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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|