Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Sep 2012 16:56 UTC, submitted by Andy McLaughlin
OSNews, Generic OSes "Visopsys (VISual OPerating SYStem) is an alternative operating system for PC-compatible computers, developed almost exclusively by one person, Andy McLaughlin, since its inception in 1997. Andy is a 30-something programmer from Canada, who, via Boston and San Jose ended up in London, UK, where he spends much of his spare time developing Visopsys. We had the great fortune to catch up with Andy via email and ask him questions about Visopsys, why he started the project in the first place, and where is it going in the future."
Thread beginning with comment 535499
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The hardest part
by zima on Mon 17th Sep 2012 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The hardest part"
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

Webcams are already more or less covered, by USB video class - don't really even need driver installation (sure, some manufacturer drivers are often/usually provided; but they tend to offer just superfluous trinkets beyond what the OS driver does, and they sometimes introduce some weird issues & performance degradation - that happened to me once, the default OS drivers clearly bogged down the system much less during webcam operation)

PS. Compatibility with USB video class is BTW something made mandatory by MS to get Vista & up logo certificate, on a product - which also brought to, say, Linux much better support of any random webcam than it used to be the case - so overall your "It's a pipe dream though. For it's part, MS would never participate" seems not entirely warranted...

Edited 2012-09-17 19:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: The hardest part
by ssokolow on Mon 17th Sep 2012 20:12 in reply to "RE[3]: The hardest part"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Yeah. Microsoft actually does have an incentive to standardize drivers.

Aside from malware, the biggest source of kernel instability these days is buggy drivers. So, the more Microsoft can get more hardware sharing less code that they write and test themselves, the more stable Windows becomes.

(And the easier it is to push the PR line that locking down the system, iOS-style, will kill rootkits and spyware without harming any legitimate users)

Edited 2012-09-17 20:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: The hardest part
by Alfman on Mon 17th Sep 2012 20:31 in reply to "RE[3]: The hardest part"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

zima,

I've purchased a few webcams, one this year. I have yet to own a webcam where windows drivers weren't necessary...but then it's a noname brand. If what you are saying is true and they are becoming standardised, that's a very welcome change!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: The hardest part
by ssokolow on Mon 17th Sep 2012 20:41 in reply to "RE[4]: The hardest part"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Did they say "USB Video Class", "UVC", or something along the lines of "Designed for Windows Vista/7"?

If not, they may be older designs. If so, then your problem is Windows's approach to drivers.

There are some devices where they will work with one of the drivers Windows has built-in, but because of the metadata their USB microcontrollers report, you need to craft your own INF file to make Windows aware of that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: The hardest part
by zima on Tue 18th Sep 2012 17:35 in reply to "RE[4]: The hardest part"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I have yet to own a webcam where windows drivers weren't necessary...but then it's a noname brand. If what you are saying is true and they are becoming standardised, that's a very welcome change!

"if"? They're out there, for better part of a decade ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class#Revision_Histor... & when I was shopping for a webcam 5 years ago or so, there were certainly some USB video class models available; few on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USB_video_class_devices or http://www.ideasonboard.org/uvc/#devices list are at least that old)

I guess some noname models might still use oldish innards, not modified for a long time ...as usual with hardware, you check if it fulfils your criteria before buying (but, if you care about such "total" plug'n'play in a webcam, how did you miss the existence of USB video class?), and/or get something very popular - hence widely supported (that example I gave, when the default Windows drivers worked better than manufacturer-provided - it wasn't even a USB video class webcam; it was about pre-UVC, but as standard as they come, classic QuickCam Express)

Reply Parent Score: 2