|
Steve Jobs.to Obama: "You're headed for a one-term presidency."
On 10/21/2011 10:45 AM, Ender2070 wrote:
On 10/21/2011 1:00 PM, Rocky wrote: wrote in message ... Steve Jobs predicted Obama would be a one-term president By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket – 1 hr 43 mins ago "You're headed for a one-term presidency," Jobs said during a meeting with the president that took place a year prior to Jobs' death related to pancreatic cancer, according to his upcoming biography as reported by the Huffington Post. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...144644675.html ---------- Reply below ---------- There might not be another president and the president we have now could become our dictator. All he needs to do is pull off another false flag and this time impose marshal law. Rocky He just has to keep enforcing Bush policies and pardoning him. Great buds like that should hang together!!! Regards, JS |
Steve Jobs.to Obama: "You're headed for a one-term presidency."
On 10/21/2011 11:47 AM, J R wrote:
False Flags R Commie U.S.Government. cuhulin Amazing that this group of illegal public servants, from the president on down, can hold their grip on the freedom, money, property, speech, etc. of the American citizens ... slow torture onto death becomes a more fitting punishment each and every day ... too bad the Constitution won't allow it ... Regards, JS |
Steve Jobs.to Obama: "You're headed for a one-term presidency."
Chootem! Alligator pits and Crocodile pits and feed the politicians to
them.Chootem! I am not talking about Chootin(Shooting) the Alligators and Crocodiles either. Chootem! ~ Troy Landry - Swamp People. I DO Believe Mr.Troy Landry would AGREE. http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=Mississippi+Swamp cuhulin |
Steve Jobs.to Obama: "You're headed for a one-term presidency."
On 10/24/2011 12:13 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:03 pm, John wrote: On 10/21/2011 9:38 AM, JohnJohnsn wrote: Steve Jobs predicted Obama would be a one-term president By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket 1 hr 43 mins ago "You're headed for a one-term presidency," Jobs said during a meeting with the president that took place a year prior to Jobs' death related to pancreatic cancer, according to his upcoming biography as reported by the Huffington Post. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...-obama-one-ter... What was truly amazing, is EVERYTHING which was needed to construct the original MAC was already laying about on the shelves, just waiting to be picked up and assembled into a working unit. Jobs and Wozniak were able to see that and assemble it ... however, the really important question is, why were all these parts just lying about? Why had the components been created without the realization of what their real purpose(s) was/were/are? For most people, it went over their heads, and still does, for that matter ... still, Jobs and Wozniak were pretty smart guys to solve a mystery which had escaped the rest of the world ... Regards, JS Old adage: "The secret to success in business is: `Find a need, then fill it'." I was more like jobs and wozniak walking up, seeing fenders, a motor, a windshield, tires, a drive line, rear end, bumpers, etc. lying about and constructing a complete car ... the real mystery being why had the parts been created before the "need" for the car? Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 4:23 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , John wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Or, simply, give a child a toolbox, and give a journeyman carpenter a toolbox and expect to see two very different results! Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/25/2011 4:23 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Or, simply, give a child a toolbox, and give a journeyman carpenter a toolbox and expect to see two very different results! You really are quite the snob, aren't you? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/19/2011 12:14 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 6:13 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 1:41 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 1:13 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 12:30 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 18, 9:58 am, John wrote: On 10/18/2011 5:18 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/17/11 20:04 , Howard Brazee wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT), RHF wrote: Friends Don't Let Friends Buy Apples/Macs. Friends let friends be their own people, making their own choices. The world needs more friends. Hey....making sense, here. Cut it out. Real friends sit they PC down besides the Mac users equipment and give them a demonstration ... one picture is worth 10,000 words ... Regards, JS Apple-holics 'Know' with a certainty that MACs are very "pc"*, and lowly PCs {The Machine} are not. -apple/macs-are-creative-tools-for-the-ennobled- -while-ms/pcs-are-simply-machines-for-the-masses- * 'pc' politically correct and elitist** ** 'i' am an Educator {in Education} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC -or- ** 'i' am Creative {in the Arts etc...} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC . Apple/MAC : A Statement of "Who I Am" -versus- MS/PC : A Statement of "What I Do" -result- Fashion Over Form-&-Function . . What I seen was bill gates become very obstinate and think that that there was no need for video as powerful as the computers ... MAC video graphic artists where forced into being ... now that windows went ahead and provided the supporting software/driver support, there is no finer video than you will find on PC's ... and the leading reason all no. one games usually only run on the PC, and windows ... to transcode them for another architecture/video support cuts too many capabilities from the game. Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers. As for your "too many capabilities from the game" claim... ...let's see a concrete example. Actually, it is windows that supports the hardware, if they don't, No, you are completely incorrect. Windows supports the driver architecture that the hardware manufacturer must write their driver's to comply with. anyone can write as many drivers as they wish ... the OS would simply And anyone can. They may not want to, but they can. not be able to utilize it ... yet another post which blatantly outlines your refusal to cure your ignorance ... but your complete willingness to comment on things you know little, or even nothing, about. The irony in this statement is off the charts... Gates saw a world where a simple video chip on a motherboard would be sufficient ... his vision changed. Again, Microsoft doesn't write the drivers: the hardware manufacturers do. Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... Regards, JS Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ....but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/19/2011 12:14 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 6:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 1:13 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 12:30 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 18, 9:58 am, John wrote: On 10/18/2011 5:18 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/17/11 20:04 , Howard Brazee wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT), RHF wrote: Friends Don't Let Friends Buy Apples/Macs. Friends let friends be their own people, making their own choices. The world needs more friends. Hey....making sense, here. Cut it out. Real friends sit they PC down besides the Mac users equipment and give them a demonstration ... one picture is worth 10,000 words ... Regards, JS Apple-holics 'Know' with a certainty that MACs are very "pc"*, and lowly PCs {The Machine} are not. -apple/macs-are-creative-tools-for-the-ennobled- -while-ms/pcs-are-simply-machines-for-the-masses- * 'pc' politically correct and elitist** ** 'i' am an Educator {in Education} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC -or- ** 'i' am Creative {in the Arts etc...} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC . Apple/MAC : A Statement of "Who I Am" -versus- MS/PC : A Statement of "What I Do" -result- Fashion Over Form-&-Function . . What I seen was bill gates become very obstinate and think that that there was no need for video as powerful as the computers ... MAC video graphic artists where forced into being ... now that windows went ahead and provided the supporting software/driver support, there is no finer video than you will find on PC's ... and the leading reason all no. one games usually only run on the PC, and windows ... to transcode them for another architecture/video support cuts too many capabilities from the game. Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers. As for your "too many capabilities from the game" claim... ...let's see a concrete example. Tell you what, this will get you started on who sets the specs and defines the driver: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...4644%28v=vs.85 %29 .aspx I never said that Microsoft doesn't set specs or defining things. You, again, seem to have a real problem with semantics ... usually a problem for those with no or inadequate educations. "YOU can build a driver using the Visual Studio development environment, or YOU can build a driver directly from the command line using the Microsoft Build Engine (MSBuild). To build drivers for Windows Developer Preview, Windows 7, and Windows Vista, use Visual Studio and MSBuild. To build drivers for Windows XP, YOU must use the Windows 7 WDK and the Windows Build Utility (Build.exe)." Do you see that word that I've capitalized? To whom do you think Microsoft is referring with the word "YOU" in that paragraph? The person/people who "build a bridge" are those completing the design, engineering and plans ... so it is with anything ... it is not "the guy with the shovel." Your analogy is so flawed I cannot even begin. The construction workers ... not the people who have designed the system and specs ... they simply assembly from the ms libraries ... No. It is absolutely nothing like that. Right, WHQL and the windows driver SDK is only a figment of software engineers imaginations ... ROFLOL But, the windows driver sdk could be rewritten and non-windows certified drivers created (indeed, I have used work-a-like driver SDKs, however, they cannot be used in the creation of windows WHQL drivers) ... duh! Linux is really only a rewrite of unix and was done to have a free OS ... You are a fool who wants to split hairs and change the discussion off to a tangent ... fool. Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:14 AM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 6:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 1:13 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 12:30 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 18, 9:58 am, John wrote: On 10/18/2011 5:18 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/17/11 20:04 , Howard Brazee wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT), RHF wrote: Friends Don't Let Friends Buy Apples/Macs. Friends let friends be their own people, making their own choices. The world needs more friends. Hey....making sense, here. Cut it out. Real friends sit they PC down besides the Mac users equipment and give them a demonstration ... one picture is worth 10,000 words ... Regards, JS Apple-holics 'Know' with a certainty that MACs are very "pc"*, and lowly PCs {The Machine} are not. -apple/macs-are-creative-tools-for-the-ennobled- -while-ms/pcs-are-simply-machines-for-the-masses- * 'pc' politically correct and elitist** ** 'i' am an Educator {in Education} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC -or- ** 'i' am Creative {in the Arts etc...} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC . Apple/MAC : A Statement of "Who I Am" -versus- MS/PC : A Statement of "What I Do" -result- Fashion Over Form-&-Function . . What I seen was bill gates become very obstinate and think that that there was no need for video as powerful as the computers ... MAC video graphic artists where forced into being ... now that windows went ahead and provided the supporting software/driver support, there is no finer video than you will find on PC's ... and the leading reason all no. one games usually only run on the PC, and windows ... to transcode them for another architecture/video support cuts too many capabilities from the game. Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers. As for your "too many capabilities from the game" claim... ...let's see a concrete example. Tell you what, this will get you started on who sets the specs and defines the driver: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...f554644%28v=vs. 85 %29 .aspx I never said that Microsoft doesn't set specs or defining things. You, again, seem to have a real problem with semantics ... usually a problem for those with no or inadequate educations. "YOU can build a driver using the Visual Studio development environment, or YOU can build a driver directly from the command line using the Microsoft Build Engine (MSBuild). To build drivers for Windows Developer Preview, Windows 7, and Windows Vista, use Visual Studio and MSBuild. To build drivers for Windows XP, YOU must use the Windows 7 WDK and the Windows Build Utility (Build.exe)." Do you see that word that I've capitalized? To whom do you think Microsoft is referring with the word "YOU" in that paragraph? The person/people who "build a bridge" are those completing the design, engineering and plans ... so it is with anything ... it is not "the guy with the shovel." Your analogy is so flawed I cannot even begin. The construction workers ... not the people who have designed the system and specs ... they simply assembly from the ms libraries ... No. It is absolutely nothing like that. Right, WHQL and the windows driver SDK is only a figment of software engineers imaginations ... ROFLOL Do you now what an SDK is? Seriously? A "software development kit"; a set of tools to make developing software easier. And it's called the "WDK", John: the "Windows Driver Kit" Hardware manufacturers download the WDK... ....so that they can develop (write) drivers. Period. But, the windows driver sdk could be rewritten and non-windows certified drivers created (indeed, I have used work-a-like driver SDKs, however, they cannot be used in the creation of windows WHQL drivers) ... duh! Linux is really only a rewrite of unix and was done to have a free OS ... You do realize that there is an OS called "FreeBSD", right? You are a fool who wants to split hairs and change the discussion off to a tangent ... fool. It's not a hair. Microsoft doesn't write the drivers: the hardware manufacturers do. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
"Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
"Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ....and it just isn't so. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , John wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. ROFLOL!!!!! Can't say semantics huh? Fords engineers write the specs and create the templates but because contractors manufacture the parts or assemble sub-assemblies, they build it ... ROFLOL What a fool ... microsoft writes the drivers, like I said ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/25/2011 4:46 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. ROFLOL!!!!! Can't say semantics huh? Fords engineers write the specs and create the templates but because contractors manufacture the parts or assemble sub-assemblies, they build it ... ROFLOL Not the same. What a fool ... microsoft writes the drivers, like I said ... No, they do not. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 5:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , . net wrote: "Alan wrote in message ... In , John wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Actually, you fudge again, whether by ignorance or design. As I said, gates envisioned a motherboard with a chip on it, for video, and would handle everything ... and, as I further stated, that did NOT work out well ... windows had to rewrite and adapt the windows video drivers to accompany much more powerful video ... and, of course, we are now at the point where video cards, in themselves, are as powerful as yesterdays computers ... Windows write the specs, which defines the drivers, although they may be assembled by software engineers working for others and off site ... not any different than hardware, really ... in the aspects of the model of patents, design, implementation, construction, manufacture, etc. If someone wants to interface their hardware with windows, windows is the piper and calls the tune ... "they" simply dance to it. Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/25/2011 5:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , . net wrote: "Alan wrote in message ... In , John wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Actually, you fudge again, whether by ignorance or design. As I said, gates envisioned a motherboard with a chip on it, for video, and would handle everything ... and, as I further stated, that did NOT work out well ... windows had to rewrite and adapt the windows video drivers to accompany much more powerful video ... and, of course, we are now at the point where video cards, in themselves, are as powerful as yesterdays computers ... Windows write the specs, which defines the drivers, although they may be assembled by software engineers working for others and off site ... not any different than hardware, really ... in the aspects of the model of patents, design, implementation, construction, manufacture, etc. If someone wants to interface their hardware with windows, windows is the piper and calls the tune ... "they" simply dance to it. Regards, JS I give up. You have no clue about how these things work and you won't listen. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 5:17 PM, Scout wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. He is wrong, so now he attempts to narrow the driver down to just what is created in the card vendors shops ... it is the only avenue of argument left him ... his argument may well fool the fools ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 5:05 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , John wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:14 AM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 6:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 1:13 PM, Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/18/2011 12:30 PM, RHF wrote: On Oct 18, 9:58 am, John wrote: On 10/18/2011 5:18 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 10/17/11 20:04 , Howard Brazee wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:41:08 -0700 (PDT), RHF wrote: Friends Don't Let Friends Buy Apples/Macs. Friends let friends be their own people, making their own choices. The world needs more friends. Hey....making sense, here. Cut it out. Real friends sit they PC down besides the Mac users equipment and give them a demonstration ... one picture is worth 10,000 words ... Regards, JS Apple-holics 'Know' with a certainty that MACs are very "pc"*, and lowly PCs {The Machine} are not. -apple/macs-are-creative-tools-for-the-ennobled- -while-ms/pcs-are-simply-machines-for-the-masses- * 'pc' politically correct and elitist** ** 'i' am an Educator {in Education} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC -or- ** 'i' am Creative {in the Arts etc...} and use an Apple/MAC therefore 'i' and 'it' are better than you and your lowly PC . Apple/MAC : A Statement of "Who I Am" -versus- MS/PC : A Statement of "What I Do" -result- Fashion Over Form-&-Function . . What I seen was bill gates become very obstinate and think that that there was no need for video as powerful as the computers ... MAC video graphic artists where forced into being ... now that windows went ahead and provided the supporting software/driver support, there is no finer video than you will find on PC's ... and the leading reason all no. one games usually only run on the PC, and windows ... to transcode them for another architecture/video support cuts too many capabilities from the game. Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers. As for your "too many capabilities from the game" claim... ...let's see a concrete example. Tell you what, this will get you started on who sets the specs and defines the driver: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...f554644%28v=vs. 85 %29 .aspx I never said that Microsoft doesn't set specs or defining things. You, again, seem to have a real problem with semantics ... usually a problem for those with no or inadequate educations. "YOU can build a driver using the Visual Studio development environment, or YOU can build a driver directly from the command line using the Microsoft Build Engine (MSBuild). To build drivers for Windows Developer Preview, Windows 7, and Windows Vista, use Visual Studio and MSBuild. To build drivers for Windows XP, YOU must use the Windows 7 WDK and the Windows Build Utility (Build.exe)." Do you see that word that I've capitalized? To whom do you think Microsoft is referring with the word "YOU" in that paragraph? The person/people who "build a bridge" are those completing the design, engineering and plans ... so it is with anything ... it is not "the guy with the shovel." Your analogy is so flawed I cannot even begin. The construction workers ... not the people who have designed the system and specs ... they simply assembly from the ms libraries ... No. It is absolutely nothing like that. Right, WHQL and the windows driver SDK is only a figment of software engineers imaginations ... ROFLOL Do you now what an SDK is? Seriously? A "software development kit"; a set of tools to make developing software easier. And it's called the "WDK", John: the "Windows Driver Kit" Hardware manufacturers download the WDK... ...so that they can develop (write) drivers. Period. But, the windows driver sdk could be rewritten and non-windows certified drivers created (indeed, I have used work-a-like driver SDKs, however, they cannot be used in the creation of windows WHQL drivers) ... duh! Linux is really only a rewrite of unix and was done to have a free OS ... You do realize that there is an OS called "FreeBSD", right? You are a fool who wants to split hairs and change the discussion off to a tangent ... fool. It's not a hair. Microsoft doesn't write the drivers: the hardware manufacturers do. Look, one thing I never did say, for certain, is that I would cure your ignorance, this is a free country, believe what you may ... I am done with your foolishness ... bye ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
