 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / 64-bit / July 200632-Bit Driver/Hardware Compatibility Mode?
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 ------- > 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. There is no 32bit driver compat mode. All drivers must be 64bit. > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me on > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Avatar > ------- 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.  SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 > Just to settle an argument (friendly!) - can someone kindly inform me on > this: Is there actually a 32-bit driver/device/hardware "compatibility [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Avatar > ------- That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load. How do I disable this "feature"? > All system level drivers must be 64bit. There is no compatibility mode that > magically gets around that requirement. Further, in Vista 64bit, all drivers [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Avatar > > ------- Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows. > That is rubbish. *I* should choose which drivers to load. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> > Avatar >> > ------- I meant the Vista signature requirement. I understand why we can't mix 32bit and 64bit drivers. ;) > Your only choice is to choose 32-bit Windows. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >> > Avatar > >> > ------- sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in 32bit Vista. But will be in 64bit. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 >I meant the Vista signature requirement. > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >> > Avatar >> >> > ------- 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. > sorry. DP was correct. The signing requirement will not be present in 32bit > Vista. But will be in 64bit. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >> >> > Avatar > >> >> > ------- 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. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64 > 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", [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> >> >> > Avatar >> >> >> > ------- 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. > One very simple reason - stability and security. Notice I did NOT say > "certified" drivers. I did say "signed" drivers. My understanding is that [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > >> >> >> > Avatar > >> >> >> > ------- 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...) > Of course... because a simple signature guarantees any company with enough > money can create better drivers than programmers creating open source ones: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > >> >> >> > Avatar > > >> >> >> > ------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.