I was going to donate a HP printer to the arts center I'm volunteering for, but the computer they have right now is a PII-233Mhz machine running Windows98. This turns out to be a sticking point which prevents the printer from being useful to them, as I don't have the original Windows driver CD.
I found out that HP (and I expect most other printer manufacturers) have discontinued support for Windows98 (since July 2007), going so far as to remove all Windows98 printer drivers from their website, not even making them available on an "as-is, no official support" manner. Folks with older computers running Windows98 (that can't run any newer version of Windows) cannot use new printers, even those manufactured prior to July 2007.
Linux, of course, still receives printer driver support from HP and a few other places (and auto-installs HP USB printers without any prompting), so it appears that to donate the HP printer I'm probably going to have to donate Linux as well, either on the existing system or donate a newer computer as well.
(sits back and waits for the inevitable "standards printers are a better choice than driver-based printers" comment from someone... ;-) )
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
(sits back and waits for the inevitable "standards printers are a better choice than driver-based printers" comment from someone... ;-) )
Close. REAL printers are better than Winprinters. If all I want to print is monospaced text, I should be able to send the ASCII for that text to the printer. I'm even willing to prepend carriage returns to line feeds along the way, if the printer is configured that way (but I also want to be able to configure that on the printer itself). However, the idea that it's necessary to have a "driver" to paint the picture of that text with graphics primitives seems ridiculous. Computing devices ought to be ISO 646 compliant, without any fancy footwork on the other end of a communications channel.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
(sits back and waits for the inevitable "standards printers are a better choice than driver-based printers" comment from someone... ;-) )
No, but running a 10 year old operating system that has no support from anyone is foolish, yes. Even the oldest Linux distribution with vendor support is only 6 years old (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1) and it's only supported through May of next year (2009). It won't be making it to the 10 year mark with support. Run something from this century, m'kay? ;-)
--- On Sat, 7/26/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 4:12 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
(sits back and waits for the inevitable "standards printers are a better choice than driver-based printers" comment from someone... ;-) )
No, but running a 10 year old operating system that has no support from anyone is foolish, yes.
Well, that was largely the *point* of my message, to provide another way to encourage folks still on Windows 98 to upgrade to Linux so that their ancient computers can use modern inexpensive peripherals (such as sub-$30 HP printers). N...<an older technology mentioned in this list>...may still have uses but Windows98 certainly doesn't.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sat, 7/26/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
No, but running a 10 year old operating system that has no support from anyone is foolish, yes.
Well, that was largely the *point* of my message, to provide another way to encourage folks still on Windows 98 to upgrade to Linux so that their ancient computers can use modern inexpensive peripherals (such as sub-$30 HP printers). N...<an older technology mentioned in this list>...may still have uses but Windows98 certainly doesn't.
Ah, well good! I certainly hope no one here is still using Windows 98. I just couldn't tell from your message that you were trying to encourage people to move off of it. It sounded like a defense of Windows 98 and "those damned printer vendors will have to pry Windows 98 from my cold, dead hands!" or something. ;-)
I think I have my Windows 95 gold CD around here somewhere (the first retail version of Windows 95). Maybe I'll rip an ISO and boot it in Parallels and see what happens. Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.
On Sunday 27 July 2008 12:22:24 pm Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.
I did too, and ran it until a motherboard upgrade left it unbootable. It was very stable for me, and as we began running linux on more of it's hardware, we found that a lot of the crashes we attributed to "that darned Microsoft" were actually problems with the hardware.
Never liked 98 much, especially it's habit of reconfiguring the hardware on each boot - much like mistakes being made today with user-space dynamic hardware configuration.
My NT4 server has run for years without problems, but a failing hard disk has finally prodded me to run something new. With NT, the key to stability was System Admins who actually knew what they were doing. Plenty of paper MSCE's should never been allowed near a keyboard.