"Scout" wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. And since that wasn't really under debate, who cares? "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. I don't you have the slightest idea what you mean by any of that. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 7:31 PM, Scout wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. Scout: The reason ATI cannot use NVIDIA drives is that the hardware is different, windows make the same calls from its' driver (basically, some minor differences are involved), there are windows drivers at work. If the card is NVIDIA, those software engineers will translate the driver calls into the proper hardware instructions ... if the card is ATI, the same is done, only the hardware calls are different. Windows has much different drivers than MAC, even when operating on the same chip, the reason for all of this is complex and involves patents, and differences between the two operating systems and many other factors. The beginning discussion was on windows drivers, such as versus MAC drivers ... however, in all fairness, in the industry, there are actually two levels of utilities termed "drivers", and splits into "high level drivers" and "low lever drivers." Or, simply, in shop the card manufacturers will call their software (or firmware) "drivers." And they are low level drivers, in fact ... But, and I know it got confusing with everything being tossed into the bowl to aid in obfuscation ... we WERE speaking of windows drivers ... windows simply has no interest in the actually calls, commands, and port addresses of the hardware ... but, make no mistake, the windows drives are the "data pumps" and "data suckers" ... indeed, to windows, believe it or not, a video card is much like just another file to be written to, or read from ... same for unix and linux also, indeed, this model is much more apparent in those latter systems ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/25/2011 7:31 PM, Scout wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. Scout: The reason ATI cannot use NVIDIA drives is that the hardware is different, windows make the same calls from its' driver (basically, some minor differences are involved), there are windows drivers at work. If the card is NVIDIA, those software engineers will translate the driver calls into the proper hardware instructions ... if the card is ATI, the same is done, only the hardware calls are different. Windows has much different drivers than MAC, even when operating on the same chip, the reason for all of this is complex and involves patents, and differences between the two operating systems and many other factors. The beginning discussion was on windows drivers, such as versus MAC drivers ... however, in all fairness, in the industry, there are actually two levels of utilities termed "drivers", and splits into "high level drivers" and "low lever drivers." Or, simply, in shop the card manufacturers will call their software (or firmware) "drivers." And they are low level drivers, in fact ... But, and I know it got confusing with everything being tossed into the bowl to aid in obfuscation ... we WERE speaking of windows drivers ... windows simply has no interest in the actually calls, commands, and port addresses of the hardware ... but, make no mistake, the windows drives are the "data pumps" and "data suckers" ... indeed, to windows, believe it or not, a video card is much like just another file to be written to, or read from ... same for unix and linux also, indeed, this model is much more apparent in those latter systems ... You have no clue. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. And since that wasn't really under debate, who cares? You said, and I quote "Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them." Clearly it was a matter of debate, and I am debating whether that was really the case. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. I don't you have the slightest idea what you mean by any of that. Try getting any 32 bit version of windows to see 8gb of memory. Write any driver you like. But guess what. 4gb is all any 32 bit Windows will EVER see, and even less that will be useable. Try plugging a 500gb drive into a motherboard that supports only a 28-bit LBA. Tell me the maximum hard drive size Windows will ever see no matter what driver you write for it. Sorry, but there are limits and your drivers can only work within the limits set. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/25/2011 7:59 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
