TJ wrote:
> Burt wrote:
>
>> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A
>> good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality
>> photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in
>> time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports, documentation
>> booklets, checks, and business correspondance. Photo prints that
>> look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
>>
> Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
> cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
>
> TJ
If you really think about it you may buy two printers but in essence you
are really supporting one in a giving time period. You see if you use
the printers equally then in theory each will last twice as long in a
given period so each will require 1/2 the maintenance. So the average
is the same for one printer.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:48:24 GMT, measekite
<inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>
>
>TJ wrote:
>> Burt wrote:
>>
>>> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A
>>> good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality
>>> photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in
>>> time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports, documentation
>>> booklets, checks, and business correspondance. Photo prints that
>>> look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
>>>
>> Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
>> cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
>>
>> TJ
>
>If you really think about it you may buy two printers but in essence you
>are really supporting one in a giving time period. You see if you use
>the printers equally then in theory each will last twice as long in a
>given period so each will require 1/2 the maintenance. So the average
>is the same for one printer.
If the 2nd printer is a B&W laser the average is much lower,
because the cost per page is much lower. If it were an
older model B&W laser which took higher capacity cartridges
and/or could be refilled with bulk toner, the cost drops
even further. That it prints quite a bit faster and
razor-sharp text with cheap copy machine paper is icing on
the cake.
measekite wrote:
>
>
> TJ wrote:
>> Burt wrote:
>>
>>> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A
>>> good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality
>>> photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in
>>> time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports, documentation
>>> booklets, checks, and business correspondance. Photo prints that
>>> look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
>>>
>> Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
>> cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
>>
>> TJ
>
> If you really think about it you may buy two printers but in essence you
> are really supporting one in a giving time period. You see if you use
> the printers equally then in theory each will last twice as long in a
> given period so each will require 1/2 the maintenance. So the average
> is the same for one printer.
It's a moot point. If you really think about it, a well-designed,
well-built printer will probably be considered outdated and/or obsolete
by the manufacturer long before it quits printing, even if it's the only
printer you use. How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
develop a driver? It doesn't matter if you use a printer every day or
once a month - when the support is gone, it's gone.
Your argument doesn't address the problem of needing enough space, either.
TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
> develop a driver?
Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
design in the first place...
"Miles Bader" <miles.bader@necel.com> wrote in message
news:buotzmcacuu.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com...
> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>> develop a driver?
>
> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
> design in the first place...
>
> -Miles
>
> --
Excuse me for contradicting your generalization, Miles. I've had several
peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
software versions that were compatable with the new OS version. Common
problems that I've encountered while migrating through the various versions
of Windows. The devices were not crap - the manufacturers of these
devices/software versions decided to not support them with the new windows
version. That is why I've purchased my last two computers in Oct and Nov
and specified WinXP instead of Vista.
"Burt" <nospam@pacbell.net> writes:
>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
>> design in the first place...
>
> Excuse me for contradicting your generalization, Miles. I've had several
> peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
> new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
> them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
> software versions that were compatable with the new OS version.
I'm not claiming the printer _hardware_ is crap[1], but if the hardware
_requires_ certain software, then one cannot judge that hardware in
isolation, because it's more or less useless without the software. In
such cases one must judge the "total package."
If part of that total package is a non-portable and quickly obsoleted[2]
software driver, then I think it's fair to say that the package is
indeed crap, no matter how nice its hardware component.
-Miles
[1] Though this sort of "driver required" design seems rather more
common with very low-end devices, where often the hardware also is
particularly great.
[2] ... and often buggy and badly designed -- most peripheral companies
are a lot less skillful at writing software than they are at
building hardware.
--
Any man who is a triangle, has thee right, when in Cartesian Space, to
have angles, which when summed, come to know more, nor no less, than
nine score degrees, should he so wish. [TEMPLE OV THEE LEMUR]
Burt wrote:
> "Miles Bader" <miles.bader@necel.com> wrote in message
> news:buotzmcacuu.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com...
>> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>>> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>> develop a driver?
>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
>> design in the first place...
