Hardware issues

[Rob Wilkens]

I must note some disappointments with Vista Beta 2 and hardware...

(1) There are NO sound drivers included (I went to advanced install), seems
like an important thing to leave out, all I've got right now is the pc
speaker 'beep'.
(2) My Soundblaster Audigy LS (only 2 years old from Circuit City) doesn't
work, though creative "promises" drivers are "TBA"
(3) Internally, there's an AC97 audio chip, I've been trying to download
drivers for that for the last hour or so, but it seems everyone else is too
because it's a SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW download.
(4) Claims to have Media Center features in the O.S. but at least not built
in is support for the TV card that came with my HP Media Center PC m470n,
again only a 2 year old machine and Media-Center compatible (was running
Media Center 2005 edition, still is actually, on another partition)
(5) My Microsoft Branded Fingerprint Reader (so far as I know) does not work
with Windows Vista Beta 2.
(6) I went all out and spent $20 on a brand new printer at Target (lexmark
z611) a few days ago. I figured the printer was cheaper than the 1 ink
cartridge that came with it. For some reason, Vista can recognize the
printer at boot time, but the drivers that came with the printer claim they
can't communicate over the USB port. It's not a big deal, I have a Laserjet
1100 which works fine. However, I can't even UNINSTALL the Lexmark driver
(by right clicking in control panel/printers and selecting delete). Maybe
from add/remove programs it will let me do it, but I shouldn't have to do it
that way.
(7) On installing some drivers, I guess for security, it opens windows on a
black screen you have to switch to. I suppose it's a security feature, but
it's annoying as all heck, and for Joe-User it won't make the system any
more secure, it will just cause headaches.

I'm sure I'll have more complaints later, but eh, who's listening anyway.

-Rob

 

[Richard Urban]

Why do you think it is Microsoft's responsibility to supply hardware drivers
for hardware that others manufacture?

If the hardware manufacturer submits updated Vista drivers for inclusion in
the operating system, it will be done.

Many manufacturers wait until "after" the new operating system has shipped
before they tell you that they will not make drivers available for your 6
year old printer.

You angst should be directed toward the hardware manufacturer and not toward
Microsoft.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Rob Wilkens]

If the hardware driver worked with a previous version of Windows, the same
driver should be forward compatible. If they designed their stinking driver
architecture right from the beginning, this wouldn't be a problem. Notice
how Windows 3.1 drivers, I believe, worked with Windows 95 and quite
possibly Windows 98. And then Windows-98 drivers (with the newer
architecture) worked in Windows XP. If they want to claim this is an
UPGRADE it shouldn't be a "throw all previous stuff away and start over
fresh". Upgrade implies keep what you got and add new features.

Of course even Linux had problems between 2.4 and 2.6 kernel driver
compatibility, so I can't say it's any better elsewhere.

-Rob


<DIV>&quot;Richard Urban&quot; &lt;[email protected]&gt;

 

[Breaker]

You need to check yourself.

Windows 3.1 drivers would not work in Win 95 or 98. The driver model
was changed completely.

Win 95 and 98 drivers would not work in XP. Again the driver model
was changed. However a lot of people got around this because most of
the time Win 2000 drivers would work in XP.

Why should there be any difference this time around. A new version of
the OS most of the time requires new drivers.

 

[Rob Wilkens]

I thought printer drivers from Windows 3.1 worked in Windows 95.

However, I AM ALMOST CERTAIN that "WDM" drivers (Windows Driver Model?) work
in BOTH Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows XP.

-Rob

<DIV>&quot;Breaker&quot; wrote in message

 

[Rob Wilkens]

See : http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/wdmoverview.mspx

Also BOTH Windows 3.1 and Window 95/98 had DOS mode which would allow DOS
drivers (as a last resort option) to enable things like CD-Rom support, etc.
See http://www.monitor.ca/monitor/issues/vol2iss10/feature1.html about 1/2
way down the page.

-Rob

<DIV>&quot;Breaker&quot; wrote in message

 

[Lang Murphy]

Not to put too fine a point on it... but any issues you have with Beta 2,
assuming build 5384, are irrelevant. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever
in trying to get build 5384 "working" to your satisfaction. And that's not
intended as a "dis"... it's just the way it is... it's not far off from
saying, hey, Word for Windows 1.0 won't install on my XP box... uh, yeah. We
know. We're listening. Not that anyone cares that -I'm- listening... ;-D

Lang

 

[Rob Wilkens]

I care that you're listening.

All I know is without me asking, Microsoft Sent Me a Beta 2 DVD in the mail
(2 of them), so I tried it. I presumed they wanted SOME sort of feedback on
it.



-Rob

<DIV>&quot;Lang Murphy&quot; &lt;[email protected]&gt; wrote in message

 

[William]

Why would anyone want to install Word for Windows 1.0 on an XP computer, or any computer. If they are need of an office suite and cannot afford one, then they should give OpenOffice a try, after all, it is free.

William
Not to put too fine a point on it... but any issues you have with Beta 2,
assuming build 5384, are irrelevant. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever
in trying to get build 5384 "working" to your satisfaction. And that's not
intended as a "dis"... it's just the way it is... it's not far off from
saying, hey, Word for Windows 1.0 won't install on my XP box... uh, yeah. We
know. We're listening. Not that anyone cares that -I'm- listening... ;-D

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

A safe assumption, but they drop new builds every day, if not multiple times
a day, and many of the issues you may be having in, again, I assume build
5384, may very well already be fixed. For example; in 5472, there was no
video driver for the Intel 945GM chipset. In 5536, there are drivers, so
that's fixed. If I were still running 5472, the answer to fixing my video
card driver would be to wait until I got the next build available to me that
fixed that problem.

I've seen a few comments in this NG that 5384 was not a great build. Reading
through your email again, I see another example; your last comment about the
security dlg boxes is, I assume, User Account Control (UAC). If I remember
correctly, in 5384 one had to go into the local gpo editor and disable a
bunch of stuff to stop the UAC dlg boxes from interrupting every little
thing one did. In 5472 and 5536, there's a single checkbox, in the UI, not
hidden in the local gpo editor, that one checks or unchecks to turn that
feature off or on.

I got my Audigy 2 card working in 5384 by using modded drivers I found
somewhere. I assume you've checked the Creative site for updated Vista beta
drivers?

Good luck getting your stuff working. Be sure to try and get a hold of RC1
when it's released. It may well fix a number of your problems, although I
doubt it will fix all.

Thanks,

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

I would hope that no one in their right mind would want to install Word for Windows 1.0 on anything, I was just using it as an example of asking for help for outdated software. Vista Beta 2 is outdated software. Build 5536, which I downloaded last Friday, for all intents and purposes, is outdated software because I am sure there a new builds already.

Lang
Why would anyone want to install Word for Windows 1.0 on an XP computer, or any computer. If they are need of an office suite and cannot afford one, then they should give OpenOffice a try, after all, it is free.

William
Not to put too fine a point on it... but any issues you have with Beta 2,
assuming build 5384, are irrelevant. There is absolutely no sense whatsoever
in trying to get build 5384 "working" to your satisfaction. And that's not
intended as a "dis"... it's just the way it is... it's not far off from
saying, hey, Word for Windows 1.0 won't install on my XP box... uh, yeah. We
know. We're listening. Not that anyone cares that -I'm- listening... ;-D

Lang