Is 32-bit okay for 53bit or not?

1)Shouldn't I be able to buy an OEM CD (DVD??) that includes all the
drivers for this laptop. It has a DVD drive. The only CDs I've found
so par are created by 3rd parties**. Or were these laptops sold
commercially so there were only a few CDs for 100 laptops?

**And I'm pretty sure they just gather all the files I have found,
irrespective of the paradoxical nature of the pages they come from.


2) The new laptop Dell Latitude E4300 has a FnF key marked DCP, Dell
Control Point. Pursuing that, I find

https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=WR2GG

which says "This package provides the Dell ControlPoint System
Application and is supported on OptiPlex, XPS Notebook, Tablet, Latitude
and Precision models that are running the following Windows Operating
Systems: Vista (32-bit) and Windows 7 (32-bit)."

Alas, I have 64-bit, but further down it says "Format Description: Dell
Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 32bit format have been
designed to run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. Dell
Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 64bit format will only run on
Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. When selecting a device
driver update be sure to select the one that is appropriate for your
operating system."

Yet even farther down it says
" Supported Operating Systems Windows 7, 32-bit Windows Vista, 32-bit "

So if I have 64-bit, can I use this????
I added 64-bit to the search terms, but because of this language, I pick
up all these ambiguous pages and haven't found anything recommended for
64 yet.


This page, for another part of the system, uses the same paradoxical
language
http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/...driverId=0KRP3




This page uses similar paradoxical language except it's for winXP
https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=RGK9G

This page, which is only for 3 models, for XP, Vista, and 7, uses
similar paradoxical language but ends differently:
https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=RY9W7

Fixes
- Fixed a vulnerability in the Biometric authentication to Windows XP.

"Dell Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 32bit format have been
designed to run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. Dell
Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 64bit format will only run on
Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. When selecting a device
driver update be sure to select the one that is appropriate for your
operating system."

"Supported Operating Systems
Windows 7, 64-bit
Windows Vista, 64-bit
Windows XP, 64-bit"

No mention of 32 bit


this is similar
https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=V3P97

"is supported on OptiPlex 580, Latitude E6510 and Precision
M4500/T7500/T5500/M6500 that are running the following Windows Operating
Systems: XP, Vista (64-bit) and Windows 7 (64-bit).

Fixes - Fixed several Pre-Boot issues

Enhancements
- Enhanced Winbond TPM driver for Windows XP Precision Desktop platforms
- Enhanced installation of Windows XP Smart Card driver on some E-series
platforms
- Enhanced Smart Card Keyboard driver
- Enhanced AuthenTec AE2810 Fingerprint Sensor driver for E5xx0 systems"


Thanks.

In article , NONONOmisc07
@bigfoot.com says...

1)Shouldn't I be able to buy an OEM CD (DVD??) that includes all the
drivers for this laptop. It has a DVD drive. The only CDs I've found
so par are created by 3rd parties**. Or were these laptops sold
commercially so there were only a few CDs for 100 laptops?

**And I'm pretty sure they just gather all the files I have found,
irrespective of the paradoxical nature of the pages they come from.


2) The new laptop Dell Latitude E4300 has a FnF key marked DCP, Dell
Control Point. Pursuing that, I find

https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=WR2GG

which says "This package provides the Dell ControlPoint System
Application and is supported on OptiPlex, XPS Notebook, Tablet, Latitude
and Precision models that are running the following Windows Operating
Systems: Vista (32-bit) and Windows 7 (32-bit)."

Alas, I have 64-bit, but further down it says "Format Description: Dell
Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 32bit format have been
designed to run on Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. Dell
Update Packages (DUP) in Microsoft Windows 64bit format will only run on
Microsoft Windows 64bit Operating Systems. When selecting a device
driver update be sure to select the one that is appropriate for your
operating system."

Yet even farther down it says
" Supported Operating Systems Windows 7, 32-bit Windows Vista, 32-bit "

So if I have 64-bit, can I use this????
I added 64-bit to the search terms, but because of this language, I pick
up all these ambiguous pages and haven't found anything recommended for
64 yet.


This page, for another part of the system, uses the same paradoxical
language
http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/...driverId=0KRP3




This page uses similar paradoxical language except it's for winXP
https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=RGK9G

This page, which is only for 3 models, for XP, Vista, and 7, uses
similar paradoxical language but ends differently:
https://www.dell.com/support/home/us...driverId=RY9W7

If there's a 64 bit version then try it else try the 32 bit one. To the
best of my knowledge 64 bit system runs 32 bit code fine, 32 bit system
can't run 64 bit code.

On 08/27/2017 12:34 AM, micky wrote:

1)Shouldn't I be able to buy an OEM CD (DVD??) that includes all the
drivers for this laptop. It has a DVD drive. The only CDs I've found
so par are created by 3rd parties**. Or were these laptops sold
commercially so there were only a few CDs for 100 laptops?

