32-Bit Driver/Hardware Compatibility Mode?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Avatar, Jul 30, 2006.

  1. Avatar

    Avatar Guest

    Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me on
    this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility mode"
    for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?

    I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit device
    would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have 32-bit
    hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not hold for
    everything out there.

    I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could not
    install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.

    Regards and thanks.

    Avatar
    -------
     
    Avatar, Jul 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Avatar

    DP Guest

    "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could not
    > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    >

    Your understanding is what my understanding is. Software compatibility mode,
    yes. But no hardware compat mode.
     
    DP, Jul 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. There is no 32bit driver compat mode. All drivers must be 64bit.

    "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me on
    > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility
    > mode"
    > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    >
    > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit device
    > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have 32-bit
    > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not hold for
    > everything out there.
    >
    > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could not
    > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    >
    > Regards and thanks.
    >
    > Avatar
    > -------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 30, 2006
    #3
  4. All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode that
    magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all drivers
    will need to be signed.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me on
    > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility
    > mode"
    > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    >
    > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit device
    > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have 32-bit
    > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not hold for
    > everything out there.
    >
    > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could not
    > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    >
    > Regards and thanks.
    >
    > Avatar
    > -------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Charlie Russel, Jul 30, 2006
    #4
  5. That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.

    How do I disable this "feature"?

    "Charlie Russel" wrote:

    > All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode that
    > magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all drivers
    > will need to be signed.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me on
    > > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility
    > > mode"
    > > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    > >
    > > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit device
    > > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    > > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have 32-bit
    > > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not hold for
    > > everything out there.
    > >
    > > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    > > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    > > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could not
    > > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    > >
    > > Regards and thanks.
    > >
    > > Avatar
    > > -------
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIEJ1cnN0eW4=?=, Jul 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Avatar

    DP Guest

    Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.


    "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in message
    news:...
    > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    >
    > How do I disable this "feature"?
    >
    > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    >
    >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode
    >> that
    >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all
    >> drivers
    >> will need to be signed.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me
    >> > on
    >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility
    >> > mode"
    >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    >> >
    >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit
    >> > device
    >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have 32-bit
    >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not hold
    >> > for
    >> > everything out there.
    >> >
    >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could
    >> > not
    >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    >> >
    >> > Regards and thanks.
    >> >
    >> > Avatar
    >> > -------
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
     
    DP, Jul 30, 2006
    #6
  7. I meant the Vista signature requirement.

    I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;)

    "DP" wrote:

    >
    >
    > Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.
    >
    >
    > "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    > >
    > > How do I disable this "feature"?
    > >
    > > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    > >
    > >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode
    > >> that
    > >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all
    > >> drivers
    > >> will need to be signed.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Charlie.
    > >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me
    > >> > on
    > >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility
    > >> > mode"
    > >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    > >> >
    > >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit
    > >> > device
    > >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    > >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have 32-bit
    > >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not hold
    > >> > for
    > >> > everything out there.
    > >> >
    > >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    > >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make sure
    > >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I could
    > >> > not
    > >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    > >> >
    > >> > Regards and thanks.
    > >> >
    > >> > Avatar
    > >> > -------
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIEJ1cnN0eW4=?=, Jul 30, 2006
    #7
  8. sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in 32bit
    Vista. But will be in 64bit.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in message
    news:...
    >I meant the Vista signature requirement.
    >
    > I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;)
    >
    > "DP" wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    >> message
    >> news:...
    >> > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    >> >
    >> > How do I disable this "feature"?
    >> >
    >> > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode
    >> >> that
    >> >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all
    >> >> drivers
    >> >> will need to be signed.
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Charlie.
    >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform
    >> >> > me
    >> >> > on
    >> >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware
    >> >> > "compatibility
    >> >> > mode"
    >> >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit
    >> >> > device
    >> >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    >> >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have
    >> >> > 32-bit
    >> >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not
    >> >> > hold
    >> >> > for
    >> >> > everything out there.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    >> >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make
    >> >> > sure
    >> >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I
    >> >> > could
    >> >> > not
    >> >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Regards and thanks.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Avatar
    >> >> > -------
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Charlie Russel, Jul 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Why would MS force us to wait for WHQL drivers if some manufacturers take
    forever? Instead of saying, "We don't recommend installing these drivers", MS
    is purporting to say "We don't give you permission"?

