Windows 7 I like it
Collector_NZ
I love it, no apps installed yet but 1 hour to get to usable and with
firefox and AVG installed, all my remote access facilities I normally
use running and my Raid Array imported and working from the Vista setup.
By far the best Win OS I have struck so far for install.
Tony Neville
news:4af4f9e6$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
Vista recognised my RAID array, but what impressed me was that this time
around there was no need to install any chipset drivers. Windows 7 found
drivers for all the onboard devices, and this motherboard is fairly niche.
Media Centre now works with the Hauppauge HVR 2200. Vista's edition for
some reason failed to pick up any DVB-T channels. In either case, Media
Centre's UI is hopelessly stodgy. WinTV 7 is far better software for
watching TV. All my apps and utilities that worked in Vista work in W7. I
like Vista Ultimate but the improvements in W7 are too numerous to ignore.
My favourite are the jump lists. They save just so much time pissing about
clicking through folders.
Now that I don't have any use for Windows 7 RC any more, there is a 300GB
partition ready for Fedora 12. Fingers crossed it will detect an ICH10R
SATA array.
Tony.
Collector_NZ
recognized till I did a win update and then off it went
Over all a very pleasent experiance and none of the drama associated
with going 64bit that was part of Vista
Tony Neville
[...]
> I too found very little driver issues, my Canon iP3000 printer didnt get
> recognized till I did a win update and then off it went
Which reminds me... It was good not having to reboot the PC half a dozen
times to get everything up-to-date following an install.
> Over all a very pleasent experiance and none of the drama associated with
> going 64bit that was part of Vista
My first use of Vista was considerably late. I guess by February this year
most of the 64-bit issues were fixed. I had none.
Tony.
Tony Neville
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:54:18 +1300, Tony Neville wrote:
>
>> Vista recognised my RAID array, but what impressed me was that this time
>> around there was no need to install any chipset drivers. Windows 7
>> found drivers for all the onboard devices, and this motherboard is
>> fairly niche.
>
> Why should an admin need to install drivers? The OS should recognise the
> hardware and use an
> appropriate driver already supplied and installed when the OS is
> installed.
Sounds like a neat idea, but in order that OS developers know the future of
hardware development and implementation, where is there a ready supply of
dilithium crystals to run their time machines?
Tony.
Collector_NZ
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:54:22 +1300, Tony Neville wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a neat idea, but in order that OS developers know the future
>> of hardware development and implementation, where is there a ready
>> supply of dilithium crystals to run their time machines?
>
> hardware.
>
>
As did this copy of Windows 7 your off on a tangent again, go take your
lithium pills
Tony Neville
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:54:22 +1300, Tony Neville wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a neat idea, but in order that OS developers know the future
>> of hardware development and implementation, where is there a ready
>> supply of dilithium crystals to run their time machines?
>
> In case you were not aware, other operating systems com with drivers for
> all known and supported
> hardware.
Let's take these three devices: An nVidia GTX 295, an ICH10R SATA2 array,
and a Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200. Which other operating systems come with
drivers to support all three of those?
Tony.
BigglesZz
>
>>
>snip>
>>
>> Now that I don't have any use for Windows 7 RC any more, there is a
>> 300GB partition ready for Fedora 12. Fingers crossed it will detect an
>> ICH10R SATA array.
>>
>> Tony.
>>
>>
> I too found very little driver issues, my Canon iP3000 printer didnt get
> recognized till I did a win update and then off it went
>
> Over all a very pleasent experiance and none of the drama associated
> with going 64bit that was part of Vista
Yep my win7 upgrade was awesome ,,,,
Biggles..
Gordon
> Well I splashed out and bought Win7 Pro 64bit.
32 bit also included. Read, DVD includes both versions, freedom is EULA via
MS though.
>
> I love it, no apps installed yet but 1 hour to get to usable and with
> firefox and AVG installed, all my remote access facilities I normally
> use running and my Raid Array imported and working from the Vista setup.