In , John wrote: On 10/25/2011 7:31 PM, Scout wrote: "Alan wrote in message ... In , . net wrote: "Alan wrote in message ... In , . net wrote: "Alan wrote in message ... In , John wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided bygasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. Scout: The reason ATI cannot use NVIDIA drives is that the hardware is different, windows make the same calls from its' driver (basically, some minor differences are involved), there are windows drivers at work. If the card is NVIDIA, those software engineers will translate the driver calls into the proper hardware instructions ... if the card is ATI, the same is done, only the hardware calls are different. Windows has much different drivers than MAC, even when operating on the same chip, the reason for all of this is complex and involves patents, and differences between the two operating systems and many other factors. The beginning discussion was on windows drivers, such as versus MAC drivers ... however, in all fairness, in the industry, there are actually two levels of utilities termed "drivers", and splits into "high level drivers" and "low lever drivers." Or, simply, in shop the card manufacturers will call their software (or firmware) "drivers." And they are low level drivers, in fact ... But, and I know it got confusing with everything being tossed into the bowl to aid in obfuscation ... we WERE speaking of windows drivers ... windows simply has no interest in the actually calls, commands, and port addresses of the hardware ... but, make no mistake, the windows drives are the "data pumps" and "data suckers" ... indeed, to windows, believe it or not, a video card is much like just another file to be written to, or read from ... same for unix and linux also, indeed, this model is much more apparent in those latter systems ... You have no clue. Copy my text and post it in an OS forum ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
"Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. And since that wasn't really under debate, who cares? You said, and I quote "Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them." Clearly it was a matter of debate, and I am debating whether that was really the case. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. I don't you have the slightest idea what you mean by any of that. Try getting any 32 bit version of windows to see 8gb of memory. Write any driver you like. But guess what. 4gb is all any 32 bit Windows will EVER see, and even less that will be useable. Try plugging a 500gb drive into a motherboard that supports only a 28-bit LBA. Tell me the maximum hard drive size Windows will ever see no matter what driver you write for it. Sorry, but there are limits and your drivers can only work within the limits set. What do either of those have to do with video drivers? Be specific. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. And since that wasn't really under debate, who cares? You said, and I quote "Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them." Clearly it was a matter of debate, and I am debating whether that was really the case. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. I don't you have the slightest idea what you mean by any of that. Try getting any 32 bit version of windows to see 8gb of memory. Write any driver you like. But guess what. 4gb is all any 32 bit Windows will EVER see, and even less that will be useable. Try plugging a 500gb drive into a motherboard that supports only a 28-bit LBA. Tell me the maximum hard drive size Windows will ever see no matter what driver you write for it. Sorry, but there are limits and your drivers can only work within the limits set. What do either of those have to do with video drivers? Be specific. Simple. Windows can only address so much memory, whether it is system memory, or memory on a video card makes no difference. Resolution and color depth is limited by memory. Thus Windows has a limit (very high) on the maximum resolution it can support. In conclusion, beyond that limit no video driver in the world is going to work to support a graphics card beyond the limit set by the memory addressing established by the O/S Luckily the limit is so high that before it is reached the technology is usually safely obsolete. For example. Plug a 1gb video card into 32 bit windows and you're going to have only about 2.5gb of maximum useable memory left for programs. Plug a 2gb card in and you would have only about 1.5gb left. Plug in a 4gb card and it wouldn't even be supported by 32 bit windows. Thus the resolution is limited by the amount of physical memory that the O/S can address. Period. End of line. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... And who wrote the specs which those drivers need to meet to be compatible with windows And by the way, in many cases, 3rd party software houses write those drivers to the specs provided by Windows and the parts manufacturer. It's called "outsourcing" and "sub-contracting" Quite a comme practice, doncha'know... |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
"Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , "Scout" wrote: Again, you prove yourself a fool, the high level drivers make the video calls to the devices ... the hardware manufactures simply have to translate those into assembly ... the same calls are made, but the firmware of the manufacturer translates those to fit its' hardware ... ATI will be much different the NVIDIA ... but windows makes the same calls from its high level driver(s) ... and, windows must provide what the game developers need, the instructions and calls, or it doesn't even get off the ground. Just because a video card slot exists on a motherboard DOES NOT mean windows has to support it ... It is the windows kernal which runs the games ... but hey, glad to be able to help you dispel your ignorance! :-) I'm sorry, but when you really don't know what you're talking about, you should just shut up. Create a video card, write drivers for it according to Windows published requirements and it will work... ...Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with it other than certifying the drivers after they've been written. What a dumb asshole ... you'd better make yourself familiar with the windows device driver tools and their specs, moron ... I am familiar with the process as you obviously are not, since you said that Microsoft writes the drivers for other companies' hardware when they most certainly do not. They most certainly do, or more accurately have ... now the hardware simply needs to have those translated ... new hardware can be constructed which can do a whole LOT of things that WHQL drivers, are not aware of and can't use ... not until the windows drivers and constructed, by microsoft, will those ever be used ... WHQL is the specification, is the test, is the standard for windows drivers ... it is the sole creation and property of microsoft. Like I say, you attempt to use semantics to prove black is really white ... No, John. Black is black and white is white. Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them. Really? I've got a lot of drivers on my computer, and when I look at the data I find most are provided by Microsoft. In fact, the only drivers which aren't from Microsoft are those I installed or downloaded from a manufacturer. Disk Drivers - Drivers by Microsoft Disk Interface - Drivers by Microsoft Keyboard - Driver by Microsoft Mouse - Driver by Microsoft Monitor - Driver by Microsoft Ports - Driver by Microsoft CPU - Driver by Microsoft System Devices - Drivers by Microsoft USB - Driver by Microsoft Video Card - Driver by Nividia Ethernet - Driver by Intel Audio - Drivers by RealTec If the hardware manufacturers/venders write them, then why do they state they were provided by Microsoft? Seems to me if someone else provided the drivers, then they could sue Microsoft for false representation. So why haven't they? Scout: my discussions with John arose specifically about video cards. So? My default drivers is provided by gasp Microsoft. For devices with extremely well-defined interfaces. You can have disk drivers by Microsoft because the drive manufactures work to the ATA spec, etc. Yep, just like graphics cards at least to a certain resolution. Indeed if Microsoft didn't provide a driver for video cards it would be extremely hard to install the O/S on the computer. And because for basic drivers, the manufacturers make sure the cards follow a basic spec. Be that as it may, the default driver is still done by Microsoft. And since that wasn't really under debate, who cares? You said, and I quote "Microsoft writes the specs to which the driver's must be written... ...but the hardware manufacturers/vendors write them." Clearly it was a matter of debate, and I am debating whether that was really the case. "Windows didn't "go ahead" and do that, John. The companies that build the graphics cards provide the drivers." Yep, but Microsoft also produces drivers for graphics cards. Very basic ones, yes. Quickly: Tell us again who wrote the video card drivers on your system... Initially it was Microsoft. Later it was Nividia However, without that graphics card driver from Microsoft I would never have been able to instead the driver from Nividia. Nope. Not true. It would have been a good bit more difficult... ...but not impossible. But the point of this was that John was touting *Microsoft* for writing the drivers that make the high-performance video cards work in their high-performance mode... ...and it just isn't so. Well, actually, the BIOS and internal sockets in Windows has support for the higher modes then your driver simply wouldn't work. In short, you're not going to exceed the limits of what the BIOS and/or O/S sets for the maximum limit. Within the limits of the BIOS and O/S you can write drivers that will work, but only within the limits of what is supported by them. I don't you have the slightest idea what you mean by any of that. Try getting any 32 bit version of windows to see 8gb of memory. Write any driver you like. But guess what. 4gb is all any 32 bit Windows will EVER see, and even less that will be useable. Try plugging a 500gb drive into a motherboard that supports only a 28-bit LBA. Tell me the maximum hard drive size Windows will ever see no matter what driver you write for it. Sorry, but there are limits and your drivers can only work within the limits set. What do either of those have to do with video drivers? Be specific. Simple. Windows can only address so much memory, whether it is system memory, or memory on a video card makes no difference. Resolution and color depth is limited by memory. Thus Windows has a limit (very high) on the maximum resolution it can support. In conclusion, beyond that limit no video driver in the world is going to work to support a graphics card beyond the limit set by the memory addressing established by the O/S Luckily the limit is so high that before it is reached the technology is usually safely obsolete. For example. Plug a 1gb video card into 32 bit windows and you're going to have only about 2.5gb of maximum useable memory left for programs. You are incorrect. Plug a 2gb card in and you would have only about 1.5gb left. Plug in a 4gb card and it wouldn't even be supported by 32 bit windows. Thus the resolution is limited by the amount of physical memory that the O/S can address. Period. End of line. And wrong. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Oct 25, 6:23*pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article , *John Smith wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Linux for DEVELOPMENT Mac for ANGRY BIRDS AND iTUNES Palm for MOBILITY Windows for PRODUCTIVITY (with occasional hiccups) -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/26/11 08:53 , JohnJohnsn wrote:
On Oct 25, 6:23 pm, Alan wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Linux for DEVELOPMENT Mac for ANGRY BIRDS AND iTUNES Palm for MOBILITY Windows for PRODUCTIVITY (with occasional hiccups) It's interesting you should say that. I got more work done in my first 20 minutes using a Mac than I did the previous two hours under Windows. Since my business went to Apple computers, and PC's running Linux, the workday went from a solid 8 to 10 hours every day, to between 4 and 6 hours 4 days a week. With nearly 20% increase in output. I run no Microsoft software, anywhere, today. And have never gotten more done in less time. And had a more pleasant time doing it. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/26/2011 6:53 AM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
On Oct 25, 6:23 pm, Alan wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Linux for DEVELOPMENT Mac for ANGRY BIRDS AND iTUNES Palm for MOBILITY Windows for PRODUCTIVITY (with occasional hiccups) -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg Linux is actually the system I would choose to have in the most wide spread use in all areas of computing ... however, since it is given away for free, fools cannot recognize the value ... hence, not a large enough market share to interest game developers and other large market share uses ... it is a crying shame and demonstrates the truth to the statement, "85%+ of American are idiots." But, dual boot to windows 7 and linux is well worth it ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
John Smith wrote: On 10/26/2011 6:53 AM, JohnJohnsn wrote: On Oct 25, 6:23 pm, Alan wrote: In , John wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Linux for DEVELOPMENT Mac for ANGRY BIRDS AND iTUNES Palm for MOBILITY Windows for PRODUCTIVITY (with occasional hiccups) -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg Linux is actually the system I would choose to have in the most wide spread use in all areas of computing ... however, since it is given away for free, fools cannot recognize the value ... hence, not a large enough market share to interest game developers and other large market share uses ... it is a crying shame and demonstrates the truth to the statement, "85%+ of American are idiots." But, dual boot to windows 7 and linux is well worth it ... Regards, JS John: Mac OS X does pretty much everything that Linux does plus it was better support from software and hardware manufacturers. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
Windows 8 will be in the market place in about a year from now,
according to one of my recent snail mail magazines. cuhulin |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:40:55 -0700, Alan Baker
wrote: Mac OS X does pretty much everything that Linux does plus it was better support from software and hardware manufacturers. I'm not sure about its non-Apple support being better. For instance, I have to tell Word every time that I want my Kodak printer to print duplex. Linux has to support all hardware and software. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Oct 26, 11:40*am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article , *John Smith wrote: On 10/26/2011 6:53 AM, JohnJohnsn wrote: On Oct 25, 6:23 pm, Alan *wrote: In , * John *wrote: On 10/19/2011 12:21 AM, Alan Baker wrote: ... You realize that Mac are preferred computers for doing film editing, right? That's pretty demanding. ... Makes you wonder what they could do with a more powerful PC, and why they aren't ... that is pretty demanding, seeing the logic! Some do use PCs, John. But there is more to overall productivity that simply reading numbers from a benchmark. Linux for DEVELOPMENT Mac for ANGRY BIRDS AND iTUNES Palm for MOBILITY Windows for PRODUCTIVITY (with occasional hiccups) -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg Linux is actually the system I would choose to have in the most wide spread use in all areas of computing ... however, since it is given away for free, fools cannot recognize the value ... hence, not a large enough market share to interest game developers and other large market share uses ... it is a crying shame and demonstrates the truth to the statement, "85%+ of American are idiots." But, dual boot to windows 7 and linux is well worth it ... Regards, JS John: Mac OS X does pretty much everything that Linux does plus it was better support from software and hardware manufacturers. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg OMG ! - Are 'we' still having a : My 'OS' Can Beat-Up Your 'OS' Posting Contest ;;-}} |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
Howard Brazee wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:40:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: Mac OS X does pretty much everything that Linux does plus it was better support from software and hardware manufacturers. I'm not sure about its non-Apple support being better. For instance, I have to tell Word every time that I want my Kodak printer to print duplex. Linux has to support all hardware and software. Howard: pretty much any piece of Linux software can be recompiled for Mac OS X. So if it works on Linux, you can make it work in precisely the same way the Linux guys do: compile it and install it. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com