    .... Why would Vista 32-bit be "alright" to install beta or non-certified
    drivers, but not 64-bit? I don't understand why they would take this stance
    with the 64-bit edition, but not with IA32 OS'.

    Is MS going to force OEMs to create better drivers? They could try, but OEMs
    will just not bother supporting Vista on older (but still perfectly good)
    hardware.

    "Charlie Russel" wrote:

    > sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in 32bit
    > Vista. But will be in 64bit.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I meant the Vista signature requirement.
    > >
    > > I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;)
    > >
    > > "DP" wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    > >> message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    > >> >
    > >> > How do I disable this "feature"?
    > >> >
    > >> > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode
    > >> >> that
    > >> >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all
    > >> >> drivers
    > >> >> will need to be signed.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> --
    > >> >> Charlie.
    > >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > >> >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform
    > >> >> > me
    > >> >> > on
    > >> >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware
    > >> >> > "compatibility
    > >> >> > mode"
    > >> >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every 32-bit
    > >> >> > device
    > >> >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring 64-bit
    > >> >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have
    > >> >> > 32-bit
    > >> >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not
    > >> >> > hold
    > >> >> > for
    > >> >> > everything out there.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the XP
    > >> >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make
    > >> >> > sure
    > >> >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I
    > >> >> > could
    > >> >> > not
    > >> >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Regards and thanks.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Avatar
    > >> >> > -------
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIEJ1cnN0eW4=?=, Jul 30, 2006
    #9
  10. One very simple reason - stability and security. Notice I did NOT say
    "certified" drivers. I did say "signed" drivers. My understanding is that
    the requirement is that the drivers be signed with an appropriate code
    signing cert.

    I think it is well past time that this be required. At least this way, when
    something says it wants to install a driver you'll know who it is from.
    That's not a guarantee of quality, certainly. But it is a guarantee of
    source.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    "Joshua Burstyn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Why would MS force us to wait for WHQL drivers if some manufacturers take
    > forever? Instead of saying, "We don't recommend installing these drivers",
    > MS
    > is purporting to say "We don't give you permission"?
    >
    > ... Why would Vista 32-bit be "alright" to install beta or non-certified
    > drivers, but not 64-bit? I don't understand why they would take this
    > stance
    > with the 64-bit edition, but not with IA32 OS'.
    >
    > Is MS going to force OEMs to create better drivers? They could try, but
    > OEMs
    > will just not bother supporting Vista on older (but still perfectly good)
    > hardware.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    >
    >> sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in
    >> 32bit
    >> Vista. But will be in 64bit.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    >> message
    >> news:...
    >> >I meant the Vista signature requirement.
    >> >
    >> > I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;)
    >> >
    >> > "DP" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    >> >> message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > How do I disable this "feature"?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility
    >> >> >> mode
    >> >> >> that
    >> >> >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit,
    >> >> >> all
    >> >> >> drivers
    >> >> >> will need to be signed.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> --
    >> >> >> Charlie.
    >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    >> >> >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:...
    >> >> >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly
    >> >> >> > inform
    >> >> >> > me
    >> >> >> > on
    >> >> >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware
    >> >> >> > "compatibility
    >> >> >> > mode"
    >> >> >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every
    >> >> >> > 32-bit
    >> >> >> > device
    >> >> >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring
    >> >> >> > 64-bit
    >> >> >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have
    >> >> >> > 32-bit
    >> >> >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not
    >> >> >> > hold
    >> >> >> > for
    >> >> >> > everything out there.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the
    >> >> >> > XP
    >> >> >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make
    >> >> >> > sure
    >> >> >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I
    >> >> >> > could
    >> >> >> > not
    >> >> >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Regards and thanks.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Avatar
    >> >> >> > -------
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
     
    Charlie Russel, Jul 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Of course... because a simple signature guarantees any company with enough
    money can create better drivers than programmers creating open source ones:

    http://kxproject.lugosoft.com/index.php?skip=1

    .... People who find work-arounds for screwups in drivers from people like
    *dare I say* Creative or ATI won't be able to create those anymore. That
    means we are at the mercy of MS and whichever company feels like "getting
    around' to fixing those nagging issues like random reboots, data corruption
    and lockups. (VIA + Sound blaster Live!, anyone?)