>>
>> -Miles
>>
>> --
> Excuse me for contradicting your generalization, Miles. I've had several
> peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
> new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
> them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
> software versions that were compatable with the new OS version. Common
> problems that I've encountered while migrating through the various versions
> of Windows. The devices were not crap - the manufacturers of these
> devices/software versions decided to not support them with the new windows
> version. That is why I've purchased my last two computers in Oct and Nov
> and specified WinXP instead of Vista.
>
>
I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using
Linux, through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except
for one oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and
they keep working that way.
IMNSHO, any OS that radically changes its device driver requirements
with every new version is crap, too.
> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using
> Linux, through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except
> for one oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and
> they keep working that way.
>
> IMNSHO, any OS that radically changes its device driver requirements
> with every new version is crap, too.
I concur. But since when has Microsoft been considerate?
And now that I'm sour, let me add Visioneer to the list of "we've got
your money, go to hell" companies. They're so arrogant and stingy that
they simply told their customers with scanners for Windows 9x that they
were obsolete and wouldn't work under XP. After wasting long distance
phone calls attempting to contact them without being hung up on, I
discovered that my scanner works fine under XP after all. SP2, too. Pass
these jokers by, folks.
I don't think that you're actually disagreeing with each other. I agree
with all three of you.
When I _really_ retire, it'll be time for me to switch OSs. I want
Microsoft out of my life, but can't dump them yet because I need to
maintain compatibility.
Miles Bader wrote:
> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup that
>> don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>> develop a driver?
>
> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is
> a crap design in the first place...
Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
place. For some of the reasons, see below.
"TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:476bb897$0$26015$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
(snip)>>
> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using Linux,
> through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except for one
> oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and they keep
> working that way.
(snip)
TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk. In fairness, technology and
associated software for scanners had advanced to the point where it was
actually a blessing after the fact.
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Miles Bader wrote:
>> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup that
>>> don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>> develop a driver?
>>
>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is
>> a crap design in the first place...
>
>Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
>place. For some of the reasons, see below.
>
>--
> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
> <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
> <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8>
> <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
>
All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months and when SP1
comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
other improvements. Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
In many cases the end result was a pretty reliable OS (Windows98SE and Windows
XP with SP2 for eaxmple). Modern OS' are immensely complex and anybody who
thinks they can be released in their final totally stable version is dreaming.
All of the negatives in the above links have been refuted by people just as
expert as the authors. It seems to me that the links have been "cherry picked",
in other words chosen because they are all negative. There are many positive
links about Vista. I have been using Vista for many months with absolutely no
issues as of yet and am looking forward to SP1. I also lived with the Windows
98 XP iterations which resulted in a stable computing experience for me.
On a more specific note the first link is well worth a read, clearly the author
has an agenda. He says that "This document looks purely at the cost of the
technical portions of Vista's content protection" and immediately follows this
with comments that are critical of the OS with little or no relevance to the
subject matter.
Tony
> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
> version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
> old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.
That's my point. You scanner may, in fact, have worked fine! The
bastards were too sucky to even see if their existing drivers would work
under the new OS (which, in my own case, the driver works just fine).
By the way, Visioneer scanners were/are sold under other brand names
(such as Memorex,Colorado, and private label brands). So when you buy a
scanner sold under one of these brand names, guess whose "support"
you're going to get?
"Cal Bubba" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:476c7321$0$84192$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Burt wrote:
>
>> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new
>> Windows version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner
>> wasn't very old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.
>
> That's my point. You scanner may, in fact, have worked fine! The bastards
> were too sucky to even see if their existing drivers would work under the
> new OS (which, in my own case, the driver works just fine).
>
> By the way, Visioneer scanners were/are sold under other brand names (such
> as Memorex,Colorado, and private label brands). So when you buy a scanner
> sold under one of these brand names, guess whose "support" you're going to
> get?
>
> Bubba
You are right - the Visioneer scanner worked just fine. I was forced to
move on to Epson and Canon scanners and ended up with much better, faster,
more versatile units.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:59:01 -0500, TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>> TJ wrote:
>>> Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>> On my desk I always have the two printer solution to the problem. A
>>>> good quality b/w laser printer and an inkjet that prints good quality
>>>> photos and color graphics. The best of both worlds at this point in
>>>> time. Fast text printing for multi-page reports, documentation
>>>> booklets, checks, and business correspondance. Photo prints that
>>>> look, to the naked eye, as good as lab prints.
