Drivers in general

Discussion in 'Windows 7 Hardware' started by mistofeles, Feb 12, 2009.

  1. mistofeles

    mistofeles New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is it really impossible for MS to use old WinXP drivers in the new OS ?
    I see no reason, why everything should be changed.
    Most of the old PC can not be moved to Vista, because there is and never will be drivers for 7.

    We allready decided to jump over Visva to spare money.
    We have about 14000 users and computers. It will be enormously expensive to move all and everything to a all-new system.
    Count it:
    - all the laboratory equipement and software for some 2000 systems
    - new computers
    - more memory to old ones
    - teach the users
    - run there trying to find drivers
    - server settings

    It is much easier to teach users to move to Linux than to Visva or 7. The environment of Ubuntu is much more familiar for or WinXP customeers. Many of them have allready moved to OpenOffice, because it was more familiar than the new MSOffice versions with the new incompatible file formats.
    Linux moves on evolving, not revolving as MS.

    Windows XP has so far been the best of MS Operatig systems even with its problems.
    Visva has been the worst of all
    7 might be good enough, if only the real version could use WinXP drivers for at least NIC and VGA.
    If the old drivers will not fit, then thats it and goodbye.

    Another possibility is to stay with WinXP. It might work, if only we get support for about 3 years. This is the time to change the old PCs to new ones in our environment (remember the lab systems).
    Btw. it seems that more and more of the lab system developeerss are nowadays using JAVA. This way the programs can be used both in MSWindows AND linux. Even those system developers are pissed off with the quantum leaps MS takes with the new OSses.
     
  2. BlackWolf

    BlackWolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    9
    Well, it's progress. I don't know the technical background, but I guess if windows XP drivers were sufficient they would have been used.
    in the end, this always happens when something like an OS is majorly changed or a new standard evolves - old stuff gets old :D Of course it's not that nice, but it's better than not progressing at all.
     
  3. Radenight

    Radenight New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    4,525
    Likes Received:
    108
    @mistofeles

    I have to disagree that Windows Vista was the worst MS OS. It by far was NOT the worst OS.. Windows ME still holds that title... ;) Vista sucked at release but is a good solid OS now.. Windows XP sucked at release and is a good solid OS now (as it should be since it's almost a decade old..) Windows 98 sucked at release and Windows 98 SE fixed that.. see any kind of a pattern here... hahaha no but seriously.. Windows Vista is definitely not the worst OS MS has ever made... People still seem to be forgetting how bad XP was at first.. and remember SP2? That was enough to make some users leave XP and some of those still haven't returned to it since... It's all personal preference of course but I just can't agree with you that Vista was the worst OS made... Sorry.. ;)

    And as far as Windows 7 goes.. well it in my opinion is so far the best OS MS has made (since Windows 95)... I've been using it since Build 6801 on 4 different PC's (all very different hardware on each) and have had no problems at all with drivers.. Not only did Win 7 install every driver from the get go (each build - pre-beta and post beta) but any 3rd party drivers I installed worked flawlessly with it.. I know this isn't true for everyone that is using Win 7 but that doesn't mean that the OS is bad.. There are ALOT of people using 7 that have had the same great experience that I have with it... :)

    I agree with you that driver problems are certainly very frustrating but I really don't think it's grounds for labeling the OS as 'The worst OS Microsoft has ever made' or 'A piece of sh!t' (especially when it's still in BETA stages)... If your having that much trouble with it than I'd suggest not using it at least until the final release is out.. by that time there will be alot more drivers avaliable and you may have a better experience with it then...
     
    #3 Radenight, Feb 12, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  4. BigFeet

    BigFeet Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    9
    Drivers were an issue when XP came out. None of my printers or scanners had workable XP drivers. Some games and programs that ran on 98, wouldn't run on XP. It happens every couple of OS generations. Sometimes you have to say goodbye to the past. I know that's harder to do for a business with hundreds of PC's than it is for an individual with 3 or 4.

    By the way, worst OS (since 3.1) - Windows ME, best OS - Windows 2000.
     
  5. mistofeles

    mistofeles New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, ME was not the worst. You were not forced to have it as you are with Vista. If Vista was an option side by side with WinXP as all the other OSses have been, it might be OK. Now we have here hundreds of laptops with Vista. Some of them we have managed to convert to WinXP, but still there is many, which can not be converted. My customers with those devices have been extremely unhappy.

    One possibly still more bad OS is Windows CE and other MS OSses for PDA. You just have no possibility to upgrade them, with or without money.

