|
You mean my HP550C might not work under Visa?
But it ran under 3.1, 95, 98SE, and XP Pro, and is only 15 years old!
Shame on you HP!
Bob Emmett
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Emmett wrote: You mean my HP550C might not work under Visa?
Not one of those H-1B Visas, anyhow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa[^]
Seriously, I did expect a 2-month old HP digital camera to work with the new HP Vista computer. After tech instructions to reload the camera OS, new (free under warrantee) USB cables, reload the OS, untold hours on phone with tech support, they finally owned up that the camera, even in USB external drive mode, was not compatible with Vista. That's inexcusable.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe so, but it's an entirely different issue.
|
|
|
|
|
integer-poet wrote: Maybe so, but it's an entirely different issue.
What is? I don't follow. 
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Vista was out over a year ago. You bought a camera two months ago. Vista pre-dated the camera. The manufacturer either claimed, before sale, that it was compatible with Vista, or it didn't. Either you noticed, before sale, or you didn't. If you had bought the camera two years ago and today the manufacturer still had not released Vista-compatible software, you'd have an on-topic complaint. As it stands, you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
integer-poet wrote: If you had ... you'd have an on-topic complaint. As it stands, you don't
Sorry poet, you misunderstood my post. By "new" computer, I didn't mean it was purchased yesterday.
The HP camera was purchased Christmas of 2006. The HP computer with Vista was purchased new in February of 2007 - 2 months later. I don't know if Vista predated the camera, but it's development sure did. The HP web site already had Vista software for the camera.
So, on topic, the OS and HP should have supported a camera that was 2 months old. The camera cannot even be considered legacy, outdated, or obsolete even today, 12 months later.
Both camera and computer were purchased from main-stream retailers, not some fire-sale web site. The camera worked fine with both XP and Win2K, just not the Vista machine.
Brings up another question - one we were left with: which is broken, the camera with it's Vista-specific software, or the computer with the Vista operating system? Which does the user return, the camera or the computer? HP blamed Microsoft, not the HP hardware or software.
Windows - the gift that keeps on giving. 
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Either the camera claimed to be compatible with Vista or it didn't.
Either Vista claimed to be compatible with the camera or it didn't.
Either you noticed or you didn't.
There is no such thing as "should" when it comes to technological compatibility.
|
|
|
|
|
integer-poet wrote: There is no such thing as "should" when it comes to technological compatibility.
Sure there is. When the camera claims to be compatible but it's not, normal people, and even people like me and the HP techs, say "it should be."
For a refresher, the survey you're responding to is: How long should a company continue to develop drivers for old hardware on new Operating Systems?
This wasn't even old hardware!
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
When the manufacturer makes an explicit claim, then there's no need to ask how long a device "should" be supported. The manufacturer already explicitly told you. There's no need for debate with a contract in place. Were I you, I'd demand my money back.
And yes, I know what the survey question says. As I've said, I think it's a deeply silly question because, among other reasons, it uses the word "should." But of course I'm assuming it's intended to be a constructive question, when that is really beside the point at best. The real purpose of the question is to make eyeballs stick on the site. And it's obviously working on me and you.
|
|
|
|
|
If it's coming out now incompatible with Vista, and that's not clear before purchase, then you have a legitimate complaint, but it's an entirely different complaint from the one behind this survey.
If you bought it two years ago and it's not compatible with Vista now, with no hope in sight, then at least you're on topic, but my claim is that you're in no position to tell a manufacturer, even as one of their customers, what its marketing policies ought to be. Either the manufacturer made you a promise of forward compatibility or it didn't, and either it kept that promise or it didn't. There is nothing else.
And no, manufacturers do not conspire to make you upgrade by withholding software development effort. No peripherals manufacturer is in a position to treat its customers that poorly. I realize nothing I say will convince anyone who wants to believe this, so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
|
integer-poet wrote: Either the manufacturer made you a promise of forward compatibility or it didn't, and either it kept that promise or it didn't. There is nothing else.
Um, backward compatibility? That's something else, which I think is actually on-topic to the survey.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Backward compatibility is when a manufacturer promises that given device works with an old OS, say Win2000.
Forward compatibility is when the manufacturer promises to support a device, say a camera, for X years, including future operating systems.
What's under discussion here is forward compatibility.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually agree with you about the manufacturer's not holding back technology. Unless they've some rather effective conspiracy, the naturally business sense is to be the first out and get the early and most lucritive sales (bigger $$$).
My impression doesn't rule out a conspiracy, but even OPEC usually can't keep its members under control long before someone tries to cash in on the gravey train by pumping a bit more (at least so far).
