INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER Bookmark this page

  
Display: Sort:
Getting New Drivers Isn't a Canon of Faith | 139 comments (139 topical) | Post A Comment
The vendor could and should. . .[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 12:49:22 PM PDT

A peripheral manufacturer is under an obligation to provide updated drivers for the operating systems that it initially supported when the product was first marketed.  When new patches or service packs are released for the OS, new drivers should be forthcoming.  

I don't agree that Canon has any responsibility to provide a driver for an OS that had not been released when the scanner was first marketed.  Canon did not claim to support that operating system in any of its product literature.  In particular, x64 is a high end OS for power users.  The scanner in question (a $125 machine) is intended for home use rather than commercial/industrial use.  As such, it is quite unlikely that Canon would find very many of these machines attached to a PC with a 64-bit OS.  There is no economic justification for supporting that particular combination of resources.

On the other hand, if the 64-bit OS actually does take off, why shouldn't Canon leave the door open to support it more broadly in the future?  "Maybe" is as legitimate a position as is "no."

Regarding Ed Hurst's dyspeptic diatribe against all of those peripheral vendors, I'm wondering exactly which vendors he does favor?  Centronix?  
Gwyl


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Centronix?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Ed Foster on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 02:11:32 PM PDT

Personally, I'm on the lookout for a good DataProducts line printer. -- Ed

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Data Products Line Printer wanted[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:35:02 PM PDT

I'll watch for one at the local flea market and let you know. Heh-heh! :-)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


DataProducts[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by sconeu on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 08:11:50 AM PDT

I believe they're owned by Hitachi-Koki now.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Star Micronix[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by tcsbiz on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 02:46:37 PM PDT

Star Mirconix dot matrix. Still works in DOS mode with PFS: First Publisher and the original version of Avery Label Pro. Ribbons getting hard to come by, though.

Tom.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



re: Star Micronix[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 11:30:26 AM PDT

Personally, I prefer a good Okidata Microline, Epson LQ-series, or IBM Proprinter 24XL model myself, but hey, who's counting?...

And now that we've gotten this OT, something I couldn't resist:

*I've Built a Better Model than the One at Data General* by Steven Levine

(sung to the tune of I am the Very Model of a Modern Major General, many, many apologies to W.S. Gilbert and A.S. Sullivan)

I've built a better model than the one at Data General
For data bases vegetable, animal, and mineral
My OS handles CPUs with multiplexed duality;
My PL/I compiler shows impressive functionality.
My storage system's better than magnetic core polarity,
You never have to bother checking out a bit for parity;
There isn't any reason to install non-static floor matting;
My disk drive has capacity for variable formatting.
CHORUS:
His disk drive has capacity for variable formatting,
His disk drive has capacity for variable formatting,
His disk drive has capacity for variable format-formatting.

I feel compelled to mention what I know to be a gloating point:
There's lots of space in memory for variable floating-point,
Which shows for input vegetable, animal and mineral
I've build a better model than the one at Data General.
CHORUS:
Which shows for input vegetable, animal and mineral
He's built a better model than the one at Data General.

The IBM new home computer's nothing more than germinal;
At Prime they still have trouble with an interactive terminal;
While Tandy's done a lousy job with operations Boolean,
At Wang the byte capacity's too small to fit a coolie in.
Intel's mid-year finances are something of the trouble sort;
The Timex-Sinclair crashes when you implement a bubble sort.
All DEC investors soon will find they haven't spent their money well;
And need I even mention Nixdorf, Univac or Honeywell?
CHORUS:
And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?
And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honeywell?
And need he even mention Nixdorf, Univac, or Honey-Honeywell?

By striving to eliminate all source code that's repetitive
I've brought my benchmark standings to results that are competitive.
In short, for input vegetable, animal and mineral
I've built a better model than the one at Data General.
CHORUS:
Which shows for input vegetable, animal and mineral
He's built a better model than the one at Data General.

In fact when I've a floppy of a minimum diameter,
When I can call a subroutine of infinite parameter,
When I can point to registers and keep their current map around,
And when I can prevent the need for mystifying wraparound,
When I can update record blocks with minimum of suffering,
And when I can afford to use 100K for buffering,
When I've performed a matrix sort and tested the addition rate,
You'll marvel at the speed of my asynchronous transmission rate.
CHORUS:
You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission rate.
You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission rate.
You'll marvel at the speed of his asynchronous transmission-mission rate.

