A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old July 14th 18, 03:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-07-14 09:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


It's probably less common in the US, where I understand the common
term is cellophane, or cell for short; in the UK, it's mobile 'phone, or


cellphone!


"Cell" means cell/mobile phone. Never heard it as meaning cellophane.


That's likely from the olde Latin.

It's what the Romans used.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...c-uHcwwrw7.jpg

The Romans also invented square rolls
of toilet paper, because the wheel hadn't
been invented by then.

https://media.treehugger.com/assets/...oiletpaper.jpg

Paul
Ads
  #17  
Old July 14th 18, 05:57 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Not The Mama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On 07/14/2018 05:43 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 01:11:14 -0400, Paul wrote:


[snip]
I was about to disagree with your "phonemes" comment, but realized I
had misread "fobile" a "foible". I very nearly made myself out to be
a mucking foron.


[snip]

I'm reading this on a lall smaptop.
  #18  
Old July 14th 18, 05:59 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Brian Gregory[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On 13/07/2018 07:48, VanguardLH wrote:
pjp wrote:

I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?


Probably because the last driver provided by Creative (Microsoft doesn't
write the drivers, they just included them in later versions of Windows)
was a 32-bit driver. Unless Creative created a 64-bit driver, there
isn't one for Microsoft to bundle with a later version of Windows.


I think Microsoft writes some drivers but not many.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).
  #19  
Old July 14th 18, 06:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
X
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On 07/14/2018 09:15 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

A Sale of Two Titties.


The tits, chickadees, and titmice constitute the Paridae, a large family
of small passerine birds which occur mainly in the Northern Hemisphere
and Africa. Most were formerly classified in the genus Parus.

May I Sew You to your Sheet?

etc.


  #20  
Old July 14th 18, 06:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
musika[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On 14/07/2018 14:59, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-07-14 09:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
My spellchecker seems to have gone berserk on this one, sorry!


In message , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
writes:
In message , Stan
Brown writes:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 06:43:42 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

This particular subgenre of phoneme switch is a Spoonerism.

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/se...l?q=spoonerism

Although "fobile moan" and "mucking foron" might not qualify, come to

It's probably less common in the US, where I understand the common
term is cellophane, or cell for short; in the UK, it's mobile 'phone, or


cellphone!


"Cell" means cell/mobile phone. Never heard it as meaning cellophane.

One of Gilliver's travails.

--
Ray
UK
  #21  
Old July 14th 18, 08:04 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

Brian Gregory wrote:

On 13/07/2018 07:48, VanguardLH wrote:
pjp wrote:

I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?


Probably because the last driver provided by Creative (Microsoft doesn't
write the drivers, they just included them in later versions of Windows)
was a 32-bit driver. Unless Creative created a 64-bit driver, there
isn't one for Microsoft to bundle with a later version of Windows.


I think Microsoft writes some drivers but not many.


I suspect the only "drivers" that Microsoft writes are the INF files to
define classes of generic devices (i.e., their miniport drivers).

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...d-driver-pairs

This was the same idea as when Microsoft provided DirectX, so game
authors would have a consistent interface to which they could code
instead of each author having to design from scratch. In some cases,
all that is needed is the INF "driver", like for mass storage devices
(e.g., hard disks).

There have been problems in the past with hardware vendors doling out a
driver to Windows and then finding their driver has a flaw. I remember
when Promise (probably for a SCSI controller) pushed out a driver to
Microsoft, found it had a flaw that caused data loss, and tried to yank
it within the same week; however, they couldn't get Microsoft to pull
the driver for something like 3 months. For the corrected driver, you
had to use the newest one at Promise's site.

I've had Windows Update try to push a driver that was for a different
model within the same family of products from a vendor. For example, a
Winmodem had 3 different versions (A, B, C) for the same model and I
needed the driver for the C model, not the earlier ones. But WU wanted
to push a driver for the earlier versions. If I used the old drivers,
most of the Winmodem would work but a couple features would've been
lost. Although it was "just" a version change, the board vendor had
changed which chip was on the PCB so a new driver was required to fully
support it.

I *never* get driver updates via Windows Update. Their detection scheme
won't catch the problem with the wrong driver as mentioned above for the
Winmodem and the hardware vendor might already have a newer, improved,
or fixed version of their driver, so using an old one could result in
loss of function, or worse loss of data.
  #22  
Old July 14th 18, 09:21 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 01:53:01 -0300, pjp
wrote:


I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?



Yes, drivers not being available for old hardware and newer operating
systems is a common occurrence.

  #23  
Old July 15th 18, 12:27 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

Brian Gregory wrote:
On 13/07/2018 07:48, VanguardLH wrote:
pjp wrote:

I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?


Probably because the last driver provided by Creative (Microsoft doesn't
write the drivers, they just included them in later versions of Windows)
was a 32-bit driver. Unless Creative created a 64-bit driver, there
isn't one for Microsoft to bundle with a later version of Windows.


