A
Arthur Entlich
Just to correct one typo in my posting, "Win (*" was supposed to read
"Win 98".
"Win 98".
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
M
measekite
GMAN wrote:
I apologize to you for my recent responses. Although we were both speculating, I thought I was doing so from a more informed position regarding MS and their policies, since I have direct contact with the printer driver division. Apparently not! I know MS is often pointed to as the bad guys, and sometimes this is done unfairly, and personally, I expect better of MS, but it may indeed be that you are closer to the mark than I in this case. Please read my "open apology to HP" regarding this matter for more details regarding what I have been able to find out to date. I'm relatively mortified by this, and I am disappointed in what appears to be MS's involvement in this process. Art
hehe, no problems. No need to appologize.
Now there is also someone else who goes hehehe instead of hahaha. Could they be one and the same?
I apologize to you for my recent responses. Although we were both speculating, I thought I was doing so from a more informed position regarding MS and their policies, since I have direct contact with the printer driver division. Apparently not! I know MS is often pointed to as the bad guys, and sometimes this is done unfairly, and personally, I expect better of MS, but it may indeed be that you are closer to the mark than I in this case. Please read my "open apology to HP" regarding this matter for more details regarding what I have been able to find out to date. I'm relatively mortified by this, and I am disappointed in what appears to be MS's involvement in this process. Art
hehe, no problems. No need to appologize.
Now there is also someone else who goes hehehe instead of hahaha. Could they be one and the same?
M
Mumia W.
I recently made several postings regarding the removal of printer and
other drivers from the HP website, in which I referred to HP's actions
in some strongly worded negative terms based upon my misguided belief
that this decision was of their own doing.
Further, in the same threads I indicated that Microsoft had no
responsibility in this matter, and should not be held in any manner
responsible.
At the time I wrote those postings, I thought the information I wrote
was an accurate portrayal of events.
I recently received some "clarity" on this matter. I place the word
clarity in quotes, because things are less than clear, and less than
black and white, but I still need to retract my earlier statements on
both sides, and apologize for targeting and maligning HP unfairly.
Apparently, there is a strong Microsoft connection in this matter. As I
understand what was explained to me, now that Microsoft has withdrawn
all support for Windows 98 and ME, any code that they own which was
incorporated into 3rd party product is also without support. Part of
the agreement MS has with 3rd party vendors is that once a MS product is
no longer supported their code can no longer be distributed. Microsoft's
reasoning is apparently that if their code continues to be distributed,
there is an implication that they will stand behind it, and take
responsibility to correct and update it should issues develop. There may
also be legal liability issues involved.
Now, here's where it gets more complicated. There are apparently
several methods of creating printer and other drivers, and each company
can choose to use the method they prefer. One method is to have the
drivers call to different sub-programs already provided in the operating
system. By doing so, the driver remains a "pure" product of the 3rd
party vendor. Another method is to include certain parts of the OS code
within the driver. I am not technically knowledgeable enough to weight
in on the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
At this point, I must speculate, because of yet I have not received an
answer, but it is likely HP used the later method with their printer
drivers, that being, they included some Microsoft driver components
within their drivers. Again, I must speculate, because I have been
unable to get a exact answer to date, but it is likely that HP's
agreement/license with Microsoft on the use of this code doesn't allow
them to continue to distribute it once it is no longer supported by
Microsoft.
So, to try to clarify, no one is required to use MS code directly in a
driver. Instead, the driver can call to the internal code within the
operating system, and some companies will have written their drivers in
this fashion. Others, who did incorporate the MS code within their
driver may not be allowed under license to continue to distribute their
drivers as they stand, due to MS not allowing distribution of
non-supported components from their OSs.
WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS BEHIND THIS:
There are a LOT of issues here, and it is not easy to determine who can
or should take responsibility in this matter.
We do not yet know if HP did use the MS code in their drivers, but it is
likely they have under the current circumstances. If they did, one
question is if they were aware or could they have predicted that using
the code within their drivers would eventually lead to this problem.
Other questions are: Is HP correctly interpreting their agreement and
licensing with MS, and do they have to remove the drivers from
distribution as they stand as a result?