Like newspapers, with a rapidly changing industry such as we're in, there's monetary value in being the first to market.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
So you're willing to believe in a conspiracy within a single company? It's possible a conspiracy like that could work. Employees are conditioned not to reveal business decisions and decision-makers don't always tell all employees the reason for everything the company does. But it still doesn't make sense. Manufacturers aren't in a position to treat their customers that poorly. Those which do rapidly disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
integer-poet wrote: So you're willing to believe in a conspiracy within a single company?
No - I pointed out that a conspiracy is unlikely because the very basic reasoning for creating the conspiracy (which would only work if all signifcant manufacturers of a product join in) is enhanced profit - and the first to bolt from the conspiracy will make handsome profits by being first-to-market.
It's actually one of the mechanisms in Capitalism that still should work.
In the US, this type of corporate behavior has been illegal for close to 100 years.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Well I certainly can't argue when we agree.
|
|
|
|
|
integer-poet wrote: anybody who hasn't written a mass-market driver for a non-trivial device thinks it's easy.
Totally agree with you, especially when you have to deal with all those brain-dead hardware programming interfaces, standards and protocols invented by hardware engineers with only on purpose to make hell of our (software engineers) lives.
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. If the box says "supports Win95, Win98, and WinXP", or "designed for WinXP" then that's all they need to support. Unfortunately some say "minimum of Win95" or "Win95 or later" in which case they're stuck having to support every version of Windows thereafter, which is probably not their intent.
There is no way to see what the future holds.
|
|
|
|
|
There's no point in making new drivers for 6-7 years old VGAs, motherboards and similar hardware when they are unable to run newest operating systems anyway. But other types of hardware like printers and scanners should have longer support. I mean, people still have 10 years old working laser-printer and they are unwilling to change them, because old ones do the job just fine.
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
|
|
|
|
|
i do agree, internal hardware doesn't need support for new os's, because mostly they change the os and computer. i suppose they rather change hardware and keep the old OS for a while.
But external hardware like printers, etc should be supported on new os's too.
I have a DVD handycam from Sony about 2 years old and cannot use it on vista because the software only works for XP. For such a company i should expect some support, but no way, i need a dual boot now for only downloading data from my (almost) new handycam.. Grrr...
greetz
kurt
|
|
|
|
|
topcatalpha wrote: I have a DVD handycam from Sony about 2 years old and cannot use it on vista because the software only works for XP. For such a company i should expect some support, but no way, i need a dual boot now for only downloading data from my (almost) new handycam.. Grrr...
Two words: Virtual PC. Two more words: Planned obsolescence.
|
|
|
|
|
cpkilekofp wrote: Two words: Virtual PC.
You can't attach physical USB port to VPC's virtual machine.
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried Virtual box[^] it has some support for USB devices
codito ergo sum
|
|
|
|
|
I've added my vote as 6 - 10 years - but that's really not right. It really depends upon the expected usable lifetime of a product.
A nice example to wait-and-see on is are 'b' wireless products. Sure, it's rather slow, and I upgraded when it took 70 minutes to transfer a file. Up until that point, the most common place I'd observe a speed effect was on the internet (this D-Link pair actually operated at 22 Mbps to one another). The internet was 'fast enough' and almost triple the speed of some low-cost (and thus popular) DSL packages in my area. The point: a lot of users will be making good use of an obsolete product with no reason whatsover to change. Drivers for these should be kept updated for a good long time.
Pretending the manufacturers are really very nice people, they would put their business resources into what is selling, and so, returning to the wireless 'b' example, sales for that are very low (I've seen 'g' routers online for US$9.95 with free shipping). Why create a driver for a product that no-one appears to want? A better way to tell could be, perhaps, how many people downloaded the last driver update?
Even this last item has a cavaet: it is often the case that the update isn't needed until something horrendous, such as VISTA, comes along, and the old driver won't work.
It's a damn hard call when you get down to it.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
An extension to that would be that you should, whenever possible, made the hardware interfaces the same or very similar between all similar products. Thus, if at all possible, make it such that it only requires a small change, if any, to the driver to use an A, B, G or N wireless product.
Driver downloads aren't a very good way of seeing how many people will use the hardware with OS n, particularly if OS m had a working driver built into it. This typically is only going to be good for the early portion of the life cycle in the case of OS bundled drivers. Many of the less sophisticated users will continue to use drivers that are even on the CDs unless they are forced to upgrade.
Possibly the easiest way to tell is for the operating system vendors that do automatic updates based on hardware knowledge report back raw numbers and percentages of users with each type of hardware. In the case of Microsoft, if you have a signed driver, this should be a guaranteed service that they provide.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
