Re: Now that's monopoly power...

In article
<c988a6ed-dc3a-43db-be22-9488897894a1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Edwin <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

well hell, if you'd just said that, no one would have any issues- OF
COURSE ms WANTS developers to get certified and release drivers for
hardware as quick as possible!

You'd think so -- but this new requirement doesn't help that at all.

How does having Windows 7 drivers certified before Windows 7 is
released "not help at all?"
This isn't talking about that AT ALL.
Obviously, it is important to have products tested against the proper
OS. But this note from Microsoft isn't encouraging testing. It's
specifically about telling companies that to get WinVista
certification, they need to test against a future product.

MS already had _that_ system in place,

What system is that, and why was there such a lack of Vista drivers if
they had a system in place to provide them?
Edwin, I know you don't know about it, but Microsoft has had quality
and compatibility testing tools for developers for a long time. This
isn't about using those; obviously, everyone is agreed that testing has
to be done.
I cannot explain why there were so many driver problems for WinVista;
but I know several rumors about why it happened, and we've discussed
many in the group. I can tell you it wasn't because there were no
testing tools.

and would presumably have the
same thing for Win7.

You'd love to have Win7 suffer Vista's problems, but it's not going to
happen.
Oh, god, Edwin. I have been writing that it is important to make sure
developers do testing. I haven't even criticized the tools or
techniques Microsoft uses for testing.
Heck I didn't even make any complaint about WinVista drivers -- that's
being done by everyone arguing with me!

What they added last week was a requirement tying one to the other,
which isn't helpful, isn't useful,

Which is nonsense, of course.
Of course? I'll bet you cannot explain how it is helpful to make a
company agree to this.
Note; yet again: the testing process already existed and would continue
and the purpose of testing is NOT the issue.

and I have argued is not legal.

Why don't you cite the laws that are being broken?
Microsoft is telling developers they cannot have certification for
today's product until they promise to develop against a future product.
Developers cannot be told by Microsoft what they will develop. These
would have to be two separate MS products, and Microsoft cannot tie
building for one to building for the other.
But I have been arguing that there was never even a reason to do it,
since it won't help.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Now thats monopoly power...
    ... Now Microsoft sees that they should get more drivers certified. ... developers refuse to work on Win7 yet, so they ignore certification. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Now thats monopoly power...
    ... Actually, many already ignore Microsoft's certification program, and do ... That really doesn't help either argument; Microsoft wants them to want ... the certs, developers sometimes do not want to jump through Microsoft's ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Now thats monopoly power...
    ... Now Microsoft sees that they should get more drivers certified. ... developers refuse to work on Win7 yet, so they ignore certification. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Help With School Report: Are Macs Safer Than PCs From Viruses?
    ... >>> bar for drivers. ... >>> pass the certification tests from getting a signature. ... that's why both DRM schemes Sony uses are certified by Microsoft. ... > There are no Microsoft signature files on the XCP software. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: For Mitch and Alan.
    ... have incompatible drivers. ... you have both been saying MS is "forcing" developers to test against ... Even if Microsoft has a good reason. ... You certainly HAVE been arguing against testing. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)