Re: Would this proposed workaround for dealing with Windows work?

[Thomas Mueller]

>BTW, the ony reason I might sometimes need to run MicroSoft Winblows is that
>it is required to make some of my hardware work, hardware such as scanners
>and some printers.  They don't make compatible hardware anymore, except
>that there are a couple of manufacturers still producing real modems.  They
>will probably fall by the wayside because quality costs more than what a
>monopoly will kick in for free for the purpose of stifling the competition.
>That is why industry should strive to be free and competitive and refuse to
>tolerate monopolies, and consumers should support free enterprise.
>
>All the best,
>
>Sam Heywood

You have to be careful, when you buy a printer, scanner or modem, that it is not
Winblows-only.  There are scanners usable in Linux, I don't know about DOS, 
never had a scanner, though I've seen pictures of scanners.  Is there any DOS
support for USB?  Now they're making USB scanners, printers and modems.  I think
the BSDs support USB, and USB is on the way for Linux beginning with 
kernel 2.4x, but Winblows and Mac lead the way for USB and IEEE 1394.

What happens if you try to print from DOS on a Winblows-only parallel printer?
Will DOS be able to print plain text, or will DOS not be aware of the printer's
existence?