Could or would HP consider recoding their drivers to remove those
offending parts?
How would they justify the expense of writing new drivers for the old
printers?
If HP pulled the drivers because of the MS redistribution agreement,
could MS change their policy and wording in the agreement/license to
allow the code to be used with a clear understanding that the code
stands without any MS support.
Since it's Microsoft intellectual property we're talking about, of
course they could change the wording, but why would MS want to do this?
After all, these are legacy products
which should have been bug-fixed some time ago,
Most software developers fix bugs by releasing new versions of their
software. For example, thousands of bugs in WinME were fixed by the
release of WinXP.
and new problems would
likely be a result of introduction of other products' updates, which
neither MS or HP should be held responsible for.
Is it legal for another website to hold and distribute these drivers?
(I imagine, strictly speaking, that it would violate several copyrights).
I suspect you're right.
It seems to me that this is a matter that needs to be resolved so that
millions of pieces of equipment that are otherwise usable could continue
to be used, sold, or redistributed in such a manner that drivers would
be accessible when needed.
Resolved by whom--the parties that have decided that support of the old
OSes will go away?
At a time when we are continually being
reminded of global climate change and resource limitations, people
should be encouraged to use older equipment as long as possible, and
this goes against that ethic.
That is right, but how much money does HP make from an eleven-year-old
HP Laserjet II that has already been sold versus a modern HP model
that's sitting in Best Buy?
CALL TO ACTION:
If people care about this matter, and people should, because this is the
thin edge of the wedge, because there are new OSs coming down the road
and others will become unsupported over time, if this matter is ignored
now, it will become an established precedence and could even be
manipulated to design more obsolecense in an industry which already has
a poor record in this area.
Both HP and MS need to be told this is not acceptable.
By whom--the same people who are buying Windows Vista--which has the
most onerous license agreement for a general purpose O/S in Microsoft's
history?
HP needs to make
sure they are writing drivers that they have full ownership of, so they
can be responsible for their distribution without secondary licensing.
We, as purchasers, should have the right to know if such drivers contain
code that is not within the vendors ownership and control.
We should read the license agreements.
HP is not
totally without responsibility in this matter and as such, they should
be told so by owners of their products. They are a major partner with
MS, and they can also exert pressure to make changes in the agreement.
What happened to Gateway 2000 when it started standing up to Microsoft?
Hint, Gateway was one of America's premier computer manufacturers at the
time.
We need to let MS know that this is not acceptable. It is
understandable that at a certain point they may no longer support an OS,
and it is bad enough that new OSs break drivers and manufacturers often
do not issue new drivers to allow for upgrade, but now we are losing
access to the old drivers being used on older OSs, as well. Win (*
particularly, and to a lesser extent Win ME, and certainly Win 2000 are
still heavily in use throughout the world. MS needs to rewrite the
redistribution agreement to allow for their code that is integrated into
drivers to continue to be used for redistribution in an non-warranted
and without liability fashion.
I will do some research over the next several days to find the proper
contacts for directing comments and concerns within HP and MS about
these matters. If people become aware of other peripherals of other
brands which are suffering the same fate, please email me me privately
about them.
I hope that your and other people's efforts will be successful at
resurrecting support of the older Windows OSes, but I doubt that a few
usenet denizens will be able to change policy at Microsoft.
The issues you've discussed are of significant importance--not just
because of the threat to older hardware, but also because of the threat
to older software.
We as consumers make choices. We often choose the most popular and
simplest operating system--even though it may be proprietary. And that
can be a fantastic choice for a long time. But sooner or later, the fact
that the OS (and all its drivers) are the proprietary intellectual
property of a corporation will come back to bite us.
This is one of those situations.
This is why some people want to create and maintain a free operating
system and free drivers. This is why some people want hardware
manufacturers to publish openly the interfaces to their hardware--so
that third party software developers can legally write drivers for that
hardware.
B
Barry Watzman
Who said anything about "businesses"?
B
Barry Watzman
The message that they put up implied that it was a policy decision and
that the drivers would not return.
