the printer drivers the printer
manufacturers publish.) That's my point. I don't say that the drivers can't
be smaller, but I really fail to see where Microsoft enters the picture
when talking about printer drivers (from Epson, HP, Canon, whoever).

>> Not sure about this one. Do you have reliable estimates how many pages
>> the typical user browses on the web per day/month/year, and how many
>> that same typical user prints in the same period? I'd guess that the
>> browsed page numbers are higher.
>
> I have failed to make myself understood here. I was not looking at the
> human operators requirement to print and browse, but an applications
> ability to do it. Apps don't generally need to be able to browse but
> they do need to be able to print.

The API and a number of drivers required to print ship with Windows; no
installation of anything extra required. Connect a plain vanilla PS printer
to your system (or anyone of the many printers that are compatible with the
drivers that come with Windows XP/Vista), select one of the plain-vanilla
PS printer drivers that come with Windows and print; it's as simple as
that. It's basically your choice to buy a printer that is not compatible
with any of these drivers and requires a different driver to be installed.


> How much have I paid? I've paid a hell of a lot and so have a lot of other
> people that don't even use my computer directly. Last week I had to junk a
> perfectly good dual Pentium Pro machine that I couldn't even give away
> because it can't even run Win98.

So? If it can't run Win98, it didn't run Win98 when you bought the system.
You bought it for a different purpose. It served that purpose, I presume.
Now you want to use it for a different purpose (run a different OS and
different applications) and it doesn't serve it anymore? Why are you
surprised?

That's like buying a normal watch, then starting scuba diving and getting
all upset because you need a new watch to go diving, because your
originally bought watch doesn't do it at 30 m down...

> Ok Gerhard, I understand your point of view. You have a nice new shiny
> machine with maybe a 500GB drive on it and you don't really care about
> loseing the odd gig here and there.

Please don't get all patronizing here; you are smart enough to know that
you don't know the first thing about what I have. My main server here has
over ten years in service, is a PII based system, has seen memory upgrades
(until almost the max the mobo can handle, which is not much by today's
standards), runs with Win2k Pro rock solid, and has seen quite a number of
hard disk upgrades and other changes... No "nice new shiny machine with
maybe a 500 GB drive on it", but this machine has enough GB for my
purposes.

I've easily lost more money on crappy tape drives that I used to use for
backup before HDs became cheap enough for this purpose than I spent on HD
upgrades. The former money was just lost (together with the time spent
troubleshooting and ripping my hair out); the latter at least brought me
the joy of something that works.


> Many people feel like this. They are happy and they don't care as long as
> they can use their machines the way they want to. Personally I feel I'm
> being dictated to. I have to upgrade my machine just to be able to run
> new software to overcome bugs in old software which I've already paid
> for but isn't supported anymore. What would it take to make YOU stamp
> your foot and say "enough"?

I understand that, and it happens occasionally that I think "enough". But
for me, "enough" means that I take action, rather than expecting from
others to take action.

If it bothers me that I have to install a printer driver, I buy a printer
that works with the drivers that come with my system. If I get all fed up
about the system I'm using, I look around for a different system. If I find
they all suck, I write my own or look for a way of life that doesn't
include a computer at all. Or I realize that other things are more
important for me, and I just continue to use it -- without stomping my
foot, realizing that it's my choice, and being happy for having that
choice.

But again, back to the roots of the argument: I still fail to see how
Microsoft (or Vista, or XP) is responsible for bloated printer drivers from
some printer manufacturers. I agree with you: there's no need, in most
cases, for these bloated drivers, and in many cases there's probably no
need for any special driver. But if anybody is responsible, it's the
customers that buy those printers (which includes me, and possibly even
you) rather than buy printers that work with the drivers that come with
Windows. You can bet my ass that this would make the printer manufacturers
rethink their strategy quite quickly :)

Gerhard

2008\02\06@183119 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

{Quote hidden}

The point is that just because a new feature requires a little extra space
or slows down the machine a little bit, you cannot simply equate this to a
loss of less than a USD because you cannot recouperate that loss by
spending just a fraction of a USD. In many cases you are forced to buy a
new machine because your old machine simply cannot be upgraded and if it
can, you are still being forced to buy a new chunck of something that
costs tens of USD and not just a fraction of one.

Are you pulling my leg. Have you seen a Pentium (90MHz with 16MB and 1GB
HD) trying to run XP? No this isn't a DOS machine or CP/M machine.

>
> > So it's not simply costing me a fraction of a USD, it's costing me a new
> > machine.
>
> How? Remember, the issue was that a Vista (or XP) printer driver was big.
> Also consider that even though it might be a big download, the actually
> installed files may occupy much less, maybe 5MB... anybody checked? You can
> throw the download away after that if (when) you need the space.

But we only found this out because someone had experience of it and
shared. It should not be like this. I should not have to go to night
school and get a degree just to learn how to efficiently install a system
on a PC, what the .... point is there in having an intelligent installer
if I need to learn how to do things myself.