Though all my better programs that self-reference recursively
Have only been obtained through expert spying, done subversively,
But still for input vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I've built a better model than the one at Data General.
CHORUS:
But still for input vegetable, animal and mineral,
He's built a better model than the one at Data General.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Supported OS & Hardware[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Fushigi on Wed Mar 15, 2006 at 06:47:23 AM PDT

XP64 was apparently released in April of 2005. Based on the OP saying some of the scanners were just a few months old, it is reasonable to assume they were still being marketed after XP64's release. Also, Canon would have had access to the XP64 beta to use to develop drivers.

If XP64 is a high-end OS, that would presume it is for high-end hardware. Yet a quick trip to HP's notebook "home and home office" section shows AMD64-based notebooks starting well under $700. Hardly high-end. I helped a coworker buy an AMD64-equipped notebook some time ago (IIRC Summer '04) and again it was geared towards consumers and not business (optimized for DVD playback & gaming).

Changing tracks a little .. What's surprising to me is that the drivers would be different. In this day and age a lot of manufacturers try to unify their drivers across the bulk of their products. Witness nVidia and ATI video drivers. Canon is raising their own costs by not standardizing the internals to a sufficient extent that the drivers can be unified.

BTW, I had a similar experience with a Umax SCSI scanner. Drivers were fine through Windows 98 and NT 4 but they didn't release any for Windows 2000. A friend managed to make the NT drivers partly work in 2000; I gave up.

Finally, Okidata still markets the Microline dot matrix printer. They're actually more expensive than most other low-to-mid grade printers, but they are still available new-in-box.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Different issues[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by tcsbiz on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:00:47 AM PDT

Having a 64 bit processor and a 64 bit O/S are two entirely different issues. The AMD 64 bit processors can run the 32 bit versions of O/S. They support all the way back to Windows 98 and ME (shudder at the thought of ME).

Running 64 bit XP requires different hardware drivers. Having a 64 bit processor does not if it's running 32 bit XP.

Tom.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Not really different[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Fushigi on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 12:49:23 PM PDT

I was responding to the above Anonymous poster's comments: "In particular, x64 is a high end OS for power users. The scanner in question (a $125 machine) is intended for home use rather than commercial/industrial use."

I made a case that 64 bit hardware was not and is not 'high end' and is in fact marketed towards the home user. Considering that those with 64 bit hardware are the sole target audience for a 64 bit OS one pretty much has to consider XP64 as having some marketability to the home user. Of course, whether it makes sense for the home user is another issue entirely.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Don't toss that scanner...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Lazlo Nibble on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 10:17:29 AM PDT

BTW, I had a similar experience with a Umax SCSI scanner. Drivers were fine through Windows 98 and NT 4 but they didn't release any for Windows 2000. A friend managed to make the NT drivers partly work in 2000; I gave up.
Not to derail, but I was able to get my ancient Umax Astra 1200S working great under XP Pro SP2 with a package called VueScan from Hamrick Software. For the 1200S it talks directly to the scanner, so there aren't any drivers needed. Folks who are hitting the wall with their manufacturer's drivers should give it a try. It supports several hundred different models, runs in Windows/OS X/Linux flavors and is a lot cheaper than buying a new scanner (especially a new 14" one, like I would have needed). It's also a lot more powerful than any of the pack-in software I was able to get out of Umax over the years.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Astra 1200S[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Fushigi on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 12:51:14 PM PDT

Yes, that was the model. I'll let my friend know about VueScan; he may still have his scanner. I've moved on and no longer even have SCSI in any of my machines.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Getting New Drivers Isn't a Canon of Faith | 139 comments (139 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:

Menu
· create account
· faq
· search

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

 HOME  NEWS  COLUMNS  BLOGS  PODCASTS  TECHNOLOGIES  TEST CENTER  EVENTS  CAREERS  IT EXEC-CONNECT   About Awards Contact Us 

Copyright © 2006, Reprints, Permissions, Licensing, IDG Network, Privacy Policy.
All Rights reserved. InfoWorld is a leading publisher of technology information and product reviews on topics including viruses,
phishing, worms, firewalls, security, servers, storage, networking, wireless, databases, and web services.

 ComputerWorld :: LinuxWorld :: Network World :: CIO :: PC World :: Darwin :: CMO :: CSO
IT Careers :: JavaWorld :: Macworld :: Mac Central :: Playlist :: GamePro :: GameStar :: Gamerhelp
ITWorld Canada :: Computerwoche :: Techworld UK :: tecChannel :: IDG.se :: IDG.no :: IDG.pl

create account | faq | search