On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:14:37 -0700, "Bob Headrick"
<bobh@proaxis.com> wrote:

>"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:469eb4a7$0$4702$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>I really believe that this is solely an HP action and that they are trying
>>to use MS as a scapegoat when in fact it's pure HP.
>
>Well, at least two people in this group that have more knowledge about the
>details have already disagreed with you.

Be careful using the word "knowledge".

A) This is usenet
B) Embellishment and Imagination are common
C) Contact with a company adds further heresay factors, it
is what their formal policy dictates that you will hear from
them.


>HP really has no reason to want to
>do this on thier own, it is in thier best interests to have folks continue
>to use thier printers.

On the surface this seems true, and as hardware enthusiasts
we want this to be the case, but historically the companies
who eventually drop support for old products on old OS are
not limited to only HP. Further, what is good or bad for HP
as a whole, does not necessarily have a direct impact on the
person who had the authority and made the decision. This is
not to imply it was solely HP's decision based on some
internal policy change, but we don't have enough information
to make any conclusion. Thus far we don't have any
indication there was any external requirement to pull the
drivers, such as identification of anything in their drivers
which would time-limit distribution. Without any evidence
of it, even a statement from HP is not backed by any proof.



>They they still provide Win 3.1 and Win 95 drivers
>for many printers. There are issues here that you do not understand and
>they appear to be beyond HP's direct control.

Actually we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude
anything is out of their control. It is extremely unlikely
they would enter into any agreement which limited their
rights to distribute code they own and also unlikely they
would bundle their code with 3rd party code such that it
effectively resulted in same limitation of losing control of
distribution rights. This is a fairly obvious factor to
anyone distributing software, a company the size of HP would
not just "overlook" this when there would be plenty of
alternatives.


>
>> But either way, I'm surprised that more of a fuss isn't being made about
>> this in the general PC community. It's a fairly big deal.
>
>Well, maybe it is not that big a deal after all? I asked for examples from
>folks who needed a driver and have not had any responses.

I don't think people who need the driver will be coming to a
usenet group continually so when you happen to ask, they'd
be ready to post "me too". Obviously anyone who is using
one of their discontinued products on Win98/95 is a
potential candidate. Many people do not maintain software
or original driver CDs (or remember where they put them
after several years) even though it is highly advised.

> I suppose that
>most folks installing a printer in Win 98 have probably done it years ago,
>or perhaps they are just using the built in drivers.

Envisioning a mere one scenario (Or lack thereof) does not
encompass all possible needs now or in the future. Except
for some very old HP laser printers, anything software
driven will not work with built in drivers.


>
>I do wish the drivers were still available somewhere as I keep a Windows 98
>virtual machine around to load drivers to test for folks with issues. I
>would suspect they will turn up somewhere if there is demand. On the other
>hand, Win 98 has a declining installed base....


IMO, it is always best to download the latest driver when
first installing a product and permanently archive that.