Darren New wrote:
> 
> That's a very good point.

Actually, that's the only point I can think of. I haven't yet seen any
other difference between Linux and Windowses on this matter.

> The webcam is the only one I can think of. (See
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/3729 not that it affected me personally)

Ah, I've missed that. I'd guess (yep, guess, ie. don't know, so don't
rely on it) that the modules (both parts) are still available from
somewhere and can be installed afterwards.

> (I resist the urge to be snarky and talk about losing hardware to new
> drivers.
> http://fixunix.com/linux/539688-linux-will-destroy-your-hardware.html
> Pretty funky story there.   ;-)

IIRC the e1000's actually weren't totally destroyed, even though they
did look like it at first sight, but they could be restored by
reflashing either theier original firmware or some interesting part
outside the chip (might be BIOS on some mark-vendor computers). But yes,
pretty funky story - and surely scares the hell out of people easily.

Somewhere around 1999 there was a virus released at internet, which
reflashed the BIOS (if possible) and therefore rendered the MoBo
unusable for most people.

> I also wonder about the people who use the closed-source video drivers -
> do they really keep working with new kernels and ABIs and all? Or does
> ATI release a new driver periodically? I honestly don't know, so I'm
> honestly asking.

That's a good point, too. I didn't even think about this, since I
haven't used them myself. I have so far used Matrox and Intel GPU's,
since - you know - They Just Work. I don't play much, though, so 3D
performance won't matter a lot to me.

> As well, going from 98 to an NT-based kernel killed a lot of software
> that bypassed the OS and (for example) frobbed the serial ports
> directly. 

Transport Tycoon Deluxe wasn't able to open serial ports for multiplayer
gaming on NT :/.

Now, OpenTTD supports TCP/IP... :)

> And I wouldn't bet that every video and sound card worked
> smoothly on every upgrade of OS, even from 2000 to XP. 

I think the worst fight I've had on this matter was installing SB16PnP
under NT4. It demanded some extra drivers for the PnP part, IIRC before
the card could have even be seen.

> One of the nice
> things about Matrox video cards is they (at least used to - haven't
> checked lately) would release drivers for new cards and old OSes, and
> for old cards and new OSes.

Another nice thing about them is that they give out what you ask them to
give out. My G400 on my media-player-PC is currently configured to
964x544, which is the native resolution of my projectors LCD-panel. OTOH
I'm slightly dissapointed, while I had to calculate the timeline for
X.org myself.

> I'm not sure about Vista 32-bit, but Vista 64-bit requires signed
> drivers that have passed MS's testing, because MS was tired of taking
> the flack for crappy drivers taking out the OS. If the HW vendor wanted
> you to buy a new card rather than keep the one you have, you're pretty
> SOL. :-)

Yep. Basically that's a good idea, but it does render bunch of old
hardware useless in the lack of drivers.

> Again, sure, your hardware may continue to be supported, but that's
> because the drivers are open-source. They don't "keep working" for new
> releases, they "get fixed" for new releases. If someone doesn't fix it,
> it won't work after they change the ABI again.

True.

> The closed-source nature of Windows drivers means there's a much smaller
> group of people who can fix drivers for the hardware, and they usually
> don't have too much incentive to do so.

True.

One more point is that the hw-manufacturers won't get any more money of
writing drivers for old hw on new os. The money is collected when the
new hw is sold - and on that time most buyers won't check the company
habits for this kind of things.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message