Remember 7 is out of Vista (tm) as the horse people would say.
Also Firefox, 64 or 32 bit Sir? has been the question it has asked for many
moons by the fox.
I find all this 64 7 stuff, no not the areoplane, not that Google has it on
the first page.
Right all this 64 bit MS Windows stuff I find so yesterday. Since when could
you *not* buy a 32 bit processor?
Meanwhile I read that Ubuntu 9.10 has support for USB 3, despite the fact
that theat MB of this type are still closing in.
Gordon
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:54:18 +1300, Tony Neville wrote:
>
>> around there was no need to install any chipset drivers. Windows 7
>> found drivers for all the onboard devices, and this motherboard is
>> fairly niche
>
> appropriate driver already supplied and installed when the OS is installed.
And you add some more hardware. Then what?
Tony Neville
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
> released accurate and
> complete documentation about the APIs and ABIs that those devices use?
Not sure... So you don't know of any other OS that comes supplied with
drivers for all three, huh?
Tony.
impossible
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
>>> Let's take these three devices: An nVidia GTX 295, an ICH10R SATA2
>>> array, and a Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200. Which other operating systems
>>> come with drivers to support all three of those?
>>
>> how old are those devices? And have the manufacturers of those devices
>> released accurate and
>> complete documentation about the APIs and ABIs that those devices use?>>
>> Not sure... So you don't know of any other OS that comes supplied with
>> drivers for all three, huh?
>
> Without investigating I would not be able to answer your question.
Busted again, you gibberish-mongerer, you. But, hey, take your time...
EMB
> how old are those devices? And have the manufacturers of those devices released accurate and
> complete documentation about the APIs and ABIs that those devices use?
Whether the manufacturers have released details or locked everything in
Fort Knox is irrelevant to this thread. Windows 7 demonstrably
JustWorks™ and the mechanism behind that is irrelevant.
Tony Neville
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
>> Not sure... So you don't know of any other OS that comes supplied with
>> drivers for all three, huh?
>
ah huh.
Tony.
geoff
"Tony Neville" <gu...@bowl.org.nz> wrote in message
news:hd35ib$2fog$1...@news.telesweet.net...
> " Vista's edition for some reason failed to pick up any DVB-T channels.
Oh, you need Linux for that !
;-)
geoff
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Let's take these three devices: An nVidia GTX 295...
nVidia stuff works with Linux as a matter of course.
> an ICH10R SATA2 array ...
Intel also provides very good Linux support.
> ... and a Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200.
Apparently that uses the saa7164 chipset, which has some support under Linux
<http://www.kernellabs.com/blog/?p=500>.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Well I splashed out and bought Win7 Pro 64bit.
I guess it's the amount of "splashing out" required that is putting off some
poeple.
Allistar
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:10:51 +0000, Gordon wrote:
>
>>> Why should an admin need to install drivers? The OS should recognise
>>> the hardware and use an appropriate driver already supplied and
>>> installed when the OS is installed.
>>
>> And you add some more hardware. Then what?
>
> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver already
> supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS and
drivers inside it were developed?
--
A.
Allistar
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:38:49 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>
>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
>>
>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS and
>> drivers inside it were developed?
>
> Would you care to try saying that in English?
So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand new
hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that hardware is
purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is the OS supposed to
recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver?
--
A.
Nik Coughlin
news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
>
> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or allow
my OS to pull down from the Internet) any drivers that I may need for new
hardware rather than have Windows update automatically pull down every
bloody driver that I may or may not ever end up needing.
Nik Coughlin
news:hdf488$5ba$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.11...@carnations.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:52:07 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>>
>>> Carnations wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:38:49 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
>>>>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS
>>>>> and drivers inside it were developed?
>>>>
>>>> Would you care to try saying that in English?
>>>
>>> So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
>>>
>>> Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand
>>> new hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that
>>> hardware is purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is the
>>> OS supposed to recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver?
>>
>> Easy.
>>
>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
>
> I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or
> allow
Oops. Explicity.
