Again, Telus Mr. Kimball (it takes a real chisel to get though that thick
skull) Mat :--
Where's your comment on enabling more people to be able to use their
printers NOW in Vista and these discussions took place in May nearly 8
months and many builds ago. This is a quintissential example of Vista teams
having tin ears and making Vista a lot worse than it could have been. The
parallels are in the appendix.
Chat Topic: Printing - General
Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2006
http://windowsconnected.com/forums/thread/3160.aspx
Frank Olivier [MSFT] (Expert):
Q: I lobbied and want to continue Lobbying you all for a change I think is
much needed and will help a lot of people's printers work immediately versus
not. You all have the pulldown for printer port still preferrring LPT1.
That is a mistake to list LPT1 asthe preferred port because 1) More XP
drivers will work if people use USB2Virtual as the port so LPT1 is ***not
the preferred port. It is less than preferred unless you don't want some
printers to work in Vista. Alan Morris said they would consider this on
Print Team and have been and is their an update?"selection for LPT is due to
the fact that USB devices are supposed to Plug and Play and customers don't
have to run the Add Printer Wizard to select the port and add the printer"
A: We're working on fixing this one - the Add Printer Wizard will not
suggest lpt as the default port.
*******In fact, Vista RTM out of the box has LPT as its default port and
they didn't "work on fixing this one."
Again they were reminded of discussions on the group:
Frank Olivier [MSFT] (Expert):
Q: And as KoZe pointed out on the thread the number of printers coming to
mkt with an LPT1 port is diminishing for home printers.
A: We're aware of this
We're changing the Add Printer Wizard.
******In fact Vista RTM out of the box has LPT as its default prot and they
didn't change it.
There were a number of other discussions with them in the newsgroup and with
Tali Roth PM of the Digital Print team at MSFT. They were acutely aware of
it. They didn't touch the default Printer port after saying they would
change it.
1) The issue was simply how to help people use their printers. I don't see
one word from you that has to do with printers on this thread and it's so
typical. Back in the day, Matt Kimball aka Jupiter Jones concentrated on
Windows issues. Now apparently some components of male menopause have taken
over your pyche.
I knew the way. MSFT agreed. MSFT didn't follow through and their were
several discussions and they heard from others in the same vein. Half of
the MSKBs I see right now were bugs.
As I said prepeatedly, they were told that switching from a default parallel
port to a USB port would enable more printers to work out of the box. They
agreed and then for reasons I can't guess did not do what they said they
were going to do. You didn't address that. You asked for proof. You have
it.
Did I mention more older drivers (that aren't modded or made for Vista
specifically) since many companies are dragging their feet will work if you
changed printer ports? Maybe if HP had focused more on driver development
than eavsdropping on their employees they could have had the time and money
to develop drivers a thousand times over.
2) I didn't wade into Canadian politics. They really aren't a prime
concern. My references that
Americans are apathetic and their President is running them into the ground
as long as they stay apathetic are no more frequent than quotes people sign
with.
CH
____________
Appendix:
To the Editor December 23, 2006 NYTimes
Re "Rudderless in Iraq" (editorial, Dec. 21):
It is time someone pointed out that while the American public and the press
allow this president to reconsider, gather data, conduct a listening tour
and generally stonewall, every single day, some mother will bury her son and
a child will say a final farewell to a father.
There is a real cost in lives, both American and Iraqi, that we deny
utterly.
We have to leave, now. Otherwise, the president should get on a plane, fly
to Baghdad, look the people in the eye and select which ones he is prepared
to sacrifice in his war.
Fellow citizens, where's the outrage? Nancy Hughes
San Francisco, Dec. 21, 2006
To the Editor:
On Nov. 7, the American electorate gave the government a clear directive to
withdraw United States troops from Iraq. Six weeks later, as you say in your
editorial, President Bush and his administration are contemplating sending
more troops to Iraq.
In other words, not only will the directive given to the president by the
electorate be completely ignored, but exactly the opposite is being
contemplated.
It is difficult to imagine any other action that President Bush could take
that so clearly demonstrates his contempt for democratic processes as
outlined in the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Worse, in addition to the problematic issues raised in your editorial,
increasing troop strength by 10 percent will have only a marginal effect,
but Mr. Bush seems simply to lack the ability to move in a new direction, so
we are stuck as he makes the same mistakes again and again.