>>>>
>>> Probably the best solution, as long as the O.P. has the space and the
>>> cash to buy, use, and support two printers.
>>>
>>> TJ
>>
>> If you really think about it you may buy two printers but in essence you
>> are really supporting one in a giving time period. You see if you use
>> the printers equally then in theory each will last twice as long in a
>> given period so each will require 1/2 the maintenance. So the average
>> is the same for one printer.
>
>It's a moot point. If you really think about it, a well-designed,
>well-built printer will probably be considered outdated and/or obsolete
>by the manufacturer long before it quits printing, even if it's the only
>printer you use.
Irrelevant. Even if it is outdated before it breaks it can
still have far better cost per page, far better printing
quality, far faster.
> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>develop a driver?
Who buys an OS without checking if it supports their needs
first? Why buys a printer without checking whether it
supports the OS they want to use?
IMO, Vista is not as worthwhile as a nice printer. YMMV.
>It doesn't matter if you use a printer every day or
>once a month - when the support is gone, it's gone.
Not really, many of the nicer printers out there aren't
WinPrinters, don't need elaborate software. Some can be set
up generically over a parallel port, especially for text
printing. Others may eventually have Vista drivers unless
very old already, and if very old already, the reasonable
value was already gotten out of the purchase.
You also have not demonstrated we have a reasonable
assumption "it's gone".
>
>Your argument doesn't address the problem of needing enough space, either.
Might be a valid argument in a small office cubical, but the
with several cubicals there would be a shared network
printer. If you're not stuffed in a cubical there is no
real "needing enough space" argument, a printer is not a
large appliance (in most cases, we're not talking about a
high volume business class machine for the purposes of this
thread), it can be put almost anywhere.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:14:40 GMT, "Burt"
<nospam@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"Miles Bader" <miles.bader@necel.com> wrote in message
>news:buotzmcacuu.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com...
>> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup
>>> that don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>> develop a driver?
>>
>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is a crap
>> design in the first place...
>Excuse me for contradicting your generalization, Miles. I've had several
>peripheral devices and software versions that worked great but didn't have
>new drivers or were incompatable when we updated our OS. Had to replace
>them with new devices for which the new version of the OS had a driver or
>software versions that were compatable with the new OS version. Common
>problems that I've encountered while migrating through the various versions
>of Windows. The devices were not crap - the manufacturers of these
>devices/software versions decided to not support them with the new windows
>version. That is why I've purchased my last two computers in Oct and Nov
>and specified WinXP instead of Vista.
>
I think what was meant was "cheap crap". Given enough money
the printer manufacturer would write a driver, but years
later they don't see any money in it.
Cheap isn't necessarily bad though, cheap stuff can do fine
- till you realize what the limitations were in it being
cheap. Needing a host processing based driver is one of
those limitations.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:39:41 GMT, "Burt"
<nospam@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:476bb897$0$26015$88260bb3@free.teranews.com. ..
>(snip)>>
>> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using Linux,
>> through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except for one
>> oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and they keep
>> working that way.
>(snip)
>TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
>version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
>old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk. In fairness, technology and
>associated software for scanners had advanced to the point where it was
>actually a blessing after the fact.
>
Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
text scanning now.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:16:48 -0800, Cal Bubba
<user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>Burt wrote:
>
>> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
>> version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
>> old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk.
>
>That's my point. You scanner may, in fact, have worked fine! The
>bastards were too sucky to even see if their existing drivers would work
>under the new OS (which, in my own case, the driver works just fine).
>
>By the way, Visioneer scanners were/are sold under other brand names
>(such as Memorex,Colorado, and private label brands). So when you buy a
>scanner sold under one of these brand names, guess whose "support"
>you're going to get?
>
>Bubba
Any of the above? Mostly Visioneer since their 'site does
provide the legacy drivers. (see links below).
My Visioneer 4400, Memorex 6142, PrimaScan 2600U (all same
printer/driver, just sold under all these names) has XP
drivers. For the price I paid way back when (under $20
after a rebate) and that it works still today, I can hardly
complain if it wasn't supported by Vista.
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:53:26 -0600, Tony
<tonythebengaltiger@gmail.com> wrote:
>CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Miles Bader wrote:
>>> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup that
>>>> don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>>> develop a driver?
