But setup ate my memory!
-
@Ilya Ehrenburg said:
Anyway, that's not harder than installing a Haskell graphics library on Windows in 2009
The difference is that someone could conceivably want to use a video capture card.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Ilya Ehrenburg said:
Anyway, that's not harder than installing a Haskell graphics library on Windows in 2009
The difference is that someone could conceivably want to use a video capture card.
It may be beyond your imagination, but really, there are people who want to use graphics libraries. But if it comforts you, installing math libraries can be hard on Windows too. Not as hard as Graphics, generally, but it's not always a pique-nique.
-
you understood me correctly.. the device worked fine. in fact i think it's linux drivers shipped at the same time it's linux drivers did... that is to say: with the card.
-
@Kazan said:
you understood me correctly.. the device worked fine. in fact i think it's linux drivers shipped at the same time it's linux drivers did... that is to say: with the card.
erg at the same time it's windows drivers did..
heh didn't read my own post till after the edit timeout :/
-
@Kazan said:
@bannedfromcoding said:
And well, non-Windows OSes don't get drivers from the vendor, they get them slapped together by hobbyists. That. Means. Trouble.
you're an idiot.
ATI drivers for linux: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/linux/Pages/radeon_linux.aspx?type=2.4.1&product=2.4.1.3.42&lang=English
nVidia drivers for linux: http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html
notice the websites? YEAH THE FARKING MANUFACTURERS
PS: those are also WRITTEN by the manufacturers.
And once in a blue moon, they even work, if you use the ages old kernel they're made for. In contrast to their Windows editions, that sometimes work also when Jupiter enters the Sagittarus sign, especially if you sacrifice a goat.
-
@bannedfromcoding said:
And once in a blue moon, they even work, if you use the ages old kernel they're made for. In contrast to their Windows editions, that sometimes work also when Jupiter enters the Sagittarus sign, especially if you sacrifice a goat.
will you fucking get out of the 90s dude?
i never had problems with fglrx, and i didn't use ages old kernels (N-1 was sufficient delta)
All i farking ask is if people are going to criticize any operating system they use criticisms that aren't FUD or haven't been true in a decade.
i farking work on one of the OSes in question, and it's not the one i'm currently defending.
-
@Kazan said:
All i farking ask is if people are going to criticize any operating system they use criticisms that aren't FUD or haven't been true in a decade.
i farking work on one of the OSes in question, and it's not the one i'm currently defending.
Laudable, but completely in vain, I'm afraid. Ages ago, I read in some Dick Francis novel about a (fictional, presumably) newspaper cartoon with the wise punchline "Entrenched belief is never altered by facts".
Linux bashers and Windows bashers (probably Mac bashers too, but I have less experience with them and Mac) reiterate the same old stuff, which for the most part always was vastly exaggerated if it ever had any truth in it, regardless of how often it was shown to be wrong.
Well, at least sometimes it's funny.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
I'm telling you that it works fine [b]for me[/b]. I've already said that I accept that it has problems with edge cases.So, to the extent that I've used Linux, I haven't had any hardware problems.
If all you've used it on is a couple of beige box desktops, why are you sitting here telling us that it works fine? Because I can guarantee, put it on something that even resembles an edge-case (like, say, a tablet PC, even an extremely popular model from a major vendor) and Linux fails, and fails hard.
@blakeyrat said:I enjoy how a keyboard with media keys is a "fancy" keyboard, in your crazy Luddite Linux user language. Where do you even buy a non-"fancy" keyboard?
FWIW, I'm primarily a Windows user. My main home box is XP only; I mainly use it for games and such, so I have no need for Linux. As for the keyboard, last time I wanted to buy one I went to my nearest electronics retailer and bought one there. That was within the last year or two. It's simple enough, just look for the cheap ones.
@blakeyrat said:@Scarlet Manuka said:
I would expect that many other people with common hardware probably haven't had problems.
I mean, it's great that you "would expect" that, I "would expect" it also. But do you have anything to back it up? A QA summary covering a wide variety of hardware? Surveys from Ubuntu users? @Scarlet Manuka said:But that doesn't mean that the majority of Linux users necessarily encounter problems.
I argue that they do, and that they purposefully ignore the problems (and mislead others) in a misguided tactic to get more people to try Linux.