Ernest L. Mehler
To the Editor:
On Nov. 7, the American electorate gave the government a clear directive to
withdraw United States troops from Iraq. Six weeks later, as you say in your
editorial, President Bush and his administration are contemplating sending
more troops to Iraq.
In other words, not only will the directive given to the president by the
electorate be completely ignored, but exactly the opposite is being
contemplated.
It is difficult to imagine any other action that President Bush could take
that so clearly demonstrates his contempt for democratic processes as
outlined in the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Worse, in addition to the problematic issues raised in your editorial,
increasing troop strength by 10 percent will have only a marginal effect,
but Mr. Bush seems simply to lack the ability to move in a new direction, so
we are stuck as he makes the same mistakes again and again.
Ernest L. Mehler
New York, Dec. 21, 2006
To the Editor:
I have become inured to the president's childlike intransigence with regard
to the war in Iraq. But I am astonished at the Democratic leadership's
weakness and its failure to grasp the prevailing antiwar sentiment among the
citizens of this country.
There's never been a more appropriate moment for the emergence of a third
political party.
Jeffrey P. Bianchi
Douglas, Mich., Dec. 21, 2006
..
To the Editor:
When you believe in destiny, as President Bush does, the details don't
matter. "Victory" is inevitable and will come about one way or another.
But what happens when destiny turns out to be a delusion? We are seeing the
consequences now in Iraq.
Robert J. Inlow
Charlottesville, Va., Dec. 21, 2006
New York, Dec. 21, 2006
December 21, 2006
Editorial
Rudderless in Iraq
Anyone looking for new thinking on Iraq, or even candor, had to be
disappointed by President Bush's news conference yesterday. Mr. Bush may
want to defer unveiling his new strategy, but there will be no obliging
pause in Iraq's unraveling.
The latest Pentagon status report confirms a spiraling death toll, ever
deeper sectarian divisions and near total lawlessness on the streets of
Baghdad, despite repeated American vows to secure the capital. In a further
sign of Iraq's descent, our colleague James Glanz reported this week that
Baghdad gets less than seven hours of electricity a day, as insurgents and
looters dismantle the power grid.
While Mr. Bush contemplates his fast-disappearing options, competing
factions in the administration and the military have been less reticent
about floating their ideas. Some urge a sharp, temporary increase in
American troop strength in Baghdad. Others argue that Iraqi forces should
take the lead, whether or not they're ready. Still others talk about
different ways of reconfiguring Iraq's dysfunctional governing coalition.
The problem is not so much with the specific proposals - some deserve
serious consideration - as with the illusion that the political and military
components of American policy can be pursued in isolation from each other.
That is the kind of made-in-Washington tunnel vision that produced the
current disaster. Only a political strategy, embraced by Iraqis themselves
and backed by American military muscle, can have even a remote chance of
altering events, and even that may be too late.
Consider the talk of a temporary escalation of American forces to impose
some order in Baghdad. That is guaranteed to fail, unless it is tightly
integrated with a political strategy for producing an Iraqi government
finally willing to move against Shiite militias and open a dialogue on
national reconciliation. Without that, any temporary increase could slide
seamlessly into a permanent escalation - something America's depleted ground
forces cannot handle - with no chance of containing the chaos.
And while American diplomats report hints that Iraq's top Shiite cleric,
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, might be willing to support a genuine
national unity government, it remains unclear whether he would countenance
any loss of power for Shiite fundamentalists - and whether Washington has
any leverage left to influence his decision.
Yesterday, Mr. Bush acknowledged the obvious and desperate need to rebuild
America's overstretched ground forces, a subject he refrained from talking
about so long as Donald Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon. But that will take time
and won't be any help in Iraq. Mr. Bush also needs to acknowledge that his
course there has reached a dead end. He needs to quickly define a new
direction while he still has any choices left.
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:u9Dge7uJHHA.1248@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "...without addressing the source"
> I addressed the source by asking for your source.
> You post without a reference then go on a wild tantrum when asked to
> support what you have said.
> the simple answer is for you to give a reference when making such a strong
> statement.
> But, you like the dramatic for reasons only known to you.
