Win2k is GOLD, but what about Gold drivers?
This is a discussion about Win2k is GOLD, but what about Gold drivers? in the Windows Hardware category; Windows 2000 is going to be available to buy on Feb 17, but when are we going to see companies start to produce working win2k drivers for popular hardware, (like sblive!, TNT2, bt848 based tv tuners).
Windows 2000 is going to be available to buy on Feb 17, but when are we going to see companies start to produce working win2k drivers for popular hardware, (like sblive!, TNT2, bt848 based tv tuners). i only hope that when win2k is on store shelves, creative doesn't post the "liveware3.zip" for install instructions.
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Dec 16
Dec 17
0
5 minutes
Responses to this topic
w2k gold ships with working drivers for tnt and sblive out of the box.
If want want extra functionality that may compromise system stability, like 4 speaker support (sblive not tnt) then talk to your IHV.
W2K going gold now gives them 2 months with a stable, fixed platform to get their **** together. If they can't, then maybe we should be getting our h/w somewhere else.
If want want extra functionality that may compromise system stability, like 4 speaker support (sblive not tnt) then talk to your IHV.
W2K going gold now gives them 2 months with a stable, fixed platform to get their **** together. If they can't, then maybe we should be getting our h/w somewhere else.
Agreed (to Yuppie...) My problem is buying something that is on the HCL, getting it and then finding out that the Microsoft drivers are crippled _AND_ the hardware company decides not to support the device or develop Win2K drivers for it.
Case in point:
I purchased an Hewlett Packard ScanJet 4100Cse (USB) about two months ago. Used in Win98 and got great scans (9600dpi) and great printouts. Windows 2000 recognizes it and installs a Microsoft driver for it. The problem - the Microsoft driver maxes out at 400dpi, and @$%@#$#$% Hewlett Packard has announced that it will not support USB scanners under Windows 2000. Therefore, no drivers for this good/great Windows 98 USB scanner.
Know anyone who would like to purchase this?
And...
Any recommendations for another scanner with high resolution capability (I know that I'm going to end up getting another SCSI scanner...)
Regards...
------------------
J. Byron Todd
Computer Consultant
byron@toddcomp.com
Todd Computer Solutions
Case in point:
I purchased an Hewlett Packard ScanJet 4100Cse (USB) about two months ago. Used in Win98 and got great scans (9600dpi) and great printouts. Windows 2000 recognizes it and installs a Microsoft driver for it. The problem - the Microsoft driver maxes out at 400dpi, and @$%@#$#$% Hewlett Packard has announced that it will not support USB scanners under Windows 2000. Therefore, no drivers for this good/great Windows 98 USB scanner.
Know anyone who would like to purchase this?
And...
Any recommendations for another scanner with high resolution capability (I know that I'm going to end up getting another SCSI scanner...)
Regards...
------------------
J. Byron Todd
Computer Consultant
byron@toddcomp.com
Todd Computer Solutions
If that extra functionality compromises win2ks stability, imagine what it does in a 9x environment...
hehehe
hehehe
Byron - Good point. It used to be that the HCL would point out instances of "restricted functionallity", but this was in the days of an HCL in HLP file format
In theory (always a good disclaimer) a WDM USB driver should install on both 98 and W2K - although for some pre-release W2K the driver needed to be re-compiled.
On the other hand, many non-WDM USB drivers still have 16-bit cores - my CL WebCam2 is one such.
Also, if the IHVs create WDM drivers only, they're cutting off the entire Win95 user-base.
So the cost choice for the IHV is
Develop 2 drivers WDM/non-WDM and get 100% of users.
Develop 1 driver and get 90%.
This may not be completely coherent given the lateness of the hour - maybe i'll edit it tomorrow.
In theory (always a good disclaimer) a WDM USB driver should install on both 98 and W2K - although for some pre-release W2K the driver needed to be re-compiled.
On the other hand, many non-WDM USB drivers still have 16-bit cores - my CL WebCam2 is one such.
Also, if the IHVs create WDM drivers only, they're cutting off the entire Win95 user-base.
So the cost choice for the IHV is
Develop 2 drivers WDM/non-WDM and get 100% of users.
Develop 1 driver and get 90%.
This may not be completely coherent given the lateness of the hour - maybe i'll edit it tomorrow.
Well all hardware manufacters have 2 full months to get the most out of their drivers.
It will SUCK!! if you go buy Win 2000 Final and not having optimize drivers for your hardware.
I know.. that it will be a few companies that are going to have a pain in the ass trying to make this W2k drivers to work perfectly.
Lets see what happends by the end of february.
I know that we all be starting again posting threads here.
It will SUCK!! if you go buy Win 2000 Final and not having optimize drivers for your hardware.
I know.. that it will be a few companies that are going to have a pain in the ass trying to make this W2k drivers to work perfectly.
Lets see what happends by the end of february.
I know that we all be starting again posting threads here.
Anyway, your scanner is a 300 dpi optic scanner, with 600 dpi hardware interpolation. So why do you want to scan up to 9600 dpi ? Just do as much as the scanner can physically do : higher is the same with some blur.
Scan at 400 dpi, open the pic with Photoshop or other image editing software, and then upscale your pic.
It's a fake 9600 dpi so why should HP work to make a fake thing avaible cos Win2k users should be professionnal and professionnal work with optical resolution an not interpolated resolution.
So your scanner still works at 100% under Win2k.
Awx
PS : me french, me speak bad english
Scan at 400 dpi, open the pic with Photoshop or other image editing software, and then upscale your pic.
It's a fake 9600 dpi so why should HP work to make a fake thing avaible cos Win2k users should be professionnal and professionnal work with optical resolution an not interpolated resolution.
So your scanner still works at 100% under Win2k.
Awx
PS : me french, me speak bad english
I once heard someone say something like "Don't let the facts get in the way."
You might be correct about the native resolution of this scanner, but I can tell you that in practice the scanner has lost some capabilities:
In Windows 98 SE, I could fire up OmniPage Pro 10 and scan a plain text page with over 90% accuracy just using the HP drivers and the Caere program. Under Windows 2000, I can fire up the same OmniPage Pro 10 and scan the same plain text page and my accuracy drops to below 50%. That's right: over half the words that were previously recognized using the HP drivers and the Caere program are now being unrecognized by the MS drivers and the Caere program.
When it comes to the dpi settings, for all I know you could be correct - that 600 dpi interpolated is the highest resolution. But I can't even get that dpi scanned in - the highest that PhotoDraw 2000 offers (with the MS drivers) is 400 dpi.
Regardless, I've already sold the scanner to someone with Windows 98, and I am now in the market for another scanner - one with a much higher native dpi scan resolution. Any suggestions?
You might be correct about the native resolution of this scanner, but I can tell you that in practice the scanner has lost some capabilities:
In Windows 98 SE, I could fire up OmniPage Pro 10 and scan a plain text page with over 90% accuracy just using the HP drivers and the Caere program. Under Windows 2000, I can fire up the same OmniPage Pro 10 and scan the same plain text page and my accuracy drops to below 50%. That's right: over half the words that were previously recognized using the HP drivers and the Caere program are now being unrecognized by the MS drivers and the Caere program.
When it comes to the dpi settings, for all I know you could be correct - that 600 dpi interpolated is the highest resolution. But I can't even get that dpi scanned in - the highest that PhotoDraw 2000 offers (with the MS drivers) is 400 dpi.
Regardless, I've already sold the scanner to someone with Windows 98, and I am now in the market for another scanner - one with a much higher native dpi scan resolution. Any suggestions?