You seem to have left off the link to the QA summary and the surveys from your own post. I assume this was due to the haste in which you apparently felt it necessary to try to discredit the notion that Linux could ever work well for anybody. Speaking personally, I'm not trying to get anyone else to try Linux; why the heck would I care if someone else wants to use it, or not? I put it on the kids' box primarily because there's a bunch of neat kids' stuff that comes with Kubuntu. Though kids being what they are, they complained to me that the Ubuntu side doesn't have "the really cool stuff, like Wordpad". So I showed them how to launch OpenOffice. :D
@blakeyrat said:@bannedfromcoding said:
Often, replacing computer vendor's version of the driver with the same one (not to even mention newer) "stock" version from the manufacturer of the chips causes stuff to crash and burn even under Windows.
I'm not going to say it never happens, because never say never. But I've never experienced this, and I've admined thousands of PCs with crazy hardware configurations from different vendors.
Since you claim to know my experiences better than I do (cf above me saying I haven't had any problems on my Ubuntu box and you saying you think I have but just don't remember), you probably won't believe this happened either; but a few weeks ago I updated the network card drivers on my XP box to the manufacturer's latest version, with the result that Windows could no longer see the network card. Uninstalled the driver update and I had my network card back again.
-
XP in my experience never recognizes (onboard) network cards until you install the chipset drivers. I don't know about external ethernet cards; I haven't used them since ever.
It's a source of bafflement for me.
-
@dhromed said:
XP in my experience never recognizes (onboard) network cards until you install the chipset drivers. I don't know about external ethernet cards; I haven't used them since ever.
It's a source of bafflement for me.
that mostly has to do with the fact that most any hardware you buy new is newer than XP.
stop using XP.. start using Win7
-
@dhromed said:
XP in my experience never recognizes (onboard) network cards until you install the chipset drivers. I don't know about external ethernet cards; I haven't used them since ever.
It's a source of bafflement for me.
It's not a huge mystery. Go into Device Manager, click "Add Device..." and you can just look at the list of network card drivers it has. Nothing's being hidden from you, and there should be no bafflement.
-
@blakeyrat said:
It's not a huge mystery. Go into Device Manager, click "Add Device..." and you can just look at the list of network card drivers it has. Nothing's being hidden from you, and there should be no bafflement.
I have to add it manually?
Everything else works. Why not the network? Printers and scanners I understand (though printers a little less than scanners); video card vendors offer their own superior drivers, but ethernet is part of the default package of computing, even when '98 was hot, and I think it's utterly ridiculous that I don't have a network when I run a fresh install of XP.
PS
I'm going for 7 in a while so the next fresh install of XP will probably never occur. Could be next week, could be next winter. It's not high on my todo list. I expect to have network capabilities immediately, of course.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
It's not a huge mystery. Go into Device Manager, click "Add Device..." and you can just look at the list of network card drivers it has. Nothing's being hidden from you, and there should be no bafflement.
I have to add it manually?
No; if it's in the list, it'll be installed automatically.
My point was simply that it's easy to check what hardware Windows has drivers for. Which you seemed to be "baffled" about.
-
I've never done an Add Device.
-
@blakeyrat said:
It's not a huge mystery. Go into Device Manager, click "Add Device..." and you can just look at the list of network card drivers it has. Nothing's being hidden from you, and there should be no bafflement.
Not those with "ExcludeFromSelect=*" in their INF though. Which are majority. That only leaves a few non-PNP software pseudo-NICs shown in the list.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
It's not a huge mystery. Go into Device Manager, click "Add Device..." and you can just look at the list of network card drivers it has. Nothing's being hidden from you, and there should be no bafflement.
I have to add it manually?
Everything else works. Why not the network? Printers and scanners I understand (though printers a little less than scanners); video card vendors offer their own superior drivers, but ethernet is part of the default package of computing, even when '98 was hot, and I think it's utterly ridiculous that I don't have a network when I run a fresh install of XP.
PS
I'm going for 7 in a while so the next fresh install of XP will probably never occur. Could be next week, could be next winter. It's not high on my todo list. I expect to have network capabilities immediately, of course.what part of "all the hardware you'd buy these days is NEWER THAN WINDOWS XP" is difficult to understand?
it cannot ship with drivers for devices that don't exist, and it needs networking to pull drivers from the net.
-
@Kazan said:
what part of "all the hardware you'd buy these days is NEWER THAN WINDOWS XP" is difficult to understand? it cannot ship with drivers for devices that don't exist
All hardware since XP is newer than XP. You appear to claim that no computer could have worked in the time window between XP and Vista, but I'm not sure.
The video card works. The mouse works. The keyboard works. USB Mass Storage works. It ships with basic drivers for these items, and many more. It should be capable of presenting me with a working ethernet port.
-
@dhromed said:
The video card works.