>>>
>>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is
>>> a crap design in the first place...
>>
>>Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
>>place. For some of the reasons, see below.
>>
>>--
>> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
>> <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8>
>> <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
>>
>
>All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
>new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months
Nonsense. Marketing drivel.
>and when SP1
>comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
>other improvements.
Of course, but that doesn't mean it should be used NOW, nor
does it mean the improvement will be enough, nor does it
negate any of the other valid concerns in the above links.
>Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
>about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
Then you didn't read the links but read too much into a two
word description like "crap design", which isn't elaborated
upon enough in his post to attribute anything similar to the
state of early release of 9x, 2k or XP, but THEN the
content of what was linked makes it even more uniquely
different.
It really isn't at all similar to the concerns about
previous versions of windows, except in the generic way that
any immature code will be refined over time but even then we
still see what the goal is with the refinement. Vista will
still have many of the concerns people express no matter how
much it is polished, because the design did not have many
consumer's interests in mind.
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
Perhaps you would rather believe what people with thinly disguised agendas
write! There are many people publishing good reports of Vista, what a pity that
people don't read the positive and concentrate only on the negative; part of
the human condition I guess!
What's' wrong with using Vista now, it work,s and works very well, for me and I
have pushed it pretty hard; all of my hardware migrated to Vista once the
drivers became available which didn't take very long, all of my software (some
of it quite specialised) is working well with Vista. All of my customers that
use Vista are satisfied with it and there are lots of them. Have you actually
used Vista or do you rely on biased reports?
Of course it isn't perfect, it may never be perfect but it is so much better
than its predecessors at the same point in the development cycle that there is
no comparison. MS have done a pretty good job this time, of course for some
people they can't do anything well.
As I said, experience with previous Windows versions leads me to believe that
there will be significant improvement soon and my experience with the OS is
that there already have been some major improvements......no different to
previous developments.
I read the links very carefully indeed, they are dated and in some cases they
contain barely disguised agendas. The only agenda I have is the pursuit of
truth with no bias!
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:53:26 -0600, Tony
><tonythebengaltiger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Miles Bader wrote:
>>>> TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> How many printers have we heard about in this newsgroup that
>>>>> don't work with Vista because the manufacturer didn't bother to
>>>>> develop a driver?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, a printer that actually requires a special driver is
>>>> a crap design in the first place...
>>>
>>>Of course a system that uses Vista is a crap design in the first
>>>place. For some of the reasons, see below.
>>>
>>>--
>>> <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
>>> <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
>>> <http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8>
>>> <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
>>>
>>
>>All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
>>new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months
>
>Nonsense. Marketing drivel.
>
>
>>and when SP1
>>comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
>>other improvements.
>
>
>Of course, but that doesn't mean it should be used NOW, nor
>does it mean the improvement will be enough, nor does it
>negate any of the other valid concerns in the above links.
>
>>Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
>>about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
>
>Then you didn't read the links but read too much into a two
>word description like "crap design", which isn't elaborated
>upon enough in his post to attribute anything similar to the
>state of early release of 9x, 2k or XP, but THEN the
>content of what was linked makes it even more uniquely
>different.
>
>It really isn't at all similar to the concerns about
>previous versions of windows, except in the generic way that
>any immature code will be refined over time but even then we
>still see what the goal is with the refinement. Vista will
>still have many of the concerns people express no matter how
>much it is polished, because the design did not have many
>consumer's interests in mind.
Usually it's because the spool system ran out of storage.
See what happens if you turn off spooling, by selecting print directly to
the printer (in the printer driver options)
Occasionally, printer drivers have some bad code that causes this symptom,
although the pages usually numbered about 20 or so before the driver quit.
Another method to possibly get around the problem depends on a lot of
things, but basically, it starts with printing to a file, and then sending
the printer ready file to the printer. A copy comand with the binary option
is usually used. There is still some dependence on the printer driver, and
the method may not work on various USB printers.
<kjjhga398@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:47652b8b$1_2@news.tm.net.my...
> Jan Alter wrote:
> > HP printers have a good reputation for giving high quality text. Color
> > printing should be good as well. If ink cost is not the critical factor
and
> > the very best photo printing of that import then you may be very
satisfied.