**And I'm pretty sure they just gather all the files I have found,
irrespective of the paradoxical nature of the pages they come from.


2


snip


I assume that was a typo and you meant 64 bit.


The answer is NO The drivers for 32bit and 64bit are not that same.


Some manufacturers however have a self extracting executable that
contains both the 32bit and 64 bit drivers

In alt.windows7.general, on Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:55:12 -0500, philo
wrote:

On 08/27/2017 12:34 AM, micky wrote:

1)Shouldn't I be able to buy an OEM CD (DVD??) that includes all the
drivers for this laptop. It has a DVD drive. The only CDs I've found
so par are created by 3rd parties**. Or were these laptops sold
commercially so there were only a few CDs for 100 laptops?

**And I'm pretty sure they just gather all the files I have found,
irrespective of the paradoxical nature of the pages they come from.


2


snip


I assume that was a typo and you meant 64 bit.


The answer is NO The drivers for 32bit and 64bit are not that same.


Some manufacturers however have a self extracting executable that
contains both the 32bit and 64 bit drivers

What gets me, philo and pjp, is the paradoxical language. If they don't
have a 64-bit version but they are saying their 32 bit versions will
work for 64-bit, why don't they list the 64-bit systems in the opening
description or later as a Supported Operating System?

If they're not saying it will work, why include the line that says it's
designed to do so?

When they don't list 64-bit it makes it seem like elswhere there is a
64-bit version but I can't find any trace of one. The whole thing is
much more disorganized that Dell usually is. Than I've ever noticed
Dell to be in the past. It takes some shine off their rose.

On 08/28/2017 12:53 PM, micky wrote:



snip


I assume that was a typo and you meant 64 bit.


The answer is NO The drivers for 32bit and 64bit are not that same.


Some manufacturers however have a self extracting executable that
contains both the 32bit and 64 bit drivers

What gets me, philo and pjp, is the paradoxical language. If they don't
have a 64-bit version but they are saying their 32 bit versions will
work for 64-bit, why don't they list the 64-bit systems in the opening
description or later as a Supported Operating System?

If they're not saying it will work, why include the line that says it's
designed to do so?

When they don't list 64-bit it makes it seem like elswhere there is a
64-bit version but I can't find any trace of one. The whole thing is
much more disorganized that Dell usually is. Than I've ever noticed
Dell to be in the past. It takes some shine off their rose.




I don't know but the thing that I thought was a bit funny is MSE.

Many down-loaders simply detect your OS and give you the right one...but
with MSE one must choose.


I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know which one is which.



AMD64 or x86 might very well seem cryptic to many people

In alt.windows7.general, on Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:15:10 -0500, philo
wrote:

On 08/28/2017 12:53 PM, micky wrote:



snip


I assume that was a typo and you meant 64 bit.


The answer is NO The drivers for 32bit and 64bit are not that same.


Some manufacturers however have a self extracting executable that
contains both the 32bit and 64 bit drivers

What gets me, philo and pjp, is the paradoxical language. If they don't
have a 64-bit version but they are saying their 32 bit versions will
work for 64-bit, why don't they list the 64-bit systems in the opening
description or later as a Supported Operating System?

It's going to have to wait for a while after all. I have a hum in my
phone line and rather than find it, I have to decide between cable and
fiber optic.


If they're not saying it will work, why include the line that says it's
designed to do so?

When they don't list 64-bit it makes it seem like elswhere there is a
64-bit version but I can't find any trace of one. The whole thing is
much more disorganized that Dell usually is. Than I've ever noticed
Dell to be in the past. It takes some shine off their rose.




I don't know but the thing that I thought was a bit funny is MSE.

Many down-loaders simply detect your OS and give you the right one...but
with MSE one must choose.


I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know which one is which.



AMD64 or x86 might very well seem cryptic to many people


For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

micky wrote:


It's going to have to wait for a while after all. I have a hum in my
phone line and rather than find it, I have to decide between cable and
fiber optic.

You're not going to believe this, but I had a "hum" on VOIP :-)

Which is, of course, digital, and cannot "hum" or even hold a tune.

It turns out, the VOIP box is electrically floating, and
doesn't have a safety ground. The adapter for it only
has two prongs. The Ethernet connections to the VOIP
box are transformer coupled.

So I decided to try an experiment, and ran a wire with alligator
clips on either end, from the metal chassis of the VOIP, to an I/O
screw on the back of the PC (which *is* safety grounded). And the
hum stopped. The line was unusable until I did that.

*******

They review some possibilities here.

http://www.sandman.com/TechBlog0513.html

One other web page, used "divide and conquer". Their demarc
apparently had an easy provision for plugging in a phone right
at the demarc and disconnecting the house wiring. Mine is an
old fashioned setup, which had four screws for the wires and
that was it. So when I needed to test my "inside-house"
performance, I ended up buying a length of four conductor cable
plus a wall outlet plate (and fastening it to the demarc
in place of the house wires). It took me a while to track down
some wire for the job (I didn't want to use any of my "good"
wire for this).

