Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 19:30:26 GMT
In article
<2d6bb8e0-6f72-40a8-abdd-9d4e629ae006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
MuahMan <muahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 3:23 pm, Lurky <hid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article <7409d$48419eee$4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lurky <hid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article <a4d86$48419bd3$3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lurky <hid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas
ic&
articleId=9091618&source=rss_news50>
'May 31, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp. will require hardware
makers to test their device drivers on Windows 7 to receive
certification for Windows Vista, according to documents posted on the
company's site.
In a long explanation (download PDF)of the Windows Logo Program,
Microsoft spelled out the new requirement. "Beginning with the
release
of the first beta of the next operating system, all Windows Vista
client
and Windows Server 2008 submissions must include a complete [set of]
test logs for the new beta OS," the company said in the document.'
IOW, it doesn't matter what you, the hardware maker want, you'll doNaturally if you write a driver for an operating system, you must
it
Microsoft's way.
follow
the requirements of that system and test it for proper operation and
compatibility.
Why should I object having software compatible with the next iterationWhy do you find that objectionable?Why don't you find it objectionable that a company can't just get
certification for Windows Vista?
of Windows before it arrives?
By that same argument, why should object if someone robs a bank...
...provided that you get a cut of the proceeds?
I don't see how that follows from what I wrote.
Why do they have to involve themselvesTo avoid a repeat of the XP to Vista transition problems.
in Microsoft's software development effort for a product that Microsoft
may never deliver?
Perhaps that whole debacle is why hardware makers might be reluctant to
do the work required to test an OS that may never see the light of day...
That whole debacle was caused by hardware makers not testing their
software for Vista compatibility in spite of having years to get ready.
I don't see why you're in favor of a repeat of that.
If the hardware makers don't like it, they can promote another OS. Too
bad Apple won't let that be OSX.
--
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Poor Alan. So quick to resort to childish insults and crank calling
family members when he is beaten like a rented mule in every argument.
LOL
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: MuahMan
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- References:
- Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Alan Baker
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Lurky
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Alan Baker
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Lurky
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Alan Baker
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: Lurky
- Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- From: MuahMan
- Now that's monopoly power...
- Prev by Date: Re: HELP IS ON THE WAY maccies.
- Next by Date: Re: HELP IS ON THE WAY maccies.
- Previous by thread: Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- Next by thread: Re: Now that's monopoly power...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|