> >
>
> I bought a HP OJ L7580 few weeks ago,
> Why it always printed 35 pages then stop even I had send more than 35
> pages to the printer.
>
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:13:39 -0600, Tony
<tonythebengaltiger@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
>experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
Yes, that's why your comment was inaccurate, because it is
based on a subjective experience of whether Vista was
suiting YOUR needs.
That is fair for your use, but also consider that any
software, any OS, any hardware, is also considered not only
by subjective needs but fitness for it's purpose. Vista
isn't fit to take over the world, and with MS monopoly that
is exactly what will happen.
>Perhaps you would rather believe what people with thinly disguised agendas
>write! There are many people publishing good reports of Vista, what a pity that
>people don't read the positive and concentrate only on the negative; part of
>the human condition I guess!
Agenda is easy... Use what works, and for many Vista
offers nothing but trouble.
>
>What's' wrong with using Vista now, it work,s and works very well, for me and I
.... yes, you speak of one installation doing only the things
one person does with one set of hardware and software.
Darn near any OS can meet this criteria of having a few
fans.
>have pushed it pretty hard; all of my hardware migrated to Vista once the
>drivers became available which didn't take very long, all of my software (some
>of it quite specialised) is working well with Vista. All of my customers that
>use Vista are satisfied with it and there are lots of them. Have you actually
>used Vista or do you rely on biased reports?
How can anyone avoid coming in contact with it? It's not
like we're talking about some obscure OS from a company
nobody's heard of.
You are making up nonsense when you write that all customers
are satisfied. The truth is, a startling # of people would
rather have XP. Some are trying to adjust but would rather
not have it thrust upon them until much further work is
done, and much further hardware performance advances have
been made onto the point where one doesn't feel they've
spend another few hundred just to run a GUI as fast as they
did back in 2004.
>
>Of course it isn't perfect, it may never be perfect but it is so much better
>than its predecessors at the same point in the development cycle that there is
>no comparison. MS have done a pretty good job this time, of course for some
>people they can't do anything well.
Doesn't matter at all if it's better or worse at "same point
in the development cycle".
What matters is there is another alternative, XP that is
much further in it's development cycle.
You try to a void the obvious, that what matters is what we
have to choose between today. HOwever, for what it's worth,
Vista would've been a terrible choice if available back in
the beginng of the XP era too, even moreso due to it's lofty
hardware requirements just to run itself, let alone the
applications.
>
>As I said, experience with previous Windows versions leads me to believe that
>there will be significant improvement soon and my experience with the OS is
>that there already have been some major improvements......no different to
>previous developments.
Sorry but I don't trust crystal balls. Better to wait until
not only a real performance boost is seen, but also many of
the issues outlined in CBFalconer's post are retracted
"features".
>
>I read the links very carefully indeed, they are dated and in some cases they
>contain barely disguised agendas. The only agenda I have is the pursuit of
>truth with no bias!
Nope, the only thing dated about most of the info is when
people stop using Vista.
You most certainly have no pursuit of truth. It's all
self-surving because you are making a buck. The truth is,
Vista wins the worst product of 2007 in votes at multiple
websites. WinXP nor any predecessor OS can't take that
"prize", only Vista can.
Similarly with OEMs conceeding to customer demand and still
offering XP, no preceeding OS commanded this much customer
revolt. Vista may someday be patched enough and have
hardware performance increase enough to make it's crippled
performance seem acceptibe, but until then there is little
going for it except that it's the latest toy.
Toys are nice, so long as you recognize them as such. No
sane professional puts all their clients on Vista before it
even has a service pack out and they've seen the results of
that pack.
Funny thing is your use of the term bias. What could be
more biased than what you've written? That we should
actually hold our breath and wait because fixed for things
everyone knows are a problem will "probably", or "maybe"
come in a service pack?
How about cutting out the nonsense and waiting till these
problems are entirely resolved before commenting? Waiting
for a magical fix through a service pack is a very bad
strategy. Time is money, even now buying an XP license is a
mere $100 while we wait for the problems to be fixed,
problems that don't exist on XP.
kony wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:39:41 GMT, "Burt"
> <nospam@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:476bb897$0$26015$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>> (snip)>>
>>> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using Linux,
>>> through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except for one
>>> oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and they keep
>>> working that way.
