«

I was rather surprised to find that the XP 64 trial didn't install, or
seemingly include, appropriate drivers for a ratty old Kingston ethernet
card. On Win2K, I was just using the built-in support - "Intel 21143 Based
PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter". I would think vanilla ethernet support would
come with the trial. My 64 bit motherboard has onboard ethernet, but there
are some issues with using it, and I only need it for a DSL connection, so
the plain vanilla PCI board is actually more convenient at this point.

Bob in Cupertino wrote:
> I was rather surprised to find that the XP 64 trial didn't install, or
> seemingly include, appropriate drivers for a ratty old Kingston ethernet
> card.



Why are you surprised? It's not as if Microsoft develops and/or
produces drivers for other manufacturers' hardware devices. If Kingston
didn't choose provide 64-bit drivers for their "ratty *OLD*" (your words
- emphasis mine, and probably the real answer to your question) Ethernet
card to Microsoft for testing and inclusion in the new OS, it's hardly
Microsoft's fault.



> On Win2K, I was just using the built-in support - "Intel 21143 Based
> PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter".


That's a 5-year-old (2 to 2½ *generations*, in computer terms) OS. If
your NIC is that old, I actually be surprised to find it to have drivers
for a modern OS.


> I would think vanilla ethernet support would
> come with the trial.


There's no such thing as a "plain vanilla" Ethernet card. Each
individual manufacturer produces its own device drivers. If those
manufacturers want their drivers distributed by Microsoft, as part of an
OS, they have to submit the drivers for testing, well in advance of the
OS' release to the public. They've had many months of pre-release time
in which to have done so. Does either Kingston or Intel (makers of the
chipset, not necessarily the drivers) even support that particular NIC
anymore?


> My 64 bit motherboard has onboard ethernet, but there
> are some issues with using it, and I only need it for a DSL connection, so
> the plain vanilla PCI board is actually more convenient at this point.


The solution seems clear, to me. Either fix the "issues" with your
integrated NIC, which I'll wager is supported by drivers provided with
the OS, or purchase a newer NIC that is WinXPx64-compatible.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Ironically, the mobo ethernet may be the way to go, unless it is also of an
older vintage.

"Bruce Chambers" <0m> wrote in message
news:%23vyzR$...
> Bob in Cupertino wrote:
>> I was rather surprised to find that the XP 64 trial didn't install, or
>> seemingly include, appropriate drivers for a ratty old Kingston ethernet
>> card.
>
>
>
> Why are you surprised? It's not as if Microsoft develops and/or produces
> drivers for other manufacturers' hardware devices. If Kingston didn't
> choose provide 64-bit drivers for their "ratty *OLD*" (your words -
> emphasis mine, and probably the real answer to your question) Ethernet
> card to Microsoft for testing and inclusion in the new OS, it's hardly
> Microsoft's fault.
>
>
>
>> On Win2K, I was just using the built-in support - "Intel 21143 Based PCI
>> Fast Ethernet Adapter".
>
>
> That's a 5-year-old (2 to 2½ *generations*, in computer terms) OS. If
> your NIC is that old, I actually be surprised to find it to have drivers
> for a modern OS.
>
>
>> I would think vanilla ethernet support would come with the trial.
>
>
> There's no such thing as a "plain vanilla" Ethernet card. Each individual
> manufacturer produces its own device drivers. If those manufacturers want
> their drivers distributed by Microsoft, as part of an OS, they have to
> submit the drivers for testing, well in advance of the OS' release to the
> public. They've had many months of pre-release time in which to have done
> so. Does either Kingston or Intel (makers of the chipset, not necessarily
> the drivers) even support that particular NIC anymore?
>
>
>> My 64 bit motherboard has onboard ethernet, but there are some issues
>> with using it, and I only need it for a DSL connection, so
>> the plain vanilla PCI board is actually more convenient at this point.
>
>
> The solution seems clear, to me. Either fix the "issues" with your
> integrated NIC, which I'll wager is supported by drivers provided with the
> OS, or purchase a newer NIC that is WinXPx64-compatible.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH

M. Murcek wrote:
> Ironically, the mobo ethernet may be the way to go, unless it is also of an
> older vintage.
>


I don't see how that could be the case, if it's a 64-bit motherboard,
as the OP said it was.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Thanks for the input, and reminding me that I'm using a fossilized ethernet
card and OS. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if it will work in the
released edition.