    Thanks MS.

    "Charlie Russel" wrote:

    > One very simple reason - stability and security. Notice I did NOT say
    > "certified" drivers. I did say "signed" drivers. My understanding is that
    > the requirement is that the drivers be signed with an appropriate code
    > signing cert.
    >
    > I think it is well past time that this be required. At least this way, when
    > something says it wants to install a driver you'll know who it is from.
    > That's not a guarantee of quality, certainly. But it is a guarantee of
    > source.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > "Joshua Burstyn" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Why would MS force us to wait for WHQL drivers if some manufacturers take
    > > forever? Instead of saying, "We don't recommend installing these drivers",
    > > MS
    > > is purporting to say "We don't give you permission"?
    > >
    > > ... Why would Vista 32-bit be "alright" to install beta or non-certified
    > > drivers, but not 64-bit? I don't understand why they would take this
    > > stance
    > > with the 64-bit edition, but not with IA32 OS'.
    > >
    > > Is MS going to force OEMs to create better drivers? They could try, but
    > > OEMs
    > > will just not bother supporting Vista on older (but still perfectly good)
    > > hardware.
    > >
    > > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    > >
    > >> sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in
    > >> 32bit
    > >> Vista. But will be in 64bit.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Charlie.
    > >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    > >> message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I meant the Vista signature requirement.
    > >> >
    > >> > I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;)
    > >> >
    > >> > "DP" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    > >> >> message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > How do I disable this "feature"?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility
    > >> >> >> mode
    > >> >> >> that
    > >> >> >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit,
    > >> >> >> all
    > >> >> >> drivers
    > >> >> >> will need to be signed.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> --
    > >> >> >> Charlie.
    > >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > >> >> >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> >> news:...
    > >> >> >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly
    > >> >> >> > inform
    > >> >> >> > me
    > >> >> >> > on
    > >> >> >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware
    > >> >> >> > "compatibility
    > >> >> >> > mode"
    > >> >> >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every
    > >> >> >> > 32-bit
    > >> >> >> > device
    > >> >> >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring
    > >> >> >> > 64-bit
    > >> >> >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have
    > >> >> >> > 32-bit
    > >> >> >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not
    > >> >> >> > hold
    > >> >> >> > for
    > >> >> >> > everything out there.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the
    > >> >> >> > XP
    > >> >> >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make
    > >> >> >> > sure
    > >> >> >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I
    > >> >> >> > could
    > >> >> >> > not
    > >> >> >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > Regards and thanks.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > Avatar
    > >> >> >> > -------
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >>

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIEJ1cnN0eW4=?=, Jul 30, 2006
    #11
  12. I should say that my comments are assuming there is no provision to self-sign
    the code, and no provision to somehow get it signed in the correct manner.

    (Self-signed code would kind of defeat the purpose...)

    "Joshua Burstyn" wrote:

    > Of course... because a simple signature guarantees any company with enough
    > money can create better drivers than programmers creating open source ones:
    >
    > http://kxproject.lugosoft.com/index.php?skip=1
    >
    > ... People who find work-arounds for screwups in drivers from people like
    > *dare I say* Creative or ATI won't be able to create those anymore. That
    > means we are at the mercy of MS and whichever company feels like "getting
    > around' to fixing those nagging issues like random reboots, data corruption
    > and lockups. (VIA + Sound blaster Live!, anyone?)
    >
    > Thanks MS.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    >
    > > One very simple reason - stability and security. Notice I did NOT say
    > > "certified" drivers. I did say "signed" drivers. My understanding is that
    > > the requirement is that the drivers be signed with an appropriate code
    > > signing cert.
    > >
    > > I think it is well past time that this be required. At least this way, when
    > > something says it wants to install a driver you'll know who it is from.
    > > That's not a guarantee of quality, certainly. But it is a guarantee of
    > > source.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Charlie.
    > > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > > "Joshua Burstyn" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > Why would MS force us to wait for WHQL drivers if some manufacturers take
    > > > forever? Instead of saying, "We don't recommend installing these drivers",
    > > > MS
    > > > is purporting to say "We don't give you permission"?
    > > >
    > > > ... Why would Vista 32-bit be "alright" to install beta or non-certified
    > > > drivers, but not 64-bit? I don't understand why they would take this
    > > > stance
    > > > with the 64-bit edition, but not with IA32 OS'.
    > > >
    > > > Is MS going to force OEMs to create better drivers? They could try, but
    > > > OEMs
    > > > will just not bother supporting Vista on older (but still perfectly good)
    > > > hardware.
    > > >
    > > > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in
    > > >> 32bit
    > > >> Vista. But will be in 64bit.
    > > >>
    > > >> --
    > > >> Charlie.
    > > >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > > >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    > > >> message
    > > >> news:...
    > > >> >I meant the Vista signature requirement.
    > > >> >
    > > >> > I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;)
    > > >> >
    > > >> > "DP" wrote:
    > > >> >
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows.
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> "Joshua Burstyn" <Joshua > wrote in
    > > >> >> message
    > > >> >> news:...
    > > >> >> > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load.
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> > How do I disable this "feature"?
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> > "Charlie Russel" wrote:
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility
    > > >> >> >> mode
    > > >> >> >> that
    > > >> >> >> magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit,
    > > >> >> >> all
    > > >> >> >> drivers
    > > >> >> >> will need to be signed.
    > > >> >> >>
    > > >> >> >> --
    > > >> >> >> Charlie.
    > > >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
    > > >> >> >> "Avatar" <> wrote in message
    > > >> >> >> news:...
    > > >> >> >> > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly
    > > >> >> >> > inform
    > > >> >> >> > me
    > > >> >> >> > on
    > > >> >> >> > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware
    > > >> >> >> > "compatibility
    > > >> >> >> > mode"
    > > >> >> >> > for the 64-bit versions of windows (Pro, Server or Vista)?
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> > I said there is not simply because if there was, then every
    > > >> >> >> > 32-bit
    > > >> >> >> > device
    > > >> >> >> > would work on 64-bit versions straight away without requiring
    > > >> >> >> > 64-bit
    > > >> >> >> > drivers. But someone here maintains that there are ways to have
    > > >> >> >> > 32-bit
    > > >> >> >> > hardware running on 64-bits - he does concede that this does not
    > > >> >> >> > hold
    > > >> >> >> > for
    > > >> >> >> > everything out there.
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> > I am most certain he, being as senile as me, is talking about the
    > > >> >> >> > XP
    > > >> >> >> > compatibility mode for certain *software* but just wanted to make
    > > >> >> >> > sure
    > > >> >> >> > before I say anything! I did have a few instances myself where I
    > > >> >> >> > could
    > > >> >> >> > not
    > > >> >> >> > install certain devices on my test WinXP Pro 64-bit edition.
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> > Regards and thanks.
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> > Avatar
    > > >> >> >> > -------
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >> >
    > > >> >> >>
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >>
    > > >>

    > >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9zaHVhIEJ1cnN0eW4=?=, Jul 30, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. English Patient
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,851
    Old Gringo
    Oct 4, 2004
  2. Ron W. Silvas

    30-bit Color on 24-bit Hardware

    Ron W. Silvas, Sep 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    1,592
  3. =?Utf-8?B?SElHSFBJTkc=?=

    Re: Why not 32-bit driver compatibility

    =?Utf-8?B?SElHSFBJTkc=?=, May 24, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    =?Utf-8?B?SElHSFBJTkc=?=
    May 24, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IFdvbmcg6buD5rOT6YeP?=

    converting 32-bit driver to 64-bit driver

    =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IFdvbmcg6buD5rOT6YeP?=, Aug 18, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    6,666
    Peter Foldes
    Aug 20, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?RFdhdHNvbg==?=

    64 bit hardware, compatibility with 32 bit OS

    =?Utf-8?B?RFdhdHNvbg==?=, Apr 14, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    463
    =?Utf-8?B?RFdhdHNvbg==?=
    Apr 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page