Liar. "Works" as in "puts pixels on the screen." But not "works", as in "actually works." (Oh wait, you're using the Linux definition of "works" here?)
@dhromed said:
The mouse works. The keyboard works. USB Mass Storage works.
The USB people wisely created standard device drivers, but they only did it for certain classes of devices... the ones you listed here. Which is annoying.
@dhromed said:
It should be capable of presenting me with a working ethernet port.
It is, if you're using one of the network cards listed in its driver database. Your computer's ethernet card isn't in XP's driver database, and so it can't auto-install a driver for it. It's pretty simple.
You act as if XP has never supported a network card ever, which is dumb and wrong.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Liar. "Works" as in "puts pixels on the screen."
Works as in It Allows Me to Operate The Computer In A Basic Manner So That I May Optionally Get A Better Driver. Such as going to amd.com to grab some catalyst. Oh wait I can't because I don't have a network. That's what I mean.
I could have an advanced R.A.T.7 gaming mouse for which I need vendor-specific drivers, but as soon as I plug it in, there's some basic clicking, moving and scrollwheeling, which enables me to get that driver.
I could have a keyboard with many extra keys, but when I plug it in, I can use it to type the web address of the vendor so that I may download its driver.
@blakeyrat said:
The USB people wisely created standard device drivers
This was wise indeed.
@blakeyrat said:
You act as if XP has never supported a network card ever, which is dumb and wrong.
I act as one who has always, after a clean install of XP, on every single computer he's ever done (which is not "hundreds", but still statistically significant), had to grab the appropriate chipset/motherboard drivers from somewhere else and transfer them in some way in order to receive on-board ethernet functionality.
I really don't care that I can pick one manually, I fully expect the thing to work as soon as I log in for the first time. I expect it to be able to activate online immediately. This has never happened. Once, I was reduced to nabbing a decrepit external ethernet card from work, which XP recognized at once. This confused me, though I was glad to have internet access. What is the difference between onboard ethernet, onboard graphics and off-board ethernet that makes the latter two work?
-
It has nothing to do with on-board vs. off-board. The shitty on-board NIC chip doesn’t present itself as something that Windows recognizes, but the chip on the off-board NIC can look like a generic NE2000 (or whatever). Either that or the “decrepit external ethernet card from work” is just old enough that XP recognizes it.
Additionally, the graphics card always has to support some kind of basic mode, because it’s kind of hard to install video card drivers from a blank screen. They can get away with not supporting generic drivers on a NIC because they can always pack in a CD with the retail hardware, and don’t have to listen to your complaints when you buy the OEM version or have since lost the CD.
-
@dhromed said:
I really don't care that I can pick one manually, I fully expect the thing to work as soon as I log in for the first time.
What we're trying to tell you is that there are reasonable expectations, and there are unreasonable expectations. Expecting XP to work with hardware that was developed after XP was shipped is unreasonable-- Network card vendors haven't standardized on a single driver standard the way USB Mass Storage vendors have. That's unfortunate, but it's not Microsoft's fault.
And hell, you read what I'm typing here. I have hilariously unrealistic expectations when it comes to software quality. I notice if a fucking app's toolbar spacing is 4 pixels off or if they're using the wrong fucking font. And I still think you're being unreasonable.
@dhromed said:
What is the difference between onboard ethernet, onboard graphics and off-board ethernet that makes the latter two work?
The external card was undoubtedly just older, and thus XP already had a driver for it.
Your onboard video card worked because video cards have different modes, and so the OS can "fallback" until it finds one that works reliably. In your case, probably VESA. Network cards don't have that. Which, again, is unfortunate, but it's also, again, not Microsoft's fault.
-
@Sir Twist said:
the graphics card always has to support some kind of basic mode, because it’s kind of hard to install video card drivers from a blank screen.
This is the exact argument I'm making.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Expecting XP to work with hardware that was developed *after* XP was shipped is unreasonable
Depends on what one means by "developed". Network interfaces haven't changed in ever. I do not think it's unreasonable that I want an OS to give me networking out of the box.
@blakeyrat said:
Network cards don't have that. Which, again, is unfortunate, but it's also, again, not Microsoft's fault.
I don't think it's unfortunate. I think it's bloody stupid.
I also think we have now reached the agree to disagree point. :)
-
@blakeyrat said:
Expecting XP to work with hardware that was developed after XP was shipped is unreasonable
How many service packs have there been? Presumably they didn't manufacture millions of discs in 2001 and be done with it, so the actual disc that was shipped with the PC could be newer than the parts, so why couldn't they put those drivers on it then?
