ASUS does not support XP??

[Nothinman]

Assuming it's incompetence is incorrect. Medical hardware/software has a very limited target market/installed user base.

Um, no. Making medical hardware that only runs on Win95 is pure incompetence. Plain DOS would've been a better, more reliable option. But even back then NT 3.1 and 3.51 were out so there's no really excuse for choosing Win95.

When I say the hardware I'm using is incompatible with Windows 7, it's not that they're not working on fixing it--it's that it was designed for Windows XP 32 bit. I don't think it's a Windows 7 problem as much as it's a 64-bit problem.

Which is different from what Fardringle said about the MRI machines that only support Win95.

 

[Fardringle]

Um, no. Making medical hardware that only runs on Win95 is pure incompetence. Plain DOS would've been a better, more reliable option. But even back then NT 3.1 and 3.51 were out so there's no really excuse for choosing Win95.

Which is different from what Fardringle said about the MRI machines that only support Win95.

"Um, no." Making medical software that only runs on Win95 was a perfectly viable option at the time when the MRI equipment was built. While certainly more stable than Win95, NT 3.1 and 3.51 were very limited in hardware/software compatibility and very restrictive about how they allowed software to address hardware attached to the system. DOS may have been a more "stable" option, but it did not have the ability to provide the interactive GUI that is required for an MRI monitor.

 

[Pulsar]

Um, no. Making medical hardware that only runs on Win95 is pure incompetence. Plain DOS would've been a better, more reliable option. But even back then NT 3.1 and 3.51 were out so there's no really excuse for choosing Win95.



Which is different from what Fardringle said about the MRI machines that only support Win95.

You just don't seem to get it.

Vendors program for what is available. I have machines on an industrial basis running Windows 3.1 right now. Because they work. Every, single, f'n, time.

I also have new machines running on Windows Vista, and one on 7. We are in the process of completely removing Windows and going to proprietary operating systems on every one of those machines because of the shear number of undocumented issues and workarounds required to make things work (when you're lucky).

I have other machines running Windows 95, and Windows XP, that will likely run those for another 10 years. Upgrading those machines and their operating systems would require total rewrites of the software that's running very complicated industrial machines and would take hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not to mention the down time that you incur with any new software implementation (totally unaccepable in a high production facility).

The computer I'm writing this on in an intel celeron, with internet explorer 6. It works. Without an issue.

You don't understand the shear scope and cost of what you are suggesting. Being up-to-date and running the latest operating system is the absolute LAST thing people are worried about. We need it to turn on and work. That's it. We are not in an environment where people upgrade computers (unless they completely crap - in which case we have a half dozen backups in a closet with cloned SSD drives ready to be put in their place).

 

[Nothinman]

"Um, no." Making medical software that only runs on Win95 was a perfectly viable option at the time when the MRI equipment was built. While certainly more stable than Win95, NT 3.1 and 3.51 were very limited in hardware/software compatibility and very restrictive about how they allowed software to address hardware attached to the system. DOS may have been a more "stable" option, but it did not have the ability to provide the interactive GUI that is required for an MRI monitor.

I understand the difference between Win9x and NT and I still say anyone building a medical app for Win9x should've been laughed out of the market.

Vendors program for what is available. I have machines on an industrial basis running Windows 3.1 right now. Because they work. Every, single, f'n, time

Well at the time Win 3.1 was more stable than Win9x so using it makes more sense to me. Although still using it now is pretty sad. And there was a lot more available at the time than just Win9x and Win 3.1. those were probably just the cheapest choices.

The computer I'm writing this on in an intel celeron, with internet explorer 6. It works. Without an issue.

I consider IE6 an issue in itself. If that machine didn't have Internet access it might be different, but since it does you're just waiting for an incident to happen.

You don't understand the shear scope and cost of what you are suggesting. Being up-to-date and running the latest operating system is the absolute LAST thing people are worried about.

I understand it perfectly fine and I'm not saying to around upgrading everyone to Win7 willy-nilly. If all of those machines are solitary or completely segregated from the rest of the network and Internet that's one thing, but as soon as they have Internet access your'e asking for trouble.

And my main point was that having a system that runs on a 15yr old OS that was a total shit OS when it was first released is just plain stupid. Those hospitals should've never bought MRI equipment that required Win95 in the first place.

 

[vailr]

It's "sheer", not "shear".
Also: Windows 7 can run XP as a virtual machine environment, if needed for software compatibility. Any Windows software that can't at least run in XP's "compatibility mode" ought to be either re-written or retired.

 

[Nothinman]

It's "sheer", not "shear".
Also: Windows 7 can run XP as a virtual machine environment, if needed for software compatibility. Any Windows software that can't at least run in XP's "compatibility mode" ought to be either re-written or retired.

In general I'd agree, but there's still those apps that need hardware access which might not be possible via virtualization software.