Allistar
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:52:07 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>
> Easy.
>
> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
You said "The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
already supplied and installed when the OS was installed". I'm saying it's
impossible for an appropriate driver to have been present when the OS was
installed because the hardware didn't even exist then.
--
A.
EMB
>
> OK. You've just gotten your brand new shiny Microsoft OS installed onto your brand new shiny
> hardware. The OS was in development for about 24 years.
>
> The hardware... the fundamentals were developed decades ago, and there is presently little happening
> by way of actual true innovation.
>
> Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them and work with them.
Which is pretty much what Windows 7 does. I have installed in on
several different models of PC and am happy to report that it
JustWorks™. I had to feed it neither drivers nor an internet connection
in order to get all the hardware working.
Generally I find current linux releases do much the same.
>
> Why should a driver for, for example, a drawing tablet consist of megabytes of data when the OS
> should already have a module that fundamentally know how to drive drawing tablets and should simply
> know parameters etc for the tablet.
>
> Why should a driver for, for example, a video card likewise consists of megabytes of data when all
> video cards do fundamentally the same things and many of them even use the same chipsets with the
> same functionality.
>
> Likewise it should be sufficient for the OS to have a module that understands the basic concepts
> behind outputting to a video card and need only be told the various parameters of the card in question.
>
> If the card is so bleeding-edge new that the OS doesn't know how to drive it, then the manufacturer of
> the new type of hardware should be working with the developers of the OS to enable the OS to be
> updated to be capable of at least recognizing the hardware and pulling down a module from the Internet.
As opposed to the linux model of an infinite number of nerds sat in
their darkened bedrooms hacking out driver code on the "so long as it
sort of works we don't care about performance" model that seems to apply
to high-end graphics card drivers under linux.
>
> I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the work in producing drivers.
I think it is perfectly acceptable they do this - Microsoft provide all
the OS information needed to write the driver, the hardware manufacturer
writes it, and then Microsoft certify it. That system is efficient,
effective and provides an undertaking as to the quality of the driver
from the OS authors.
Allistar
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:06:00 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>
>>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
>>
>> You said "The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
>> driver already supplied and installed when the OS was installed". I'm
>> saying it's impossible for an appropriate driver to have been present
>> when the OS was installed because the hardware didn't even exist then.
>
> You're farting.
Is that what you call a reasoned debate? You told us all that the OS should
use drivers that were installed when the OS was installed. It has been
pointed out to you that that is not possible if the hardward was made after
the OS was installed, and your only comment is on flatulence? Can you not
just say "yes, I was wrong"?
--
A.
Allistar
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:45:48 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
>>>>>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS
>>>>>> and drivers inside it were developed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you care to try saying that in English?
>>>>
>>>> So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
>>>>
>>>> Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand
>>>> new hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that
>>>> hardware is purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is
>>>> the OS supposed to recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
>>>> driver?
>>>
>>> Easy.
>>>
>>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
>>
>> I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or
>> allow my OS to pull down from the Internet) any drivers that I may need
>> for new hardware rather than have Windows update automatically pull down
>> every bloody driver that I may or may not ever end up needing.
>
> OK. You've just gotten your brand new shiny Microsoft OS installed onto
> your brand new shiny hardware. The OS was in development for about 24
> years.
>
> The hardware... the fundamentals were developed decades ago, and there is
> presently little happening by way of actual true innovation.
>
> Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them and
> work with them.
>
> Why should a driver for, for example, a drawing tablet consist of
> megabytes of data when the OS should already have a module that
> fundamentally know how to drive drawing tablets and should simply know
> parameters etc for the tablet.
>
> Why should a driver for, for example, a video card likewise consists of
> megabytes of data when all video cards do fundamentally the same things
> and many of them even use the same chipsets with the same functionality.
>
> Likewise it should be sufficient for the OS to have a module that
> understands the basic concepts behind outputting to a video card and need
> only be told the various parameters of the card in question.
