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."
> 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.
I thought it meant that the manufacturer had paid a fee to Microsoft.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This is slashdot.
;-)
I want to know if it is Linux compatible..
Ducks
The truth shall set you free!
3.0 times = 6 6 6
SATAN LOGO PROGRAM!
Isn't Windows Approved a warning message?
Fight Spammers!
What the hell does "certified for Windows Vista" mean other than works with Windows Vista? You have to be completely daft to claim this is not false advertising to place such a certification on a product and not have that product work with Windows Vista.
You know as in winmodem or winprinter, a device that has taken much of the logic from the device were it belongs and onto the cpu were it will cause slowdown and despite the fact that software should be easier to update this only means the device will ship with buggy logic wich will never actually get updated.
Windows "ready" meant stay the fuck away. This is crap only a windows user would fall for.
After all, what device does NOT work with windows? For all its craptastic nature the windows OS widely supported and you would be very hard pressed to go into an average store (look, the apple store does not count alright) selling computer components and come out with a device that does not have windows drivers.
The windows logo therefore means absolutely nothing. Never has, never will. It can't, ms can't even certify its own stuff. Let alone others. When MS stuff works with MS stuff, then and only then can they start commenting on others people hardware.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Windows are something a burglar crawls throough and something that you jump out of when there is a fire.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Think of VISTA READY as HDTV-READY.
:)
When you buy an HDTV-READY television, that doesn't mean it will handle HDTV. You still have to buy more hardware to convert the signal. So by VISTA READY, I think one can construe that you still need to buy additional RAM, among other things.
The page being linked to has so much advertising-related dreck that it uses 8-12% of the CPU just sitting there. Much more if you move the mouse over it. And that's with popup blocking. There's ad-related Javascript on that page for at least five different ad systems: "Rojackpot", "Google Syndication", "PriceGrabber", "Extreme-DM.com", and "AdSolution". Plus attempts to get the article onto Digg and Reddit.
The article content sucks, too. They don't understand the WHQL process, and don't give any real insight into whether it is broken. It's just a page of junk content intended to fool blogs like Slashdot into feeding them traffic. And Slashdot's "editors" fell for it.
When I see that logo, it means "Hey, the cost of this laptop includes that of a Windows license that you're not going to use." (I just install Linux.)
That is, when I see the logo I get reminded of the Windows tax that I'm about to pay, and get more annoyed with both M$ and the manufacturer.
All the toilets and urinals that I've relocated "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" stickers onto seem to work fine. Just have use a drop of superglue under them to make sure they stay put.
The Windows logo program worked for XP because MS management seems to have been more competent with XP than they have been with Vista. Is this because of top level personnel changes, MS being spooked by increasingly visible competition (regardless of actual threat level to MS) since 2001, or both?
It was never meant to actually certify anything, only give the appearance of such. The fact that it worked for XP is icing on the cake, but the slapdash hardware situation (insane system requirements, spotty device support) in Vista exposes the program for what it is: a way for hardware OEM's to ride MS's monopoly coattails.
Many years ago (ouch, forty maybe?) I remember Ralph Nader making a cameo appearance on Rowan and Martin's Laugh In. He said, "I understand that General Motors has a new guarantee on their tires ... you're guaranteed four of them."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Not anymore. Now I would say that /. is split amongst the OSs. If you make a disparaging remark about Windows, even when true, you will get modded down in a BIG way. Near as I can tell, it is not just the fanboys doing this. I suspect that MS has paid FUDers here to try and keep things in check. Finally, I have noticed that the tech. level of /. has decreased significantly over the last decade. That says a lot.
Look at one of the references in the linked article: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=393& pgno=1
A "Vista Certified" device that:
A)Is incredibly difficult to get to install, and
B)Results in repeatable on-boot BSODs, and
C)Is incredibly difficult to get to uninstall, *and*
D)Leaves packages on your HD after uninstall that cause repeatable on-boot BSODs.
Either the Vista (display) driver development process is as much of an after-thought as Linux driver development, or Vista's "NEW AND INNOVATIVE" hardware environment is so incredibly buggy that wrestling with all the necessary work arounds is a very difficult task.
My guess? The new Vista driver model is so overly complex that developers will have a hard time working with it indefinitely. Either development budgets will have to go up (unlikely, for ATI and Nvidia, at least), or hardware release cycles will have to slow. Given that Vista has been in *public* development for such a long time (Betas & Release candidates), I'm guessing there is a systematic problem to driver development that most hardware companies cannot adapt to.
Take a look at this: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=357
"Finally, the complexity of these drivers is simply astounding. Diercks claimed that each of the six drivers that NVIDIA has to develop for Windows Vista is roughly 20 million lines of code long; about as much code as Windows NT 4! While I am sure there is some significant driver overlap between the six separate modules and the 20 million lines on each, projects of that magnitude are something most normal people couldnt even begin to wrap their heads around. "
Consider that Vista contains approximately 50 million lines of code, and took 5+ years to develop. Consider that Linux Kernel 2.6.0 was 6 million lines of code, and contains *thousands* of drivers.
Now, does this mean that Vista driver programmers are simply going to give up, Vista will collapse, and we'll all switch to another OS? Of course not; these companies *will* manage to overcome the overly complex development environment, and will create working drivers. In Time.
What we may see, however, is that Linux drivers will start improving faster than Windows drivers; and I can even potentially forsee a day when the Linux binary video drivers beat Vista drivers to the punch, in terms of properly supporting newer hardware. Architectural problems don't necessarily cause development to fail, but serious organizational difficulties impact release cycle, and result in more annoyance and security bugs.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
All it is, is a very expensive bribe to Microsoft that basically forces companies to pay a large fee to have their product "approved". I've gone through the approval process at my last 2 jobs about 4 times for different products -- and it is a total joke. The "test" (if you can even call it that) process is not efficient and is mostly just approved if you have the $$$ cash $$$ to pay up.
This forces out smaller companies of many markets, since the majority of Windows home and even business users are ignorant to the actual process (with good reason of course, they don't know any better). If you're trying to market a product to Windows users, if they don't see that magic "compliant (approved, bought out, bribed, etc..)" logo on the product, it's a lost sale.
The program is a total joke.
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.