>> (snip)
>> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new Windows
>> version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner wasn't very
>> old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk. In fairness, technology and
>> associated software for scanners had advanced to the point where it was
>> actually a blessing after the fact.
>>
>
>
> Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
> Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
> long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
> replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
> it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
> text scanning now.
In my case, the Visioneer in question is the OneTouch 7600 USB. I bought
it from Office Max something like 7 years ago for $20 after rebate. The
oddball chipset it uses(What WAS that chipset called? E3? Something like
that.) was also used by at least two other scanner brand names, though I
expect they were probably all made by the same manufacturer. I've never
used Windows XP, so I don't know if they issued a driver for it or not.
I used it with Windows 98SE. It worked great then and still works now,
those infrequent times when I fire up Windows and use it. There was an
attempt to write a Linux driver for that chipset four or five years ago,
but the effort was dropped before it amounted to anything. Had I been
using Linux when the scanner went on sale, I probably would have passed
on it. Still, for $20 it doesn't owe me a dime.
The scanner on my HP PSC 2110 works just great with Linux, so I'm not
missing out on anything I want.
"TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:476d09cd$0$25984$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> kony wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:39:41 GMT, "Burt"
>> <nospam@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "TJ" <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:476bb897$0$26015$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>>> (snip)>>
>>>> I haven't had that problem with Linux. In almost six years of using
>>>> Linux, through several updated versions, all of my peripherals (except
>>>> for one oddball Visioneer scanner) have worked "out-of-the-box," and
>>>> they keep working that way.
>>> (snip)
>>> TJ - I also had to dump a Visioneer scanner when I updated to a new
>>> Windows version. Visioneer didn't update their drivers. The scanner
>>> wasn't very old. Last Visioneer scanner to grace my desk. In fairness,
>>> technology and associated software for scanners had advanced to the
>>> point where it was actually a blessing after the fact.
>>
>>
>> Which model? I have 5, maybe 7-8 year old lower-end
>> Visioneers that still worked on XP. I'd have replaced them
>> long ago but they keep running so... one of them will be
>> replaced if I ever need to use it to scan more than text as
>> it's CCFL is starting to dim some so it is mostly suited for
>> text scanning now.
> In my case, the Visioneer in question is the OneTouch 7600 USB. I bought
> it from Office Max something like 7 years ago for $20 after rebate. The
> oddball chipset it uses(What WAS that chipset called? E3? Something like
> that.) was also used by at least two other scanner brand names, though I
> expect they were probably all made by the same manufacturer. I've never
> used Windows XP, so I don't know if they issued a driver for it or not. I
> used it with Windows 98SE. It worked great then and still works now, those
> infrequent times when I fire up Windows and use it. There was an attempt
> to write a Linux driver for that chipset four or five years ago, but the
> effort was dropped before it amounted to anything. Had I been using Linux
> when the scanner went on sale, I probably would have passed on it. Still,
> for $20 it doesn't owe me a dime.
>
> The scanner on my HP PSC 2110 works just great with Linux, so I'm not
> missing out on anything I want.
>
> TJ
>
Mine was the first "one-touch" model. It used a parallel cable that also
connected a printer. All pre-USB stuff.
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:muhpm3tjfbdelfm1cek9o4t3o90abek9pf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:13:39 -0600, Tony
> <tonythebengaltiger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
>>experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
>
> Yes, that's why your comment was inaccurate, because it is
> based on a subjective experience of whether Vista was
> suiting YOUR needs.
>
(clipped a very long, cynical attack on Tony - an honest, valued contributer
to this NG)
C'mon, Kony - If you've been on this NG for more than ten minutes you'd
recognize Tony as a very straightforward guy who was very clear that this
was his experience. It was not a MS promotion. No need to attack - why
not contribute positively from YOUR own experience instead of tearing down a
participant's honest post. The world has enough misanthropes. Lighten up.
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
Burt wrote:
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:muhpm3tjfbdelfm1cek9o4t3o90abek9pf@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:13:39 -0600, Tony
>> <tonythebengaltiger@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
>>> experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
>> Yes, that's why your comment was inaccurate, because it is
>> based on a subjective experience of whether Vista was
>> suiting YOUR needs.