The exact text of the message .... which appears on virtually every
single product if you try to download Windows 9x drivers .... is:
*****beginning of exact quote
"As of July 2007, HP will no longer be able to offer software driver
downloads or replacement CD ordering for Windows 98, 98 Second Edition
(SE), or Windows Millennium (Me) for your HP printer, all-in-one,
camera, or scanner. Microsoft has stopped providing and supporting
certain files related specifically to Windows 98 SE, and this change
affects all technology companies. HP, along with other technology
companies, is no longer able to use selected components in support of
Windows 98SE, which has an impact on our software strategy for Windows
98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Me.
Although the software drivers for Windows 98, 98 Second Edition, and
Windows Me will no longer be supported by HP, your HP product will still
work with these operating systems with the software provided to you on
the CD that shipped with the product. Also, if you have previously
received a software CD that lists any of these operating systems on the
CD label, or downloaded a driver for one of these operating systems,
please maintain these files. These files will no longer be available in
the HP online support Web site or in any other HP support options (such
as e-mail, chat or phone support) after the date mentioned above."
*****end of quote
And I have to take back my previous comment that Microsoft was not
involved, however, I think that this is still an over-reaction on HP's
part. Contrary to what HP implies, I'm not aware of any other
manufacturer that has taken such drastic action, and I really don't
believe that this is a Microsoft issue, but rather an HP policy decision.
that the drivers would not return.
The exact text of the message .... which appears on virtually every
single product if you try to download Windows 9x drivers .... is:
*****beginning of exact quote
"As of July 2007, HP will no longer be able to offer software driver
downloads or replacement CD ordering for Windows 98, 98 Second Edition
(SE), or Windows Millennium (Me) for your HP printer, all-in-one,
camera, or scanner. Microsoft has stopped providing and supporting
certain files related specifically to Windows 98 SE, and this change
affects all technology companies. HP, along with other technology
companies, is no longer able to use selected components in support of
Windows 98SE, which has an impact on our software strategy for Windows
98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows Me.
Although the software drivers for Windows 98, 98 Second Edition, and
Windows Me will no longer be supported by HP, your HP product will still
work with these operating systems with the software provided to you on
the CD that shipped with the product. Also, if you have previously
received a software CD that lists any of these operating systems on the
CD label, or downloaded a driver for one of these operating systems,
please maintain these files. These files will no longer be available in
the HP online support Web site or in any other HP support options (such
as e-mail, chat or phone support) after the date mentioned above."
*****end of quote
And I have to take back my previous comment that Microsoft was not
involved, however, I think that this is still an over-reaction on HP's
part. Contrary to what HP implies, I'm not aware of any other
manufacturer that has taken such drastic action, and I really don't
believe that this is a Microsoft issue, but rather an HP policy decision.
B
Barry Watzman
I totally agree with your assessment. I think that HP is trying to make
it look as if MS is behind what is really a totally HP policy decision
when, in fact, that is not the case.
it look as if MS is behind what is really a totally HP policy decision
when, in fact, that is not the case.
K
kony
Apparently, there is a strong Microsoft connection in this matter. As I
understand what was explained to me, now that Microsoft has withdrawn
all support for Windows 98 and ME, any code that they own which was
incorporated into 3rd party product is also without support. Part of
the agreement MS has with 3rd party vendors is that once a MS product is
no longer supported their code can no longer be distributed.
Microsoft's reasoning is apparently that if their code continues to be
distributed, there is an implication that they will stand behind it, and
take responsibility to correct and update it should issues develop.
There may also be legal liability issues involved.
This is extremely unlikely, that HP would be allowed to use
MS closed source code within the driver and would do so with
the limitation of having to abandon it on a whim from MS'
decision to end support for the OS involved.
Note also that this is withdrawl date did not coincide with
MS' withdrawl date, it would certainly not have occurred
this far after MS' widthdrawl date if it were an obligation
on HP to do so.
