Warp wrote:
>   I think there's a categorical difference here. Windows is *supposed* to
> support all PC hardware. 

Oh, I understand, yeah. On the other hand, when Vista-64 comes out and 
old hardware isn't supported, it shouldn't be all that surprising. :-)

> Windows has always "promised" to do that. When it doesn't, it's a ripoff.

Windows still relies on the third-party manufacturers to support their 
devices. I remember back in the Win98 days that you had to make sure you 
got a printer (for example) with the proper drivers.

One of the nice things about the Matrox video cards is they *do* release 
new drivers for new OSes on cards they don't even make any more, and 
they release drivers for older OSes on new cards.

> not like it's linux's fault (it's the fault of those hardware manufacturers).

Sure, but with a new version of Windows not supporting old hardware, 
that's also the fault of the hardware manufacturers, and Microsoft also 
publishes a list of what hardware works with their systems and what 
doesn't, including software that runs on your old OS and tells you what 
is compatible with your new OS and what you'd have to replace. Most 
people ignore that list, is all, at least after the first few months. :-)

I'm pretty sure MS doesn't guarantee that every piece of hardware will 
work with every version of Windows. People just *expect* that. :-) One 
could take what you've said and read it as "Windows works so well in 
this aspect that people are surprised when it breaks, while Linux works 
so poorly in this aspect that most people already know they'll have to 
work around the brokenness."

I just find it funny how often I see things where when Linux does 
something, it's claimed a benefit, and when Windows does the same thing, 
it's claimed a drawback. Technically, even, not just business-wise.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message