>
> > Trying to recycle the old machine is also difficult because everyone
> > wants the new "super" software they've been told they must have.
>
> You probably should take that up with "everybody"... What's wrong with
> nobody wanting the machine you don't want anymore? That's kind of
> expected... :)

There is nothing wrong with the machine I tried to recycle. The reason I
got rid of it was that it was occupying valuble space. I keep being given
old machines by people that have outgrown them. So the slowest of them end
up being unused.

>
> > Do you remember the fiasco with the 8GB HD limit on older computers? When
> > you ran out of space you couldn't simple replace it with a bigger drive.
>
> I don't think you find many Vista or XP capable machines with that limit.
> (Always remembering the issue: driver bloat with Vista or XP printer
> drivers.)

No, because people have been forced to upgrade in order to be able to run
XP at a resonable speed.


{Quote hidden}

Actually, bad example, if you'd said linux compatability, I'd have said:
over the last 15 years - all of them!

First thing I do when I need a new piece of hardware is look at the linux
supported hardware list.

{Quote hidden}

No, as I said above, there is no problem with the machine. The only reason
I scrapped it was that I have other faster machines available to me. It's
main use was as a build server. It took about 2.5 minutes to do a full
build which was fine. The replacement machine takes about 15 seconds.

> > Ok Gerhard, I understand your point of view. You have a nice new shiny
> > machine with maybe a 500GB drive on it and you don't really care about
> > loseing the odd gig here and there.
>
> Please don't get all patronizing here; you are smart enough to know that
> you don't know the first thing about what I have.

I appologise sincerly if you feel I was being patronising. This was not my
intent.

{Quote hidden}

I have also had bad experience with tape drives. I eventually went for an
IBM MO drive. 230 MB optical with data retension of 30 years :-)

Now of course you can do the same with DVD except the data retension is
only a few years if you're lucky. I think I've got that licked though, I
build parity archives for the discs to compensate for corruption using
par2 on linux.

I'm not so sure using HDs as a backup is safe. I've heard (from a reliable
source) of HDs "sticking" if left on the shelf for several months.

> But again, back to the roots of the argument: I still fail to see how
> Microsoft (or Vista, or XP) is responsible for bloated printer drivers from
> some printer manufacturers. I agree with you: there's no need, in most
> cases, for these bloated drivers, and in many cases there's probably no
> need for any special driver. But if anybody is responsible, it's the
> customers that buy those printers (which includes me, and possibly even
> you) rather than buy printers that work with the drivers that come with
> Windows. You can bet my ass that this would make the printer manufacturers
> rethink their strategy quite quickly :)

Printer manufacturers seem like every other kind of manufacturer now.
Build up a good name on the back of good kit, degrade the kit over time to
increase profits, then wonder why they are losing market share. If you
boycot these manufacturers they are too stupid to realise why you are
doing it, they just think another manufacturer must be doing something
better - not that they are responsible :-)

Anyway, we disagree with the whole bloat thing, let's just leave it at
that :-)

Regards
Sergio

2008\02\07@044655 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Here's some material from a local wesbite.
Prices are $NZ = about $US0.78 at present.
Tax goes on top of these prices.

Note the "XP Pro on request" offers.

This also applies to their higher level offerings.


       Russell



TOS1067C        Satellite Pro A200 Cel M540 80GB 512MB Vista
Home 512MB Memory and Bag      $699.00

TOS9804V        Satellite Pro A210 AMD 2.0GHz 120GB 1GB
Vista Business, XP Pro on request
      Free Norton Internet security OEM + Canon AIO
$969.00
TOS9804E        Satellite Pro A210 AMD 2.0GHz 120GB 1GB
Vista Business, XP Pro on request
        With Warranty Extension for just $50
$1,019.00
TOS9084V        Satellite Pro A210 AMD 2.2GHz 160GB 1GB
Vista Business, XP Pro on request
        Free Norton Internet security OEM + Canon AIO
$1,091.00

TOS9084E        Satellite Pro A210 AMD 2.20GHz 160GB 1GB
Vista Business, XP Pro on request
        With Warranty Extension for just $50     $1,141.00
TOS1069C        Satellite Pro M200 C2D T5450  80GB 1GB Vista
Business, XP Pro on request,
        With Free Norton Internet Secuirty, 1GB memory and
Webcam          $1,099.00
TOS4038           Satellite Pro P200 C2D T7700 2.4 2GB 250GB
DVD-ROM Vista Business
        1 Gbps LAN W-LAN Intel 802.11a/g/n Finger print
reader         $2,579.00
.

2008\02\07@060018 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Sergio Masci wrote:

> Anyway, we disagree with the whole bloat thing, let's just leave
> it at that :-)

I'm not sure we disagree that much. The only thing I actually disagree is
that it is somehow Microsoft's fault that printer manufacturers make
bloated drivers and printers that don't share drivers.

Apptech wrote:

> Note the "XP Pro on request" offers.

FWIW, I recently bought a notebook, and one of my requirements was that it
comes with XP (and has reasonably good Linux compatibility).

I don't like Vista (and for Xiaofan: this has not much to do with the user
experience, which I can't judge :) -- but this has nothing to do with big
printer drivers...

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...