>>
> (clipped a very long, cynical attack on Tony - an honest, valued contributer
> to this NG)
>
> C'mon, Kony - If you've been on this NG for more than ten minutes you'd
> recognize Tony as a very straightforward guy who was very clear that this
> was his experience. It was not a MS promotion. No need to attack - why
> not contribute positively from YOUR own experience instead of tearing down a
> participant's honest post. The world has enough misanthropes. Lighten up.
>
>
Burt, take note - This thread is cross-posted to 3 newsgroups. Kony
could well be a regular of one other than comp.periphs.printers.
<SIGH.> I should learn not to post anything about Linux anywhere but a
Linux group if I don't want to start a flame war. Wasn't my intention.
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? Off Topic
Not sure I want to continue this thread but here is a last attempt to clarify
what I said.
The original post to which I replied said that Vista was crap and provided some
links as evidence. These links are outdated and now largely irrelevant.
I said that I have many customers who are happy with Vista so it is NOT just my
personal experience, I expressed an opinion based on real world experience
(both mine and my customers). My opinions are absolutely NOT subjective, they
are based on objective observations (there is nothing more objective than
actually running a business, which my customers all do).
For many, Vista works. I speak of many installations, well over 100, none have
had to consider going back to their previous OS. I have many customers who have
no plans to migrate to Vista and that is exactly what I would expect, why
migrate until there is a reason to do so.
I don't make a buck out of Vista so none of this is self serving (a pity you
made that assumption); in fact I do not and never have marketed or sold any
Microsoft product or service. My company is highly specialised and we stick to
our core business, any and all questions regarding which OS or applications or
internal hardware to use are referred to the customer's IT service provider (we
never operate as an IT business). The only involvement we have with OS' is
providing advice as to whether a particular printer or imaging device will work
with a particular OS and this can be Windows, Linux, MAC and in rare
circumstances some specialised industrial OS'.
I answered the original comment because it was clearly biased, accusing me of
bias because I attempted to provide some balance is laughable.
Have a safe and happy Christmas.
Tony
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:13:39 -0600, Tony
><tonythebengaltiger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not into "Marketing drivel" I am an engineer and am into first hand
>>experience and my comments are based on exactly that, my own experience.
>
>Yes, that's why your comment was inaccurate, because it is
>based on a subjective experience of whether Vista was
>suiting YOUR needs.
>
>That is fair for your use, but also consider that any
>software, any OS, any hardware, is also considered not only
>by subjective needs but fitness for it's purpose. Vista
>isn't fit to take over the world, and with MS monopoly that
>is exactly what will happen.
>
>
>
>>Perhaps you would rather believe what people with thinly disguised agendas
>>write! There are many people publishing good reports of Vista, what a pity
>>that
>>people don't read the positive and concentrate only on the negative; part of
>>the human condition I guess!
>
>Agenda is easy... Use what works, and for many Vista
>offers nothing but trouble.
>
>
>>
>>What's' wrong with using Vista now, it work,s and works very well, for me and
>>I
>
>... yes, you speak of one installation doing only the things
>one person does with one set of hardware and software.
>
>Darn near any OS can meet this criteria of having a few
>fans.
>
>
>
>>have pushed it pretty hard; all of my hardware migrated to Vista once the
>>drivers became available which didn't take very long, all of my software
>>(some
>>of it quite specialised) is working well with Vista. All of my customers that
>>use Vista are satisfied with it and there are lots of them. Have you actually
>>used Vista or do you rely on biased reports?
>
>How can anyone avoid coming in contact with it? It's not
>like we're talking about some obscure OS from a company
>nobody's heard of.
>
>You are making up nonsense when you write that all customers
>are satisfied. The truth is, a startling # of people would
>rather have XP. Some are trying to adjust but would rather
>not have it thrust upon them until much further work is
>done, and much further hardware performance advances have
>been made onto the point where one doesn't feel they've
>spend another few hundred just to run a GUI as fast as they
>did back in 2004.
>
>
>
>>
>>Of course it isn't perfect, it may never be perfect but it is so much better
>>than its predecessors at the same point in the development cycle that there
>>is
>>no comparison. MS have done a pretty good job this time, of course for some
>>people they can't do anything well.
>
>Doesn't m
Re: What inkjet printer prints the best text? 