It seems more likely that HP had coded it's drivers to use
installation routines that needed operating system updates
in order to work (reliably, if at all), and without the
right to distribute the OS components themselves (these OS
updates were purely OS related, patches and feature
inclusions for example), they could only expect the drivers
to work an acceptible % of the time if MS was still
supporting these dependent files.
It is also more likely (than that HP had embedded the MS
code preventing further use past a certain date), that HP
simply decided it didn't want the support costs for older OS
anymore, or is redoing the 'site design to some extent,
archiving some older files to be presented in a different
way than newer files.
K
kony
Who said anything about "businesses"?
Is it not implied that businesses would be a substantial
portion of the HP printer userbase? The conversation
shifted to businesses when /m/ wrote "nobody should be using
those archaic operating systems anyway," overlooking that
business needs are not always the same as a home multimedia
gamer/etc needs.
O
Otto Sykora
as I am also frequent user of older OS and hardware (I have to use it
for many purposes) , I care abt this subject very much.
So if some complain action is planned, I am part of it
for many purposes) , I care abt this subject very much.
So if some complain action is planned, I am part of it
O
Otto Sykora
I find that this policy by HP is a disastry.
All other industry where also intel or what ever still keeps drivers
ready when they were done one time, no real need for maintenance for
it, the OS does not change any more.
Recently had to install some special version of Dell, with native XP
support. But could so far get all drivers form the manufactures of the
components , no problem.
I think we have to mind HP products in future, pitty, they were known
for the simple avaiability of drivers even for linux etc.
MS nothing to do with it otherwise all industry would have to follow
the same way.
Drivers which are incuded in the kernel (using inf file alone) would
work anyway and if external , HP proprietary drivers are needed (as
with many USB Printers for example) then those are made by HP anway so
there is no reason other then srewing customers behind it. The hope
that we all will now run an buy some new hardware from them is
hopefuly a big mistake of the HP management.
All other industry where also intel or what ever still keeps drivers
ready when they were done one time, no real need for maintenance for
it, the OS does not change any more.
Recently had to install some special version of Dell, with native XP
support. But could so far get all drivers form the manufactures of the
components , no problem.
I think we have to mind HP products in future, pitty, they were known
for the simple avaiability of drivers even for linux etc.
MS nothing to do with it otherwise all industry would have to follow
the same way.
Drivers which are incuded in the kernel (using inf file alone) would
work anyway and if external , HP proprietary drivers are needed (as
with many USB Printers for example) then those are made by HP anway so
there is no reason other then srewing customers behind it. The hope
that we all will now run an buy some new hardware from them is
hopefuly a big mistake of the HP management.
O
Otto Sykora
I think, there should be as many people as possible writing letters,
e-mail and particularly occupying the chat supporters with requests
for drivers so long until einther HP gives up this policy, or gets
otherwise fed up .
e-mail and particularly occupying the chat supporters with requests
for drivers so long until einther HP gives up this policy, or gets
otherwise fed up .
O
Otto Sykora
and there are many people actualy forced by legal matters to use such
things as w98
I am one of them.
Number of hardware-software solution produced some years ago can not
be done under later OS.
And some I have to maintain for other 10 or more years.
things as w98
I am one of them.
Number of hardware-software solution produced some years ago can not
be done under later OS.
And some I have to maintain for other 10 or more years.
O
Otto Sykora
That the whole 'not supported OS by MS' story is quite a nonsense we
can see from tha fact that drivers for w3.1 where they were avaiable
still are here. Or is w3.1 supported by MS??
can see from tha fact that drivers for w3.1 where they were avaiable
still are here. Or is w3.1 supported by MS??
M
Mumia W.
That the whole 'not supported OS by MS' story is quite a nonsense we
can see from tha fact that drivers for w3.1 where they were avaiable
still are here. Or is w3.1 supported by MS??
Probably the Win 3.1 drivers don't use any proprietary MS code.
B
Bob Headrick
Probably the Win 3.1 drivers don't use any proprietary MS code.