I think Microsoft writes some drivers but not many.


Microsoft writes "Class" drivers, which take into
account the "quirks" of various commercial offerings.

There would be Class drivers for USB2 and USB3 and Firewire.
USBStor or UASPStor would be examples of layers above
the physical layer.

I couldn't tell you whether Bluetooth has sufficient
standards to have a "standard register set" on a dongle,
so a single driver can handle all of them.

USB has class declarations so the device can be
declared as "Custom", and then nobody but the
device manufacturer can offer a driver. As only they
know what functions the registers perform.

Paul
  #24  
Old July 15th 18, 04:19 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
pjp[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,183
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

In article , says...

Brian Gregory wrote:

On 13/07/2018 07:48, VanguardLH wrote:
pjp wrote:

I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?

Probably because the last driver provided by Creative (Microsoft doesn't
write the drivers, they just included them in later versions of Windows)
was a 32-bit driver. Unless Creative created a 64-bit driver, there
isn't one for Microsoft to bundle with a later version of Windows.


I think Microsoft writes some drivers but not many.


I suspect the only "drivers" that Microsoft writes are the INF files to
define classes of generic devices (i.e., their miniport drivers).

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...d-driver-pairs

This was the same idea as when Microsoft provided DirectX, so game
authors would have a consistent interface to which they could code
instead of each author having to design from scratch. In some cases,
all that is needed is the INF "driver", like for mass storage devices
(e.g., hard disks).

There have been problems in the past with hardware vendors doling out a
driver to Windows and then finding their driver has a flaw. I remember
when Promise (probably for a SCSI controller) pushed out a driver to
Microsoft, found it had a flaw that caused data loss, and tried to yank
it within the same week; however, they couldn't get Microsoft to pull
the driver for something like 3 months. For the corrected driver, you
had to use the newest one at Promise's site.

I've had Windows Update try to push a driver that was for a different
model within the same family of products from a vendor. For example, a


When there is no other driver Windows is only option. The Webcam is that
old
  #25  
Old July 15th 18, 06:02 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

pjp wrote:
In article , says...
Brian Gregory wrote:

On 13/07/2018 07:48, VanguardLH wrote:
pjp wrote:

I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?
Probably because the last driver provided by Creative (Microsoft doesn't
write the drivers, they just included them in later versions of Windows)
was a 32-bit driver. Unless Creative created a 64-bit driver, there
isn't one for Microsoft to bundle with a later version of Windows.

I think Microsoft writes some drivers but not many.

I suspect the only "drivers" that Microsoft writes are the INF files to
define classes of generic devices (i.e., their miniport drivers).

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...d-driver-pairs

This was the same idea as when Microsoft provided DirectX, so game
authors would have a consistent interface to which they could code
instead of each author having to design from scratch. In some cases,
all that is needed is the INF "driver", like for mass storage devices
(e.g., hard disks).

There have been problems in the past with hardware vendors doling out a
driver to Windows and then finding their driver has a flaw. I remember
when Promise (probably for a SCSI controller) pushed out a driver to
Microsoft, found it had a flaw that caused data loss, and tried to yank
it within the same week; however, they couldn't get Microsoft to pull
the driver for something like 3 months. For the corrected driver, you
had to use the newest one at Promise's site.

I've had Windows Update try to push a driver that was for a different
model within the same family of products from a vendor. For example, a


When there is no other driver Windows is only option. The Webcam is that
old


Cameras are split into two groups.

The older cameras didn't follow a standard.

Newer cameras are UVC (USB Video Class) compatible.
They work up to about 960*??? or so. If you want
a higher resolution choice, or custom features
(pan/tilt/zoom), then a custom driver is needed for
the extra features.

The camera consists of two parts. A CMOS or CCD sensor
with a glass top. And a "digital bus" to USB packet
chip to get to the computer. Even if you detected
the conversion chip via its plug and play information,
that doesn't tell you what sensor is being used. If, on
the other hand, the conversion chip accepts an SPD
chip off to the side, then a custom declaration can
be used to state what camera it is. And then PNP
could be used to track down a driver.

Now, if you went to the Linux side, you might find source
code for basic operation. You might even be able to
track down a jumbo Windows driver, based on what
you discover using the enumeration. A tool like
Uwes USBTreeView can be used for this purpose.

https://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbtreeview_e.html

Using the info from USBTreeView, you can look up
the device here. For example, your webcam could be
a Sonix non-UVC camera.

http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids

0c45 Microdia
62c0 Sonix USB 2.0 Camera

Then you'd head off to Linux land, and
see what materials they used to make the FOSS
driver for the thing.

Note that a few of the Chinese sites hosting a driver
for a Sonix, may harbor malware, so be careful. You can
use Virustotal.com to attempt a scan of a downloader site
like that. Some camera I was working on here, had me
searching in places like that. Because a lot of these
"$5 dental cameras", there's *no* fancy website to get
driver materials. You're left to collect floor sweepings
to make your new purchase work.

