I was under the impression that the fee was paid in order for the manufacturer to put
an MS logo on their product saying "Yes it will work with MS crap". Even if it doesn't
have the "MS Approved" propaganda plastered across the box, as long as the company
provides drivers in some form, the product should still (theoretically) work on any OS
that the drivers are written for.
Got me thinking (don't know how accurate/realistic this is) -
Manf A pays fee to MS -> MS includes drivers in their OS but excludes from others
Manf B flips bird at MS -> writes their own drivers (for various OSs) and supplies
them with product
If the above is accurate, wouldn't it be more cost-effective for manufacturers to
supply drivers straight to the end-user, rather than paying MS to deliver them through
costly OSs? Not only would MS get less money, but HW manufacturers may gain revenue
from users purchasing a product that will work for them on whatever platform they want
to use.
I'm sure there are many sound reasonings (financial and otherwise) why companies opt
for the MS way of doing things - but it doesn't really make any sense to me....
Apologies for the drivel.... just waiting on that next hit of caffeine....
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/07 12:29 am >>>
Tom Brinkman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 05 December 2000 05:34 pm, Romanator wrote:
> > Hey Tom,
> >
> > Is it true about hardware providers paying fees to M$ so that Windows
> > supports or approves their hardware? In other words, no fee - no
> > drivers. Have you ever heard about this? I just wanted to clear that
> > up.
>
> I have no idea, and I've never heard that.
> --
> Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Galveston Bay
I spoke with other programmers/chip designers and it appears that a fee
must be paid out to have your hardware MS approved. That is, if you want
to have the drivers included and supported by the operating system.