Yeah, I suppose I could work out what ails the onboard ethernet, which is
undoubtedly a configuration issue. NVidia's drivers seem fine, both the 32
bit versions on Win2K and 64 on XP 64 bit edition. I can surf the web OK, I
just can't get it to let requests in to a web server, which sounds like the
onboard firewall is blocking them - it is supposedly turned off, as is the XP
firewall, and this happens trying to use the onboard ethernet under Win2K,
too, which doesn't provide a firewall (I have a router, and I've run
zonealarm for ages, which refuses to install on 64 bit edition, BTW. I don't
need any more firewalls out of anybody).

Rather than sorting through what's going on, it would simply be more
convenient to continue using the NIC. This is an issue I can work around,
though - I suspect I won't be going to 64 bit until I can get ODBC
connectivity to access databases as per my other question.

"Bob in Cupertino" <> wrote
in:

> I was rather surprised to find that the XP 64 trial didn't
> install, or seemingly include, appropriate drivers for a ratty old
> Kingston ethernet card. On Win2K, I was just using the built-in
> support - "Intel 21143 Based PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter". I would
> think vanilla ethernet support would come with the trial. My 64
> bit motherboard has onboard ethernet, but there are some issues
> with using it, and I only need it for a DSL connection, so the
> plain vanilla PCI board is actually more convenient at this point.

I'd use the onboard ethernet, X64 includes support for the onboard
ethernet used on most AMD Athlon64 Motherboards.

--
David R. Norton MVP
<>

Ah, the nVidia firewall problem. We've seen that reported here before, and
for at least one person, the fix was to install the firewall, and then
UN-install the firewall. Please try that and see if it resolves the issue.

In looking for inexpensive, but supported, ethernet cards, I ran across a
Micronet SP2612R (RealTek, RTL8169/8110 based) Gigabit NIC for $9.95 CAD.
Plugged it in, and it worked like a charm, without having to even go find
drivers. At that price, I wish I'd bought several, since they're back up to
about $30 CAD at NCIX now.

--
Charlie.

Bob in Cupertino wrote:
> Thanks for the input, and reminding me that I'm using a fossilized
> ethernet card and OS. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be surprised if it
> will work in the released edition.
>
> Yeah, I suppose I could work out what ails the onboard ethernet,
> which is undoubtedly a configuration issue. NVidia's drivers seem
> fine, both the 32 bit versions on Win2K and 64 on XP 64 bit edition.
> I can surf the web OK, I just can't get it to let requests in to a
> web server, which sounds like the onboard firewall is blocking them -
> it is supposedly turned off, as is the XP firewall, and this happens
> trying to use the onboard ethernet under Win2K, too, which doesn't
> provide a firewall (I have a router, and I've run zonealarm for ages,
> which refuses to install on 64 bit edition, BTW. I don't need any
> more firewalls out of anybody).
>
> Rather than sorting through what's going on, it would simply be more
> convenient to continue using the NIC. This is an issue I can work
> around, though - I suspect I won't be going to 64 bit until I can get
> ODBC connectivity to access databases as per my other question.

"Bob in Cupertino" <> wrote in
message news:063A9E52-F4A1-4850-9E21-...

> Rather than sorting through what's going on, it would simply be more
> convenient to continue using the NIC. This is an issue I can work around,
> though - I suspect I won't be going to 64 bit until I can get ODBC
> connectivity to access databases as per my other question.

Jeesh.... an NIC card costs what? 20 bucks? And you'd rather go with an
old out of date card why? Surely your budget would allow a $20 dollar
purchase?

On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:21:17 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<> wrote:

>Ah, the nVidia firewall problem. We've seen that reported here before, and
>for at least one person, the fix was to install the firewall, and then
>UN-install the firewall. Please try that and see if it resolves the issue.

Had same issue here. Had to install the NV firewall uninstall it and
then install it again to be able to even access the web.
It looks like NV NIC drivers installs some parts of firewall even
when you tell it not to.
>
>In looking for inexpensive, but supported, ethernet cards, I ran across a
>Micronet SP2612R (RealTek, RTL8169/8110 based) Gigabit NIC for $9.95 CAD.
>Plugged it in, and it worked like a charm, without having to even go find
>drivers. At that price, I wish I'd bought several, since they're back up to
>about $30 CAD at NCIX now.