That's one reason why vanilla UVC is a useful option.
Even if you cannot "Skype" at 1920x1080, a UVC with
640x480 mode may be sufficient for a connection.

Paul
  #26  
Old July 15th 18, 06:28 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Brian Gregory[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On 14/07/2018 20:04, VanguardLH wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:

On 13/07/2018 07:48, VanguardLH wrote:
pjp wrote:

I have an old Creative Webcam Gen3. Under XP it required a driver and
that's the last one available. Driver is very old, basically unuasable
in todays OS's.

As a curiousity I plugged it into a couple of Win7 32 bit pcs and they
all saw the camera, downloaded a driver and it was seen as a Windows
Imaging Device and it worked. Under 64 bit Win7 it can't locate a
driver!!!

Same thing happened in last 24 hours, 64 bit Windows with a bluetooth
dongle and it's go looking yourself. 32 bit downloads a driver that
appears to work properly.

Is this a common occurence?

Probably because the last driver provided by Creative (Microsoft doesn't
write the drivers, they just included them in later versions of Windows)
was a 32-bit driver. Unless Creative created a 64-bit driver, there
isn't one for Microsoft to bundle with a later version of Windows.


I think Microsoft writes some drivers but not many.


I suspect the only "drivers" that Microsoft writes are the INF files to
define classes of generic devices (i.e., their miniport drivers).


No there are actual drivers written by Microsoft.

I use Microsoft drivers for the SATA ports on my Intel Z87 chipset based
motherboard because I find them more reliable and compatible than the
Intel "rapid storage" drivers.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).
  #27  
Old July 16th 18, 11:59 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Stan Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,904
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:59:13 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-07-14 09:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It's probably less common in the US, where I understand the common
term is cellophane, or cell for short; in the UK, it's mobile 'phone, or


cellphone!


"Cell" means cell/mobile phone. Never heard it as meaning cellophane.


And haven't heard of "cellophane" in probably decades. It's plastic
wrap, shrink wrap, etc.

"Cellophane" was actually a different kind of plastic, noticeably
less flexible.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...
  #28  
Old July 17th 18, 02:01 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

In message , Stan Brown
writes:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:59:13 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-07-14 09:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It's probably less common in the US, where I understand the common
term is cellophane, or cell for short; in the UK, it's mobile 'phone, or

cellphone!


"Cell" means cell/mobile phone. Never heard it as meaning cellophane.

No, it didn't! That day I just hadn't spotted that my spellchecker had
gone berserk and "corrected" lots of things.

And haven't heard of "cellophane" in probably decades. It's plastic
wrap, shrink wrap, etc.

"Cellophane" was actually a different kind of plastic, noticeably
less flexible.

Yes, I haven't heard it for a while here either. The thin food-covering
tends to be referred to in the UK these days as clingfilm.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We need a reversal of the old saying: "DON'T do unto others as you would have
them NOT do unto you." (Paraphrase from "The Moral Maze", 1998-11-21: it was an
attempt - quite good I thought - to get a modern [and non-specific] version.)
  #29  
Old July 17th 18, 03:00 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Stan Brown
writes:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:59:13 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-07-14 09:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It's probably less common in the US, where I understand the common
term is cellophane, or cell for short; in the UK, it's mobile
'phone, or

cellphone!

"Cell" means cell/mobile phone. Never heard it as meaning cellophane.

No, it didn't! That day I just hadn't spotted that my spellchecker had
gone berserk and "corrected" lots of things.

And haven't heard of "cellophane" in probably decades. It's plastic
wrap, shrink wrap, etc.

"Cellophane" was actually a different kind of plastic, noticeably
less flexible.

Yes, I haven't heard it for a while here either. The thin food-covering
tends to be referred to in the UK these days as clingfilm.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/arti...-the-microwave

"we purchased cling films made with PVC and marked as microwave safe"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_wrap

"Plastic wrap was initially created from polyvinyl chloride (PVC)...

A common, cheaper alternative to PVC is low-density polyethylene (LDPE).
It is less adhesive than PVC, but this can be remedied by adding linear
low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), which also increases the film's
tensile strength.

In the US and Japan, plastic wrap is sometimes produced using
polyvinylidene chloride (PVdC) ... environmental concerns.
"

Better life through chemistry. The LDPE sounds nicer. All depends
on what plasticizer was added I suppose.

Paul
  #30  
Old July 17th 18, 03:51 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:59:03 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 09:59:13 -0400, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-07-14 09:26, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It's probably less common in the US, where I understand the common
term is cellophane, or cell for short; in the UK, it's mobile 'phone, or

cellphone!


"Cell" means cell/mobile phone. Never heard it as meaning cellophane.


And haven't heard of "cellophane" in probably decades. It's plastic
wrap, shrink wrap, etc.

"Cellophane" was actually a different kind of plastic, noticeably
less flexible.




Yes, cellophane is what cigarette packs used to be wrapped in. Are
they still? I don't know; it's been about 50 years since I last bought
one.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.