My main problem with Win95 was that it was a house of cards. Things could be running really well, then a bad upgrade or new driver could make the damn thing crap itself out.
Win2000/XP weren't bad OSes, at least they could be kept in decent shape, that is until you got a virus through your email or IE. :)
Jeffrey.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.orgwrote:
On Sunday 27 July 2008 12:22:24 pm Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.
I did too, and ran it until a motherboard upgrade left it unbootable. It was very stable for me, and as we began running linux on more of it's hardware, we found that a lot of the crashes we attributed to "that darned Microsoft" were actually problems with the hardware.
Never liked 98 much, especially it's habit of reconfiguring the hardware on each boot - much like mistakes being made today with user-space dynamic hardware configuration.
My NT4 server has run for years without problems, but a failing hard disk has finally prodded me to run something new. With NT, the key to stability was System Admins who actually knew what they were doing. Plenty of paper MSCE's should never been allowed near a keyboard.
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.bell@gmail.com wrote:
I think I have my Windows 95 gold CD around here somewhere (the first retail version of Windows 95). Maybe I'll rip an ISO and boot it in Parallels and see what happens. Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.
At the time Windows95 came out, I was working for an ISP and Windows95 was like a gift from heaven.
Those of you who remember back to the days when the web (according to Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame) was composed entirely of some text files and 12 pictures of dinosaurs, may also recall that Windows 3.1 did not come with TCP/IP (NetBeui Rulz!...not). If we wanted to sell an Internet account with our ISP, we had to arrange for the customer to get a copy of "Trumpet Winsock" so they could get on the Internet, and it was hell to configure (especially over the phone). Windows95 came with TCP/IP standard and it was a lot easier to configure, and easier to tell some computer illiterate customer over the phone how to configure it.
Ironically the problem with Windows 3.1 is sorta like the current problem I have with Ubuntu: while Ubuntu comes standard with TCP/IP, it does not have the option of configuring a modem during install, and in fact is a little harder to add a modem than configuring "Trumpet Winsock" ever was. Ubuntu assumes that the end user has some form of broadband Ethernet-based Internet, somewhat strange as I was given to understand it was originally developed for Third World countries.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
At the time Windows95 came out, I was working for an ISP and Windows95 was like a gift from heaven.
Those of you who remember back to the days when the web (according to Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame) was composed entirely of some text files and 12 pictures of dinosaurs, may also recall that Windows 3.1 did not come with TCP/IP (NetBeui Rulz!...not). If we wanted to sell an
Internet account with our ISP, we had to arrange for the customer to get a copy of "Trumpet Winsock" so they could get on the Internet, and it was hell to configure (especially over the phone). Windows95 came with TCP/IP standard and it was a lot easier to configure, and easier to tell some computer illiterate customer over the phone how to configure it.
Dino pics, hah! One of the first things I did back after the day I got my first modem was get a shell account (Grapevine or their precursor, IIRC). Then I heard about this new "surfing the web" thing and decided I needed to try it "for real". On a mostly stock Amiga 500. Enter some sort of software that took a UNIX shell dial up on one end and ran a server that tunnelled TCP/IP over the dial up serial line to a custom client on the Amiga which then had to have it's own TCP/IP capable browser to grab web pages. This wasn't a regular SLIP/CSLIP/PPP setup, for sure. I had been running Lynx on the Sun shell account for a bit before this. The first actual image I ever saw over the web was a green and orange T-Rex. I was completely blown away. Of course that was back in the days when I though Gopher was going to be the end-all-be-all of internet tech...
Okay, "you are nostalgic for stupid things".
You're welcome. J.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Christofer C. Bell < christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I have my Windows 95 gold CD around here somewhere (the first retail version of Windows 95). Maybe I'll rip an ISO and boot it in Parallels and see what happens. Call me nostalgic for stupid things, but I really liked Windows 95.
-
Christofer C. Bell -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jon Pruente -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Leo Mauler -
Monty J. Harder