>
> If the card is so bleeding-edge new that the OS doesn't know how to drive
> it, then the manufacturer of the new type of hardware should be working
> with the developers of the OS to enable the OS to be updated to be capable
> of at least recognizing the hardware and pulling down a module from the
> Internet.
>
> I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the work
> in producing drivers.
People who make hardware get to design the drivers or interfaces to that
hardware any way they see fit - it is theirs after all. Yes, more
standardisation in hardware operability makes sense. No, this is not a
fault of Microsoft or Linux - it's an issue with hardward manufacturers.
--
A.
victor
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:45:48 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate driver
>>>>>>> already supplied and installed when the OS was installed.
>>>>>> What of brand new hardware that was designed and create after the OS
>>>>>> and drivers inside it were developed?
>>>>> Would you care to try saying that in English?
>>>> So sorry, I missed a "d" after the word "create".
>>>>
>>>> Let's say the operating was installed in January and in February brand
>>>> new hardware with a new interface is developed, and in March that
>>>> hardware is purchased and plugged into the computer. How exactly is
>>>> the OS supposed to recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
>>>> driver?
>>> Easy.
>>>
>>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
>> I think I prefer how it works now. I'd rather implicitly install (or
>> allow my OS to pull down from the Internet) any drivers that I may need
>> for new hardware rather than have Windows update automatically pull down
>> every bloody driver that I may or may not ever end up needing.
>
> hardware. The OS was in development for about 24 years.
>
> The hardware... the fundamentals were developed decades ago, and there is presently little happening
> by way of actual true innovation.
>
> Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them and work with them.
>
> Why should a driver for, for example, a drawing tablet consist of megabytes of data when the OS
> should already have a module that fundamentally know how to drive drawing tablets and should simply
> know parameters etc for the tablet.
Because the manufacturer may have introduced better pressure sensitivity
or multi touch or gestures that are not in simple generic legacy driver
they contributed to the kernel earlier.
Thats why its modular.
>
> Why should a driver for, for example, a video card likewise consists of megabytes of data when all
> video cards do fundamentally the same things and many of them even use the same chipsets with the
> same functionality.
Why are cars different when they fundamentally all just have a wheel at
each corner ?
Video card drivers are integrations of the chipset driver and the tv-out
drivers and other I/O in different combinations.
>
> Likewise it should be sufficient for the OS to have a module that understands the basic concepts
> behind outputting to a video card and need only be told the various parameters of the card in question.
>
> If the card is so bleeding-edge new that the OS doesn't know how to drive it, then the manufacturer of
> the new type of hardware should be working with the developers of the OS to enable the OS to be
> updated to be capable of at least recognizing the hardware and pulling down a module from the Internet.
>
> I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the work in producing drivers.
>
>
Thats what happens with linux kernel modules ideally
geoff
>
> I think it is lame that Microsoft expects manufacturers to do all the
> work in producing drivers.
Maybe they could design and control the development proess of the hardware
for the manufacturers too ?
geoff
AD.
> As opposed to the linux model of an infinite number of nerds sat in
> their darkened bedrooms hacking out driver code on the "so long as it
> sort of works we don't care about performance" model that seems to apply
> to high-end graphics card drivers under linux.
The old "hobbyist nerds in their bedrooms" meme is a bit of a myth
these days. The bulk of the work done to Linux and most of the
surrounding projects (including drivers) is done by people employed to
work on them.
The main Linux video card drivers these days are mostly written by the
manufacturers themselves. Intel and more recently AMD/ATI do it in an
open source manner (with some help from outside eg Redhat), and Nvidia
does it in a closed source manner.
There are niche community driven driver efforts though (eg nouveau,
radeonhd etc), but the drivers most people use are the ones worked on
by the manufacturers.
--
Cheers
Anton
Bret
No :)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> People who make hardware get to design the drivers or interfaces to that
> hardware any way they see fit - it is theirs after all.
Experience shows that people who make hardware tend to be lousy at writing
software.