>
> I finally found it after wading through your irrelevant rambling.
>
> Whatever reason you brought Canadian politics into this is know only to
> you since there is no relevance whatsoever.
> I have no idea what so ever of your reason unless it is to further your
> political agenda.
> Similarly, you brought up American politics in your wild rant.
>
> "Let me be perfectly clear. My objective..."
> With all your political irrelevant garbage, you have done a great deal to
> make your agenda clear as largely being political.
> If you want to show otherwise, leave the political where it belongs and
> that is clearly not here.
>
> Your personal insults as well as your WRONG assumptions show your
> character again.
> If you had confidence in what you said, you would say it.
> Instead, again you feel the need to shore up your position with personal
> attacks.
> Have someone else make your point, there are those able and more capable
> than you.
> Again you failed miserably.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Chad Harris" <msftneedstogetoutvistainfo.net> wrote in message
> news:OKou2dtJHHA.3264@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> The documentation is on public Vista Beta chats, and it is in the Vista
>> print TBT newsgroup and you currently have access to both Mr. Kimball.
>>
>> LOL--Only someone named Mat Kimball who would adopt some comic strip name
>> Jupiter Jones for whatever reasons as his pen name would post garbage
>> like this, without addressing the source.
>>
>> What would be appropriate is for the MSFT digital document team to fire
>> up an MSKB now that they've screwed the pooch and RTM's Vista on November
>> 7, 2006and shipped Vista RTM to a lot of people and cannot unring this
>> bell.
>>
>> Let me be perfectly clear. My objective is to help people who need their
>> printer, but don't care to take a lot of time to explore the software
>> printing with the drivers they have until months later when more drivers
>> that can help them are made available to MSFT by the printer
>> manufacturers and are on the printer manufacturer sites, instead of
>> meaningless statements that they will support Vista with when that will
>> happen intentionally not on HP or any other site.
>>
>> I can't see every post on every group. I don't have time, and I'm not
>> going to configure message rules so that I get notified every time somone
>> replies to a post. I certainly have said this two or three times on this
>> group. The request for a reference (no doubt from you Mr. Kimball) has
>> not been ignored; I just didn't see it until now by accident. I am
>> delighted to give you a reference and several of us had repeated
>> constructive conversations on this very topic in detail on the TBT groups
>> with Tali Roth, Lead Program Manager of the Digital Documents team and I
>> know this subject was raised to members of that team at more than one
>> WHDC (Windows Hardware Engineering Course).
>>
>> The erudite. and legally adept and very experienced litigator Mat Kimball
>> of Medicine Hat Canada posted to me:
>>
>> "The Vista print team lied..."
>> You have said that before.
>> BUT when asked for a reference, you ignore the request.
>> Can you backup that statement?
>> If not, the statement is inappropriate and may even be illegal.
>>
>> Really. Psst Mat. Let me help you. I know you're not legally
>> sophisticated but that's okay. The statement is appropriate although
>> perhaps you would have liked a more diplomatic word choice than "lied."
>> You would have liked "did not keep the promise they made repeatedly in
>> different venues to several of us during the TBT."
>>
>> As in "the President of the United States and his team made some terrific
>> mistakes" instead of the reality that they continue to lie repeatedly
>> about a situation that is costing about 750 US lives per month and some
>> Canadian lives although the Canuks are getting the hell outta Dodge.
>>
>> There is nothing "illegal" about what I said in the United States. I
>> don't really care much about Canadian law. I know Conrad Black from
>> Canada seems to care about U.S. Law because he's being put on trial by
>> the US attorney in March 2007 (I liked his book on Roosevelt actually)
>> and Jennifer Granholm Governor of Michigan, originally from Canada has to
>> contend with US law now.
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/1...ck-051216.html
>>
>> Herrrrressss some Backup Mr. Mat Kanuk Kimball. It's my distinct pleasure
>> and there is more in content that is private and MSFT has requested not
>> to post. LOL to the 64th baby. I love these kind of wild ass ridiculous
>> challenges. Next time focus on the issue which is the port that will
>> help more printers print while using Windows Vista since my information
>> was it was made widely available to the public as a Beta many months ago
>> and is about to go on sale to the public around January 30, 2007 and is
>> on sale in the US now by volume licensing programs at Comp USA.