I've since discovered a lighting place sells cable, and
I can even get cable with eight conductors if I want
(for a price).

Paul

In message , micky
writes:
In alt.windows7.general, on Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:15:10 -0500, philo
wrote:
[]
I don't know but the thing that I thought was a bit funny is MSE.

Many down-loaders simply detect your OS and give you the right one...but
with MSE one must choose.


I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know which one is which.



AMD64 or x86 might very well seem cryptic to many people


For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486 (those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486), then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can a blue man sing the whites?

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:43:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:



For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486 (those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486), then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.

Dear John,

Thanks for the recital of old processors. I think that you
forgot the 8088, which I think was in the original IBM PC.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , micky
writes:
In alt.windows7.general, on Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:15:10 -0500, philo
wrote:
[]
I don't know but the thing that I thought was a bit funny is MSE.

Many down-loaders simply detect your OS and give you the right one...but
with MSE one must choose.


I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know which one is which.



AMD64 or x86 might very well seem cryptic to many people


For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486 (those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486), then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.

The "x86", refers to "X as the unknown variable".

The 386 refers to a 32 bit instruction set here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80386

And if I do this, it takes me to an article on "Pentium Pro".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80686

These are sometimes referred to on Linux kernels, but I
don't know what the distinction is, and what works or fails
to work, when those modifiers are used. You might see kernels
with 386, 586, or 686 in the file name.

And that suggests that the usage of x64 is mimicry, rather
than based on some progression. Whereas AMD64 might be more
accurate, as AMD prepared the spec for 64 bit. You might
even find references to AMD64 in the file naming in WinSXS
(for 64 bit files).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

Paul

In message , Kirk Bubul
writes:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:43:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:



For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486 (those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486), then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.

Dear John,

Thanks for the recital of old processors. I think that you
forgot the 8088, which I think was in the original IBM PC.

Well, I wasn't sure where to start; I think there was the 8080 before
that. And so on back to the 4004, often claimed to be the first
microprocessor (I think it was 4 bit - and might have been only 16 or 24
pins!).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Our enemies are inventive and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop
thinking of ways to harm out country and our people. And neither do we. - George
W Bush, quoted by Rory Bremner in Radio Times, 10-16 January 2009

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:43:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486


You left out the 8088. g


(those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486),


Those last *three* becoming better known as just 286, 386, and 486


then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.


Do you know where the X in x86 and x64 comes from? I don't.

snip
It's going to have to wait for a while after all. I have a hum in my
phone line and rather than find it, I have to decide between cable and
fiber optic.
snip

I used to install DSL for a local ISP, whenever possible we replaced old
untwisted pair phone wiring with Cat5e, the twisted pairs reject
interference, and the pairs are all twisted at different rates to reduce
crosstalk. Untwisted pairs are huge antennas.

If by any chance you end up staying with DSL I would replace every bit
of phone wiring with Cat5e, using a star topology if possible (every
jack gets its own pair directly from the phone box).

Also use the minimum number of phone jacks needed. The DSL speed is
inversely proportional to the number of jacks and feet of wire
connected. With large 2 story houses I could see a several hundred k to
1M improvement every time I disconnected a jack feed pair.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:35:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Kirk Bubul
writes:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:43:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:



For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486 (those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486), then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.

Dear John,

Thanks for the recital of old processors. I think that you
forgot the 8088, which I think was in the original IBM PC.

Well, I wasn't sure where to start; I think there was the 8080 before
that. And so on back to the 4004, often claimed to be the first
microprocessor (I think it was 4 bit - and might have been only 16 or 24
pins!).


Yes, but none of those was used in an IBM PC.

On 08/30/2017 02:44 PM, Kirk Bubul wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:43:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:



For sure. Why x86 and not x32. Or x68 like I was.

Nothing to do with the bitwidths: "x86" derives from the part numbers of
the (mostly) Intel processor family that (arguably) started with the
8086, 80186 (rare), 80286, 80386, 80486 (those last two becoming better
known as just 386 and 486), then 80586 or 586, which became known as
Pentium (I _think_ when some judge decided to not allow numbers to be
the subject of copyright/patent suits any further), and so on. x64, in
contrast, _does_ derive from the bitwidth.

Dear John,

Thanks for the recital of old processors. I think that you
forgot the 8088, which I think was in the original IBM PC.


8088, and later 80188, are versions that are 16-bit processors but the
data bus is reduced to 8 bits when it leaves the chip.

BTW, at the time I had a machine with a V20. Like an 8088 but from
another company but with hardware address calculation and additional
instructions including those of the 80188 and the Z80).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." [Robert G.
Ingersoll]