Might MS conspire with hardware/chip manufacturers?

[Moozillaaa]

I'm not looking for a tech solution here; rather educated guesses about the topic title - perhaps from developers ...

I have a new build, researched for compatibility, and it seems that Windows is able to do some tasks that Linux is having more difficulty with...

Up until today, I thought all the tasks might be attributable to faulty onboard graphics hardware (still do, and I'm waiting for a replacement board).

But today, I tried a file copy task from one ext2 disk to another ext2 disk, and Linux wouldn't complete the task. I booted Windows, and it had no problem, first time.

Is it possible that Linux cannot handle some basic hardware, with advanced, or proprietary, or even generic driver software?

If so, could it be by design???



edit:
The word 'conspire' [conspiracy] seems to quickly facilitate less-focused responses, and subjectivity as well. Maybe mods/admins can change the word to 'collude'???

There's already some good OBJECTIVE answers tho', like Froghairs' here ...

[mickie.kext]

No.

[endotherm]

Ms and Intel had some backdoor arrangements for a while, that got tied into their antitrust investigations both on the MS side, and in their defense against AMD.
search around a bit and you will find some court documents and whatnot. one of the most recent collusions was the dumbing down of the Vista Capable/Ready label given to new boxes in the later half of '05 into '06. Intel had a lot of 915 motherboards in inventory that could not run areo, so MS and Intel agreed to water the program down so that they could continue to sell the boards, despite the fact that they do not support the minimum vista feature set.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/vista-capable-logo-what-went-wrong/1391

[Frogs Hair]

There is hardware made to be direct x 10 and 11 compatible and direct x is Microsoft . Companies want their products to be compliant with the operating system that has the largest market share. I would not consider that conspiring.

[tgm4883]

No.

/thread

[alexan]

not sure about your case; but by sure you (as microsoft) can't have all the hardware manufacturer wag their tail behind you.... if you didn't make someone happy by time in time.

I've not actual article/link reference (maybe someone can help me to dig this out) But when XP (or was Me?) did come out some HWM/reseller did protest against Microsoft keep low the RAM requirements: many ram banks remained on the shelf: it was the time when the price of the ram did fall a lot (was more expensive previously). The next edition of Windows put a "fix" on it

Windows 98: ram required 16MiB
Windows ME: ram required 32MiB (x2)
Windows XP: ram required 128MiB (x5) <- this
Windows Vista: ram required 1024MiB (x8 ) <- or this
Winndows Seven: ram required 1024MiB (x1) <- (MS got P---ed with the Hardware manufacturer and their stupid complain which made Vista the second worst OS ever made)


The most "great" innovation in seven was, probably, kick out all the stupid things MS had to add in Vista.

[whiskeylover]

/thread

Its funny seeing people chirp in with a "/thread" comment in various threads, only to have the thread keep continuing.

[amauk]

Given the fact that the OP isn't asking for help
I'm ignoring the file copying thing (which is in no way an issue - something else is going on there - permissions?)

Anyway,
it's very well documented that MS (at least in the past) has colluded with hardware manufacturers to try and make some hardware capabilities Windows-only
(or at least, better under Windows)

ACPI is the classic example
The mechanism by which software indicates to hardware that it can suspend, for power saving

A lot of interesting stuff came out of the Comes Vs. Microsoft court case

Like this
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2010011422570951

Now, none of what MS has tried to do has been overly successful
but they have tried to tie x86 to Windows

[tgm4883]

Its funny seeing people chirp in with a "/thread" comment in various threads, only to have the thread keep continuing.

I suppose I could have a much larger post to this thread, such as this one. Where I go on and on answering the OP's question, but in the end, /thread just seemed much easier to type. After all, MS isn't causing the issue here, and that is what the OP asked. But then again, I guess you have nothing better to do with your time than to read other peoples posts. So I will oblige and give you something to read.

[Stancel]

The reason most computers use Windows is not only because their main competitor Apple has no interest in expanding Mac OS X beyond Apple computers, and most people have no idea what Linux is (and would probably not enjoy having to use the terminal). So they see the only option as Windows because it is popular and is not just for tech savvy people. But also since you can't upgrade from Vista to 7 for free, it encourages people to buy a new computer anyway to get the new OS. While distribution upgrades in Ubuntu are freely available via Update Manager.

[ubunterooster]

I motion that whenever we see one of these threads we make sure it has a "conspiracy!" tag

[Stancel]

I motion that whenever we see one of these threads we make sure it has a "conspiracy!" tag

I second this motion:p

[Moozillaaa]

Perhaps 'conspire' is not the correct word (or perhaps it is) ...

This is a good answer:


There is hardware made to be direct x 10 and 11 compatible and direct x is Microsoft . Companies want their products to be compliant with the operating system that has the largest market share. I would not consider that conspiring.So a question then to ask is, is Direct x proprietary/patented in its' function?

