(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