Linked by Adam S on Tue 14th Oct 2008 12:30 UTC
Windows According to the official Windows Vista Blog, Microsoft has decided that, in order to keep things simple, the OS code-named "Windows 7" will officially be called "Windows 7." Sayeth the poster: "since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7."" Of course, this introduces a major issue - if the version number of Windows 7 is, in fact, 6.1 or 6.2, as many expect, how can you call it Windows 7? And if the kernel version is updated to version 7, how many apps and drivers might fail due to poor version checking? I'm sure the upcoming PDC and WinHEC events will shed some light on this.
Thread beginning with comment 333763
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Drivers
by bornagainenguin on Wed 15th Oct 2008 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Drivers"
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

lemur2 asked...

Being reluctant to upgrade your OS version is Windows-think. With Windows, it will cost you $$$. With Windows, you are liable to run into issues with incompatibilities with versions (think ... get Windows 98 to get support for USB ... think ... directx 10 comes with Vista only ... starting to get the picture? Think ... forced upgrades.).

With Linux ... why not be up-to-date?


Because sometimes stability matters?

Please note, the OP in the conversation chain is talking about having to install bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality software simply in order to have full hardware support for his hardware.

Of course, using your examples above with Win9x and Vista, the advantage of Linux is you can compile a kernel to get your hardware to work. Try doing that with a proprietary OS...

--bornagainpenguin

Edited 2008-10-15 03:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Drivers
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Oct 2008 03:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Drivers"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

lemur2 asked... "Being reluctant to upgrade your OS version is Windows-think. With Windows, it will cost you $$$. With Windows, you are liable to run into issues with incompatibilities with versions (think ... get Windows 98 to get support for USB ... think ... directx 10 comes with Vista only ... starting to get the picture? Think ... forced upgrades.). With Linux ... why not be up-to-date?
Because sometimes stability matters? Please note, the OP in the conversation chain is talking about having to install bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality software simply in order to have full hardware support for his hardware. "

If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-yet-well-tested versions of software.

That's life. Deal with it.

Of course, using your examples above with Win9x and Vista, the advantage of Linux is you can compile a kernel to get your hardware to work. Try doing that with a proprietary OS... --bornagainpenguin


Precisely.

Edited 2008-10-15 03:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Drivers
by bornagainenguin on Wed 15th Oct 2008 04:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Drivers"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

lemur2 said...

If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-well-tested versions of software.

That's life. Deal with it.


We're not talking about hardware that is bleeding edge, just the realities behind having to develop drivers independently and usually without the support of manufacturers.

I don't think its fair to call retail hardware bleeding edge or alpha unless there are issues with the actual hardware independent of the drivers used in whichever OS.

So do I understand the realities of the situation, I just think it sucks and people shouldn't be so hard on those who find themselves stuck due to the unavailability of tested and stable drivers.

Its actually pretty cool that as many people put up with the current situation as do...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Drivers
by sbergman27 on Wed 15th Oct 2008 04:32 in reply to "RE[5]: Drivers"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If you are going to bolt bleeding edge beta or even alpha quality hardware into your machine, you may well have to put up with very recent and not-yet-well-tested versions of software.

Nice try, Lemur. But while I was dealing with hourly lockups of an alpha version of a Linux distro, Windows users were enjoying stable performance from their new Intel-based motherboards. (Your implied claim that Intel sells alpha quality hardware to the public makes you seem pretty desperate to come up with a defense.)

That's life. Deal with it.

This statement neatly embodies the reason that in the last 16 years(!) Linux has gotten almost nowhere on the consumer desktop.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

And that situation will continue as long as such an attitude is prevalent.

Fortunately for Linux, the old guard is slowly but surely being marginalized by new players who have a clue as to real users' needs.

As to concerns about upgrades being "Windows-think" as you call it... when are some Linux advocates ever going to get it through their heads that one's *time* has value? And why waste the time to upgrade to a shiny (and possibly unstable) new Linux version just to get what XP gives you (in this case, in more stable form) with a simple driver update?

I'm a Linux advocate. Majorly. But your defense of our current driver management policy is off the deep end, and makes it appear that you will go to any length to try to defend "The Linux Way".

Edited 2008-10-15 04:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5