Is it designed TOTALLY out of practicality, being as simple as the software-hardware link can be???

Or is exclusivity integrated into it?

[samjh]

Is it possible that Linux cannot handle some basic hardware, with advanced, or proprietary, or even generic driver software?

If so, could it be by design???

So, if Linux works well with hardware, it's compatibility. But if Windows works well with hardware, it's a conspiracy? :confused:

Less tin foil, more sense. :p

[whiskeylover]

I suppose I could have a much larger post to this thread, such as this one. Where I go on and on answering the OP's question, but in the end, /thread just seemed much easier to type. After all, MS isn't causing the issue here, and that is what the OP asked. But then again, I guess you have nothing better to do with your time than to read other peoples posts. So I will oblige and give you something to read.

You didn't get the point of my post. Your post was just as pointless as the /thread post. What did it accomplish? Nothing other than spew a bit of sarcasm. How clever. Congratulations.

[endotherm]

Perhaps 'conspire' is not the correct word (or perhaps it is) ...

This is a good answer:
So a question then to ask is, is Direct x proprietary/patented in its' function?

Is it designed TOTALLY out of practicality, being as simple as the software-hardware link can be???

Or is exclusivity integrated into it?
DirectX is composed of many patented "Inventions", so yes patent licensing is much of the problem. one of the important things to understand about software patents, is that unlike copyright, they don;t go down to the code of the invention, but only exist as abstract claims. that means that if you patent an abstract algorithm/claim, no one else can come up with their own way to implement any algorithm or claim that does the same job. this is in contrast to hardware patents, where all you have to do is change a bit of the engineering here or there.

[tgm4883]

You didn't get the point of my post. Your post was just as pointless as the /thread post. What did it accomplish? Nothing other than spew a bit of sarcasm. How clever. Congratulations.

Thanks, I like to be congratulated :)

[Moozillaaa]

DirectX is composed of many patented "Inventions", so yes patent licensing is much of the problem. one of the important things to understand about software patents, is that unlike copyright, they don;t go down to the code of the invention, but only exist as abstract claims. that means that if you patent an abstract algorithm/claim, no one else can come up with their own way to implement any algorithm or claim that does the same job. this is in contrast to hardware patents, where all you have to do is change a bit of the engineering here or there.

So the patented software 'math function' (which by definition must have hardware associated with it), relies solely on patent rights' protection?

Or would the patent holder rely more on his own 'devices' for protection?

Or both?

[endotherm]

So the patented software 'math function' (which by definition must have hardware associated with it), relies solely on patent rights' protection?

Or would the patent holder rely more on his own 'devices' for protection?

Or both?

I assume that any licensed implementation of a patent's invention would be covered by associated copyrights. though up until the Bilsky decision there hasn't be a requirement that an algorithm have a machine or physical manifestation associated with it. business process patents for instance have no real material component. with luck, the USPTO will start using a "machine or transformation" test for judging the patentibility of soft patent applications, but the SCOTUS stoped short of insisting that the test be applied or that it be the most meaningful test.

[clanky]

I'm not looking for a tech solution here; rather educated guesses about the topic title - perhaps from developers ...

I have a new build, researched for compatibility, and it seems that Windows is able to do some tasks that Linux is having more difficulty with...

Up until today, I thought all the tasks might be attributable to faulty onboard graphics hardware (still do, and I'm waiting for a replacement board).

But today, I tried a file copy task from one ext2 disk to another ext2 disk, and Linux wouldn't complete the task. I booted Windows, and it had no problem, first time.

Is it possible that Linux cannot handle some basic hardware, with advanced, or proprietary, or even generic driver software?

If so, could it be by design???



edit:
The word 'conspire' [conspiracy] seems to quickly facilitate less-focused responses, and subjectivity as well. Maybe mods/admins can change the word to 'collude'???

There's already some good OBJECTIVE answers tho', like Froghairs' here ...

What exactly are you asking here?

- Do Microsoft work with chip manufacturers to ensure that Windows works well?, or

- Do Microsoft work with chip manufacturers to somehow try and sabotage Linux?

[Moozillaaa]

Granted, I posted this AFTER this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249 ) started, but I was right on the money..........

[weasel fierce]

Granted, I posted this AFTER this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249 ) started, but I was right on the money..........

er yeah, you posted 2 years after.

[amauk]

maybe he's a slow typer

[ubunterooster]

maybe he's a slow typer
Roflmao

[MonolithImmortal]

Less tin foil, more sense. :p
What you don't realize is that there is a conspiracy involving the tinfoil companies to market their tinfoil to linux users.

[Khakilang]

All the conspiracy theory and suspicion just because you couldn't copy a file? I have move all my files, photos, music and movie with a total of 70GB to an external 250GB hard disk without any issue. I have even copy my photo to the computer from my digital camera. There must be something else.

[pwnst*r]

The sky is falling.