From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 15:02:34 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799E816A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:02:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from trans-warp.net (hyperion.trans-warp.net [216.37.208.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD6E43D60 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:02:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsilver@chrononomicon.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unverified [65.193.73.208]) by trans-warp.net (SurgeMail 2.2g3) with ESMTP id 1623329 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:02:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <467487023.20050329162852@wanadoo.fr> References: <42480F8B.1060405@makeworld.com> <1648629793.20050329122346@wanadoo.fr> <42496060.1060404@makeworld.com> <467487023.20050329162852@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bart Silverstrim Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:02:28 -0500 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com X-Authenticated-User: bsilver@chrononomicon.com X-DNS-Paranoid: DNS ptr lookup of (65.193.73.208) failed Subject: Re: Anthony's drive issues.Re: ssh password delay X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:02:34 -0000 On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chris writes: > >> I disagree - If FBSD does not (or did not) know of the HP/Compaq >> tweakes >> in the microcode, how can you claim it's broken? > > Because it works with Windows NT. If a machine with a gig of memory runs fine under DOS but actually has a bad big of memory hardware near the 512 meg address range, it would probably still run "flawlessly" for a very very long time... >> If MS does not support or have a driver for so-and-so app or hardware, >> does it also mean Windows is broken? > > No, but if the base code in the OS fails to handle the hardware > properly, Windows is broken. But if you swap the hardware with a replacement and it works, how do you explain Windows being broken when that would suggest it was the hardware that was broken? > As for drivers, it depends on the > hardware. Nobody has demonstrated to me that the hardware on this > machine is so exotic that it cannot be supported with standard drivers > thus far. You never put it on another identical Vectra to prove it was reproducible. > And the copy of Windows I ran came right off the shelf; it > was not a "tweaked" version from HP (such a version came preinstalled, > but the first thing I did with the hardware was wipe the hard disk). The problem being asserted is that the hardware was tweaked. The firmware microcode. >> According to you, it is. According to the vast majority, it's not >> broken, it's merely unsupported. > > Same thing. Really? Windows XP must be broken. I can't install it on my Mac. >> You could say the same about your hardware based on what you just >> said, >> if FBSD does not have the teaks to the driver version you need, then >> (as >> you think) your hardware is broken. > > Yes ... except that it worked with Windows NT. Fine. FreeBSD is broken. Reinstall Windows and stop complaining. >> Read above to if MS don't support or have a driver for x, y, and z - >> then as you say, Windows is broken. > > Yes. But offhand I don't recall anything for which I was unable to > obtain a Windows driver. Because Windows is far superior in every way shape and form. You should reinstall it and leave this list. PS-if you can still get a driver for the timex Ironman triathlon watch, care to share the link? I can't seem to find it anymore for the Windows 2000 system to work without some IR interface...I wanted to use the screen to update it still...or is Windows broken because I can't use it anymore?