Registered: Jan 2001
Location:
Posts: 278

We have seen this before with USB 1.0. Does NT support it at all,? no. Only 2000, 98se, and ME do. Win 98se doesn't even really support Firewire and microsoft is saying that it is their preferred port. Microsoft is feeding us **** and always will. If you will want USB 2.0 you will need to buy a new OS, which ever follows XP. They are in this for the money not making a strong superior product. I have to say beta 2 of XP runs really well and I like it. Now I need to see if they screw it up in RC 1 which I should get hopefully in a week.

--David

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

You are evidently making some mistaken assumptions about my perspective, Brad. I'm hardly some anti-Microsoft drone. I'd consider my perspective on them more of a neutral nature, or at worst a balanced 'love/hate relationship'. Their software sucks from lots of perspectives, but from lots of others, they're doing better than anyone else, so I deal with it. They also have a great hardware division.

Originally posted by bradhaak:
Then we disagree and I think that your point of view on this is wrong and unreasonable.

Wrong? Possibly, and I'm willing to accept any evidence. Unreasonable? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not a big deal,

Well, it is a significant deal when you accuse me of being unreasonable without foundation.

but from your point of view, if MS made a statement a year ago that USB 2.0 support would be present based on commitments from IHVs that sufficient hardware would be available to make the feature possible, Than MS is somehow the one at fault and the one backpedalling when the promised hardware doesn't materialize.

No, I never said anything about fault. Would it be backpedalling? Yes. Would it be justified? Yes. Very significant distinction. I evidently don't have the same highly negative connotation of 'backpedal' which you assign to it. Backpedal just means to retreat or back away from a previous position. Any good strategist realizes that sometimes a retreat is not only justified, but the best move you have at the time.

At this point MS had no choice but to remove the feature.

Again, understandable, but still evidently backing away from a previous statement.

The irresponsible thing would have been to release a set of drivers that hadn't been tested against real-world products.

I agree. I never said anything about their being irresponsible or otherwise, though. Don't put words into my mouth.

The people that did the backpedalling were the hardware companies that didn't meet their delivery commitments.

That's not backpedalling. That's failing. On second thought, I could consider it backpedalling if they only slipped a bit (a week or two), but with things such as Bluetooth, backpedalling doesn't even begin to address the level of failure which the hardware people have achieved. If they're backpedalling, they're doing it while going downhill backwards on the streets of San Francisco.

If MS had included incompatible, incomplete drivers, the masses (possibly including you) would have been castigating MS for releasing software prematurely because obviously there weren't enough devices out there to write a reasonable set of drivers for USB 2.0 and why didn't MS hold off on support until a decent level of compatibility could be guaranteed.

And why would it be wrong or unreasonable to do so? Again, just because I think they would be backpedalling a bit in your example doesn't mean that I think they would be in the wrong for doing so (I think they're more wrong for bowing to pressure and potentially doing just what you say here rather than waiting until significant hardware is available). Overall, the USB situation remains to be seen when the final product is released and the implementation (or lack thereof) is available for review.

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 380

I still don't think that it is backpedalling on MSs part. An online dictionary (I don't think that I have a print dictionary anymore) gives the following definition:

quote:

---

to try to escape the consequences of a statement or action by retracting it, modifying it, or toning it down

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

Originally posted by bradhaak:
I still don't think that it is backpedalling on MSs part.

From the standpoint that they said it wouldn't be included since there wasn't adequate hardware support and then later said they might ship with it or release it simultaneously through some other channel, I think it is.

[...] I have worked with MS dozens of times on new features to be added to various versions of Windows back to Win 3.0. In all cases, without exception, new feature commitment has always explicitely required support hardware or external APIs to be compete prior to feature inclusion.

Which would explain 95B with USB exactly how?

Just because news reports are incomplete doesn't change the fact that this is always a condition. Based on this, I still beleive that appearance of backpedalling is the result of a jornalistic oversight/creation.

Again, a possibility that I acknowledge, but not one that I will accept as fact without seeing a bit more evidence.

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 380

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
From the standpoint that they said it wouldn't be included since there wasn't adequate hardware support and then later said they might ship with it or release it simultaneously through some other channel, I think it is.

---

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

Originally posted by bradhaak:
I have not seen anything that said (at least that I remember) that MS would release any drivers simultaneously [...]

So, you didn't read the original link I posted to which you first replied? Stork talks about that being an option, as well as trying to shoehorn support into the shipping product at the last minute (a practice which they would 'never' do).

edit:Now I think I realize where the confusion is coming from. You assumed when I said Microsoft backpedalled that I meant they said they were never going to support USB 2.0 {which the CNet headline implies (I rarely read headlines), but the article doesn't say}, and then later changed that. What I was saying was that they weren't going to include USB 2.0 in the same context that they weren't going to include Bluetooth (which is what GSR13 seemed to be asking) originally, but they were apparently changing that position and were possibly going to include it in the shipping product (which the eetimes article references). Now if you take that into account when reading my reply to your reply, perhaps my meaning will become clearer. IOW, "Not unless CNet was lying here. That says pretty unequivocally that USB 2.0 would not be included period. Now it might or might not." means the CNet article said it wouldn't be included in the shipping product whereas the eetimes article says it might be included in the shipping product.

Win 95B was made specifically for OEMs that were shipping USB peripherals. It was never available as a retail product.

Doesn't matter. From a lot of people's perspectives, it was a fiasco. They had a nice new computer with USB ports and an operating system that claimed to support USB. When they saw that new USB widget, though, they found out that it wouldn't work unless they bought the new Windows 98. Not that I necessarily think they were right or wrong for thinking that way, but Microsoft obviously didn't think that one through (which Stork mentioned in the eetimes article I first posted).

Last edited by Toby on 07-12-2001 at 08:10 PM