Slashdot Mirror
Does the Windows Logo Mean Anything?
Dan writes "The Windows Logo Program was supposed to be Microsoft's key to ensuring that all hardware devices work well with the Windows operating system. It worked in Windows XP, it would be expected to work just as well in Windows Vista. Unfortunately, there are obvious signs that the Windows Logo Program is no longer a trustworthy standard. Recently, even graphics cards are getting certified without working drivers. The article digs into the 321-page Microsoft Windows Logo Program 3.0 document to find out what the Windows logo is supposed to mean in Vista."
they've tried this in so many forms. Recall that Microsoft update was, in it's original incarnation, meant to be *the* portal for drivers/hardware utilities from hardware manufacturers, update to windows itself was an aspect, but not the only one.
I wish I could find the article I read at the time. Probably its in waybackmachine somewhere, I can't be the only one who saw this.
That's why so many things installed into windows xp by users produce the 'this driver has not been signed by Microsoft/may harm your system' stuff. That's a hangover from the expectation that manufacturers would allow Microsoft to manage their drivers for them and verify their correctness. I suspect this was an attempt, at least at first, to ensure that people didn't produce drivers that might break windows itself.
It was rejected on the very sound grounds that this would give Microsoft far too much control over the software of these other companies. After all, if Microsoft controlled the only place to get verified drivers, then that meant they could just as easily decide to halt supply of a driver if a company failed to play ball. I don't think it was meant to involve a fee.
They're trying it again in Vista, albeit in slightly different form.
If you make a disparaging remark about Windows, even when true, you will get modded down in a BIG way.
Please read the comment again. I didn't say anything bad about Microsoft or Windows. I did say, that I was interested if the hardware does support Linux. I am very happy to report that the number of products reporting Linux compatibility is growing very quickly.
I needed a presentation pointer (Power Point remote) 2 weeks ago. Visiting Office Depot, I found a set of remotes. Many listed software requirements and Windows versions it was compatible with. The one I picked up is the one simply listed as "No Drivers Required" Plug and play compatible with Windows, Macintosh, and Linux. The package was right. The remote simply was a remote page up page down and enter USB keyboard.
Many items which list Windows compatiblility have the listing only for the included software. I picked up a Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse and assumed that I would only get basic 102 key functionality without installing the Windows software.
Woo! Hoo!.. All the buttons I tested worked. The volume, mute, play, internet, email... all worked on Dapper Drake. I wish they had noted that on the outside of the box.
Most hardware comes with the assumption of Windows or Macintosh compatibility.
Now not bashing Windows... What I want to know is Is it Linux compatible? Lots of stuff is, but they don't mention it on the box.
Since I am transitioning away from Windows.. I don't care much if it is Windows compatible.
The truth shall set you free!
I'll take the bait. I don't like replying to cowards but I will anyway
...thing... that just isn't possible
I dual boot WinXP and Ubuntu. When people are wondering whether or not to switch, I always ask them what they use their computer for. Hardware is always a second consideration. The whole operating systems wars isn't as black and white as you think. For some, FOSS suits their needs best. For others, windows does. There is a lot more too it than that, but as soon as you dogmatically say that Windows is better that Linux, or indeed vice-versa, you're trying to make both operating systems into some sort of solve-all-your-problems
My second argument is supply and demand. If people didn't actively want an alternative to their old operating system, why would there be one available? You can't develop something with the expectation that no people will use it.
Indeed I shortened my list of problems, where malware dumped on the PC from various web based exploits seem to be at the root of lots of problems, some of which then cause various malfunctions (possibly because of badly written malware).
When the computer gets scrambled up, then the time spent extracting various data files before wiping the HD comes in as another time waster.
I am into "Use What Works Easiest".
At least if Win XP Pro on Parallels in a MacMini goes wonko, replacement of the virtual HD file is as simple as can be. Plus, if you want to extract files from a corrupted PC file, you can just save the file somewhere else to work on it.
I've worked with some products before and despite not in any way being responsible for Windows working, I have been greatful for WHQL certification on occasion. I'll discover a problem which needs to be fixed, and unless absolutely completely unable to dodge the issue, they'll ignore it and push back on it to get the product out the door. Then, magically, some one on the Windows side of the company has a WHQL test fail due to my issue, and it suddenly becomes a show stopper.
Once upon a time, we had a very very obscure problem that they shipped that prevented WHQL certification. Until that was going to be fixed, they shipped it as a linux-only offering. Many many expensive weeks of trying to support thousands of these things that were dying left and right finally nailed down what caused the strange sudden deaths of the product, the WHQL-blocking flaw they neglected in the name of getting it out the door for linux...
In summary, WHQL isn't the whole picture, but no company producing hardware regardless of the Windows market should ignore it, unless they have an impeccable testing track record without ever looking at WHQL.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.