    You say 'It happens every couple of OS generations' meaning there is some reason, why I have to throw a good, working PC out, because MS programmers can't make it right !

    Still I see NO REASON, why Win 7 can't use device drivers written for WinXP.

    Btw: We have decided to stay with 32 bit version of '7', because as far as we have found, Vista/32 and XP/64 can run old 16 and 32 bit programs which XP/64 and Vista/64 can't.
    If that is true, we see no need for 64 bit uP's and 64 bit OSses.
    It seems odd, that 64 bit OS cant run 32 and 16 bit programs. At least Intel has build their uP's so that it should be possible. Why is it impossible for MS ?
    In our environment 64 bit doesn't give us but headache. We have only about 20-30 users needing multiprocessor 64 bit power -and they are running Linux. Even Core2Duo is running 99.99% idle, if you forget virus scanning.

    Should we move to Linux or still wait for Win8 ?

    (I'm living in a battleship class environment with about 15000 customers)
     
  6. Moosetek13

    Moosetek13 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    5
    This has got to be one of the biggest 'cry-baby' threads of all time.

    If you are not happy with Windows, then why not just move to Linux and have done with it?

    But then, at some point you will also end up with a new Linux version that does not work with your outdated drivers and hardware - and you will be right back where you started from. Crying about new OS's that don't work with outdated hardware and drivers.
     
  7. jimbo45

    jimbo45 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    41
    Hi Moosetek agree with you 100%

    If people don't LIKE Windows 7 go and register at a forum like LinuxQuestions.org where you'll be in great company with zillions of other people whose views on Windows in general and Microsoft in particular range from "George Bush re-incarnated" to "The Great Satan" and all things in between.

    NO ONE has yet been forced to use Windows 7 -- it was an optional FREE download with the usual proviso's for running BETA / TEST software.

    I do have to agree with the fact that VISTA was foisted on to an unwilling public ages before it was ready and often on totally inappropriate hardware which tainted it at the start -- once a product is rightly or wrongly perceived as a DOG then it's almost impossible to recover the image. The other flaw was that most purchased computers didn't give people a proper install disk which made removeable of the typical bloatware which is usually pre-loaded on purchased computers impossible to get rid of unless you bought an EXTRA copy of a RETAIL version of VISTA.

    Not having an install disk also made optimising the system somewhat risky as you couldn't simply do a re-install if stuff didn't work. Even if the "Recovery" disk worked (and often these didn't by all accounts as people wiped Hidden partitions to get more disk space etc etc). you were then back to the "shop install" with all the bloatware pre loaded on to the computer.

    The upshot of this being that users were often stuck with badly performing computers which couldn't easily be tuned -- a 100% guarantee for User Dissatisfaction.

    VISTA SP1 (although not my favourite) runs fairly passably on decent hardware provided you make 2 or 3 simple changes.

    For the time and the hardware available I think Windows 95 was actually a pretty good OS (note for the Hardware available at the time). Although it crashed sometimes --was built with MS DOS as it's base -- it did run snappily and was the first "Real Windows".

    Windows 3.1 and even the Office version Windows 3.11 were really "Toy OS'es" They functioned but were really only suitable for home computers --although offices did actually use these versions. Networking was a dog (what's changed it still is :razz::razz:).

    Windows 7 looks fine, slick, well polished and should do what Vista should have done.

    I just hope also that when it is finally released the price is OK and computers that have it pre-installed ALWAYS COME WITH AN INSTALL DISK (even if it's an OEM version).

    ALSO surely people have heard of Virtual Machines -- if you want to continue to run really old hardware (NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULDN'T if it works) then just fire up a VM. I'm still running an application on a Windows 95 Virtual machine (works great on W7) :razz::razz:

    Note that Windows 2000 was essentially conceived as a Server OS and probably was the best conceived OS Microsoft has ever had. A server has to be far more reliable and stable than a "Home" OS -- but given the hardwareand techniques available at the time I'll still stick with Windows 95 as the best in the timeframe it was written in.

    Windows 2000 also needed to address the totally DREADFUL Windows NT server stuff which took armies of people to maintain it properly. We used to call Windows NT Windows No Thanks or Windows NeanderThal.

    Cheers
    jimbo
     
    #7 jimbo45, Feb 13, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2009
  8. mistofeles

    mistofeles New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    4
    I hope you have good time, when you tell your mom, how brave and intelligent you were, when you wrote this piece of non-information.

    Please tell us what was wrong in my message.

    And yes. I have moved 70% of my computers to Linux. At about the year, when your mom and dad were just beginning with you.
     

Share This Page

Loading...