Gordon
Right on! So they empoly people who are able to. Strange thing is that Adam
found this out long thing ago with Eve.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On 2009-11-12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <z5CdnauzV4xQ_GHX...@giganews.com>, Allistar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> People who make hardware get to design the drivers or interfaces to that
>>> hardware any way they see fit - it is theirs after all.
>>
>> Experience shows that people who make hardware tend to be lousy at
>> writing software.
>
> Right on! So they empoly people who are able to.
The don’t seem to be able to employ good ones either.
EMB
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +1300, EMB wrote:
>
>>> Where standard chipsets are in use the OS should simply recognize them
>>> and work with them.
>> Which is pretty much what Windows 7 does.
>
Ok, it has with every install I have done, but I'm not stupid enough to
say "always" when I'm talking about a sample of 10 or so differing chipsets.
EMB
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:44:21 +1300, EMB wrote:
>
>> effective and provides an undertaking as to the quality of the driver
>> from the OS authors.
>
I sure am. I have working Windows drivers that do not cause system
instability for all the hardware[1] that is hanging around both at home
and at work.
[1] Which includes some fairly uncommon peripherals.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> ... Microsoft provide all the OS information needed to write the driver,
> the hardware manufacturer writes it, and then Microsoft certify it. That
> system is efficient, effective and provides an undertaking as to the
> quality of the driver from the OS authors.
Funny you should say that. The December issue of “PC Authority” magazine has
a special feature on crapware, with a section focusing on printer drivers.
Turns out the software provided by vendors like HP, Epson, Canon and so on
add a minute or more to the boot time of Windows. Call that “efficient”?
On top of that, they are starting to include ads in the drivers as well
<http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?selm=hcj6pe$5fr$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>.
greg
exactly how is your brand of dribble any help to this thread?
paul
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:24:42 +1300, Allistar wrote:
>
>>>>> Microsoft regularly updates Microsoft Windows, does it not?
>>>>
>>>> You said "The OS should recognise the hardware and use an appropriate
>>>> driver already supplied and installed when the OS was installed". I'm
>>>> saying it's impossible for an appropriate driver to have been present
>>>> when the OS was installed because the hardware didn't even exist
>>>> then.
>>>
>>> You're farting.
>>
>> Is that what you call a reasoned debate?
>
> No.
>
> It is what I call an accurate description of the noise you made.
Your the one full of gas cuppapee.
http://apcmag.com/
interview_with_con_kolivas_part_2_his_effort_to_improve_linux_performance_on_the_desktop.htm
From Con Kolivas who used to write patches for the crappy linux desktop
schedulers.Your claims of what the linux kernels minor / major revisions
can do is just fecking delusional ..........
Quote > Just trawl the normal support forums (which I did for Gentoo
users as a way of finding bug reports often because the users were afraid
to tell me) and see how many obvious kernel related issues there are. I'd
love to tell them all to suddenly flood lkml with their reports of failed
boots with various kernels, hardware disappearing, stopping working
suddenly, memory disappearing, trying to use software suspend and having
your balls blown off by your laptop, and so on.
BigglesZZz
Collector_NZ
mine called 12 weeks of Linux
victor
Why not ignore haters ?
They add nothing.
Biggles
snip>
>
> Remember 7 is out of Vista (tm) as the horse people would say.
>
> Also Firefox, 64 or 32 bit Sir? has been the question it has asked for
> many moons by the fox.
>
> I find all this 64 7 stuff, no not the areoplane, not that Google has it
> on the first page.
>
> Right all this 64 bit MS Windows stuff I find so yesterday. Since when
> could you *not* buy a 32 bit processor?
>
> Meanwhile I read that Ubuntu 9.10 has support for USB 3, despite the
> fact that theat MB of this type are still closing in.
>
>
>
>> By far the best Win OS I have struck so far for inst
Sorry I know this is a old post but ...
But I think the pot your buying nowadays was harvested to late & seems to
be a little damp ... gordy ol chap.
BigglesZZZ