I would suspect that is the case as Windows 95 drivers are still available
as well. It is certainly in HP's interest to keep printers in use for as
long as possible. They gain nothing by removing drivers that they could
continue to provide. The HP website
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...lc=en&product=60097&lang=en&docname=c01080344
says "HP will no longer be able to offer software driver downloads or
replacement CD ordering for Windows 98, 98 Second Edition (SE), or Windows
Millennium (Me) for your HP printer, all-in-one, camera, or scanner." I
believe the key phrase is "no longer able" and in private discussions with
various non-HP parties I believe this is true.
As for applications that require continued use of Win 98 systems for another
10 years, I would suggest that anyone in that position would have been
prudent to have archive the drivers they needed. There is nothing to
suggest that these cannot be used, the issue is that HP is no longer has the
right to distribute them.
Regards,
Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
A
Arthur Entlich
I don't yet know what the distribution licenses require, but it might
have been nice, if it didn't violate the agreement for HP, if they could
have warned people that the drivers would soon be removed. Since MS
removed the support for these OSs about a year ago, some known time
limitation likely came up.
I wonder if MS's license restricts announcement of pending removal?
Art
have been nice, if it didn't violate the agreement for HP, if they could
have warned people that the drivers would soon be removed. Since MS
removed the support for these OSs about a year ago, some known time
limitation likely came up.
I wonder if MS's license restricts announcement of pending removal?
Art
B
Bob Headrick
Arthur Entlich said:I don't yet know what the distribution licenses require, but it might have
been nice, if it didn't violate the agreement for HP, if they could have
warned people that the drivers would soon be removed.
My recollection was that there was a (very brief) discussion in this group
in mid June about this. At the time I thought I should go download some
drivers but did not get around to it....
- Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging
C
Chuck
There are a heck of a lot of business that still use MS DOS, simply becaus
they have very expensive special purpose software that runs faster better
using MS Dos than it will running under windows. A graphic interface has a
serious impact on preformance. Windows, with all it's extra baggage, esp. on
the later versions (Vista) takes OPS system required resources and loading
to a new high.
Remember a business golden rule is "just good enough".
they have very expensive special purpose software that runs faster better
using MS Dos than it will running under windows. A graphic interface has a
serious impact on preformance. Windows, with all it's extra baggage, esp. on
the later versions (Vista) takes OPS system required resources and loading
to a new high.
Remember a business golden rule is "just good enough".
M
measekite
Chuck wrote:
There are a heck of a lot of business that still use MS DOS,
That depends on what you call a business. Maybe a 1 woman non competitive proprietorship that cannot afford to buy a computer.
simply becaus they have very expensive special purpose software that runs faster better using MS Dos than it will running under windows. A graphic interface has a serious impact on preformance.
Not if you use a real computer.
Windows, with all it's extra baggage, esp. on the later versions (Vista) takes OPS system required resources and loading to a new high. Remember a business golden rule is "just good enough".
Real customers do not want to buy from a source with that philosophy. Sounds like a relabeler to me.
"Barry Watzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Who said anything about "businesses"? measekite wrote:
Properly run businesses do not run W98. It is not and never really was stable. And they certainly do not run games. And if they need to run legacy software that old they are at a competitive disadvantge.
There are a heck of a lot of business that still use MS DOS,
That depends on what you call a business. Maybe a 1 woman non competitive proprietorship that cannot afford to buy a computer.
simply becaus they have very expensive special purpose software that runs faster better using MS Dos than it will running under windows. A graphic interface has a serious impact on preformance.
Not if you use a real computer.
Windows, with all it's extra baggage, esp. on the later versions (Vista) takes OPS system required resources and loading to a new high. Remember a business golden rule is "just good enough".
Real customers do not want to buy from a source with that philosophy. Sounds like a relabeler to me.
"Barry Watzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Who said anything about "businesses"? measekite wrote:
Properly run businesses do not run W98. It is not and never really was stable. And they certainly do not run games. And if they need to run legacy software that old they are at a competitive disadvantge.
G
Grinder
That depends on what you call a business. Maybe a 1 woman non
competitive proprietorship that cannot afford to buy a computer.
There's nothing wrong with using hardware and software that does just
what you need, even if it's fifteen years old. Incidentally, that's
exactly how old you sound when you make remarks like the above.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.