>>
>> What was I trying to get done? I was trying to get more printers to
>> work. There are two major reasons why simple printers aren't working in
>> Vista right now--to stay away from sophisticated networking setups or
>> print setups in larger organizations.
>>
>> One of them is that people try to load drivers before they get the
>> hardware recognized by either XP or Vista. That's unfortunate and it's
>> unfortunate that directions from manufactures often say to do this. It
>> produces a "false positive 16 bit subsystem error." I call it false
>> positive because there really is not a 16 bit sub system problem
>>
>> The other is that XP drivers (many but not all of them) or earlier
>> drivers can and will work on Vista if you go to the Printer Port tab as
>> I've outlined, and you use the pulldown to check Virtual USB Port instead
>> of the defaulted LPT port or Com ports.
>>
>> 1) In the first place it's as intriguing that Jupiter Jones aka Mat
>> Kimball doesn't address the real issue of trying to get more printers up
>> and running for users of this group and users of Windows Vista.
>> Defaulting to a parallel port when USB cords have been standard and
>> faster and more efficient for a panoply of reasons for nearly ten years
>> or more. I have gotten scroes of printers working on boxes by changing
>> their ports who are using XP drivers because their printer manufacturer
>> has not 1) made drivers for Vista yet on their site or 2) as some have
>> given MSFT any drivers for their recent printer.
>>
>> 2) It amuses me that Mat Kimball lol instead of focusing on the issue
>> (bring it Mat on the virtues of defaulting a parallel printer port on
>> January 30. 2007 when some Vista public purchases could take place of
>> so-called RTM Vista with scores of MSKBs now that say "we know it's a
>> problem and we don't have a clue how to fix it" seems to get satisfaction
>> out of "demanding documentation" when nearly every post I do has a link
>> or substantive documentation.
>>
>> However, I have emails and posts on the Vista TBT newsgroups where a
>> group of us raised this issue and were promised explicitly this would be
>> changed. It was not. Check out the default port on the port tab for
>> Windows Vista RTM and you'll see they did not change it. Technically
>> MSFT has asked that TBT newsgroup content not be posted, so I'll honor
>> that. However, I can post this from a Vista Beta Print Chat where I
>> raised the question. It just does not have the detail or the gang of us
>> that made the point to the print team that it is ludicrous to default a
>> parallel port and it costs a lot of unwitting users the use of their
>> printer. We have scores of people pleading for printer drivers they don't
>> have yet on this group.
>>
>> From a Vista Print chat, and I have transcripts of every Beta chat but I
>> am going to use a web link so that it can be accessed by anyone. You can
>> find this exchange in this Vista TBT Print Chat. Permission has been
>> given repeatedly by MSFT to post these chats on the web so don't get
>> your sigmoid colon spazzed into a several knots over this.
>> __________________________________________________ _________________
>> Chat Topic: Printing - General
>> Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2006
>> http://windowsconnected.com/forums/thread/3160.aspx
>>
>> Frank Olivier [MSFT] (Expert):
>>
>> Q: I lobbied and want to continue Lobbying you all for a change I think
>> is much needed and will help a lot of people's printers work immediately
>> versus not. You all have the pulldown for printer port still preferrring
>> LPT1. That is a mistake to list LPT1 as
>> the preferred port because 1) More XP drivers will work if people use
>> USB2Virtual as the port so LPT1 is ***not the preferred port. It is less
>> than preferred unless you don't want some printers to work in Vista. Alan
>> Morris said they would consider this on Print Team and have been and is
>> their an update?"selection for LPT is due to the fact that USB devices
>> are supposed to Plug and Play and customers don't have to run the Add
>> Printer Wizard to select the port and add the printer"
>>
>>
>> A: We're working on fixing this one - the Add Printer Wizard will not
>> suggest lpt as the default port.
>> __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
>> I don't know Canadianese that well. It's a brand of English where you can
>> always tell the Canuk by their pronunciation of key words. However, in
>> my country generally when someone says "We're working on fixing this
>> one--the Add Printer Wizard will not suggest lpt as the default port" and
>> that someone is from the Vista print team, it pretty much means what it
>> says and this promise again, was not kept.
>>
>> CH
>
Linear Mode