Besides, I hate a lot of drivers. My cheap $20 webcam only work in XP (not 2000 or Seven or non-Windows) and the driver pack is over 50MB. Around 2000 I had a very fancy keyboard and its drivers seemed to have one program per extra key! (This was in the Windows 98 task list) Those "programs" took up substantial RAM so much that I had to remove them to be actually able to use my computer. I could mention the HP all-on-one drivers but I think everyone has seen those.
@blakeyrat said:
Your onboard video card worked because video cards have different modes, and so the OS can "fallback" until it finds one that works reliably. In your case, probably VESA.
That is true. Also I've even found some cards where you can't go past standard VGA mode (640x480-16) before proper drivers are installed.
-
@Zemm said:
How many service packs have there been? Presumably they didn't manufacture millions of discs in 2001 and be done with it, so the actual disc that was shipped with the PC could be newer than the parts, so why couldn't they put those drivers on it then?
Service Packs do not add new drivers.@Zemm said:Also I've even found some cards where you can't go past standard VGA mode (640x480-16) before proper drivers are installed.
Some Intel's GMA 8xx cards have broken VESA BIOS and do this.
-
@ender said:
@Zemm said:
How many service packs have there been? Presumably they didn't manufacture millions of discs in 2001 and be done with it, so the actual disc that was shipped with the PC could be newer than the parts, so why couldn't they put those drivers on it then?
Service Packs do not add new drivers.Why not? One can slipstream drivers onto one's own install media, so why can't SP3 include drivers from the previous seven years?
-
@Zemm said:
Why not? One can slipstream drivers onto one's own install media, so why can't SP3 include drivers from the previous seven years?
You know that nobody on this forum is in charge of Windows development, right?
-
@ender said:
Service Packs do not add new drivers
It's up to the IHVs to submit the new drivers for inboxing. They may choose to do so, or not bother. Microsoft doesn't have a final say in that.
-
@Zemm said:
@ender said:
@Zemm said:
How many service packs have there been? Presumably they didn't manufacture millions of discs in 2001 and be done with it, so the actual disc that was shipped with the PC could be newer than the parts, so why couldn't they put those drivers on it then?
Service Packs do not add new drivers.Why not? One can slipstream drivers onto one's own install media, so why can't SP3 include drivers from the previous seven years?
do you want windows to use blu-ray as install media? that would be the only way to keep that kinda shit on one disk. windows only comes with drivers that cover extremely widely used hardware, or drivers for "hardware interface standards" like USB HID, USB Mass Storage, VESA video card (that is actually a more recent development.. win2k IIRC couldn't fallback to VESA), very widely ysed NICs or NICs who's interface is treated as "standard" (like NE2000), etc. oh and we only included WHQL drivers for Logo'ed equipment IIRC. Not really my department, i just get to break things for a living on one of the server feature teams.
"Crappy integrated" NICS on consumer hardware often use more obscure chipsets, the server grade hardware tends to use a smaller set of NICs (largely Intel and Broadcom) and their drivers are packaged.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
Expecting XP to work with hardware that was developed *after* XP was shipped is unreasonable
Depends on what one means by "developed". Network interfaces haven't changed in ever. I do not think it's unreasonable that I want an OS to give me networking out of the box.
You're full of shit, you know that, right?
Gigabit Ethernet was introduced not long before Windows XP launched. For that matter, the 802.11g and n wireless standards are both newer than XP is.
Not surprisingly, there are a number of network chips that are newer than XP. This includes anything by Atheros, as Atheros didn't start making network hardware until after XP launched. Atheros's chips are used in a wide variety of network cards now.
@Kazan said:
do you want windows to use blu-ray as install media? that would be the only way to keep that kinda shit on one disk. windows only comes with drivers that cover extremely widely used hardware, or drivers for "hardware interface standards" like USB HID, USB Mass Storage, VESA video card (that is actually a more recent development.. win2k IIRC couldn't fallback to VESA), very widely ysed NICs or NICs who's interface is treated as "standard" (like NE2000), etc. oh and we only included WHQL drivers for Logo'ed equipment IIRC. Not really my department, i just get to break things for a living on one of the server feature teams.
"Crappy integrated" NICS on consumer hardware often use more obscure chipsets, the server grade hardware tends to use a smaller set of NICs (largely Intel and Broadcom) and their drivers are packaged.
Hell, XP is old enough that it doesn't even use DVDs, it's strictly CD only.
-
@powerlord said:
Hell, XP is old enough that it doesn't even use DVDs, it's strictly CD only.
XP can't burn DVDs (natively) but it has no problem reading DVDs.
