New Device detection, 32 vs 64 bit

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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).

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

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?

Are these on the catalog server ?

https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Home.aspx

Paul

In article , lid says...

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?

Are these on the catalog server ?

https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Home.aspx

Paul

Appear to be, least Broadcom Bluetooth shows up as both 32 % 64 bit
versions. I'll try again as perhaps it was simply a network connection
issue. I have the driver to install 64 bit but hopefully it's not
needed.

Biggest issue is I have no bluetooth device to check it works, dongle
kinda just fell into lap so to speak.

pjp wrote:
In article , lid says...
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?
Are these on the catalog server ?

https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Home.aspx

Paul

Appear to be, least Broadcom Bluetooth shows up as both 32 % 64 bit
versions. I'll try again as perhaps it was simply a network connection
issue. I have the driver to install 64 bit but hopefully it's not
needed.

Biggest issue is I have no bluetooth device to check it works, dongle
kinda just fell into lap so to speak.

With two dongles, in theory you can do a piconet
(Internet Connection Sharing). When I did an experiment
here, I think I managed to get one or two ping packets
through two dongles, before the connection died. Windows 10
didn't seem to be prepared in any way, for a user to want
a Bluetooth piconet. The datarate would be about as fast
as one of the old dialup modems. Not exactly screaming fast.

Finding a Bluetooth peripheral, if you're not a Bluetooth
person, might well be more difficult. I couldn't find anything
here to buy, that didn't look like pure rubbish. So like
you, I can't test the "high runner case" (A2DP).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tooth_profiles

One of the problems I have with the stores here now,
is there's nothing in stock for an "impulse buy". It
looks like the stores, when they want to go bankrupt,
will have a "very small clearance sale". Even a year ago,
things looked a little bit better. Now all the stores just
want to run mail order outfits. Where is the service
differentiation ? If they want my business, how will
they demonstrate superior attributes to customers ?

Paul

In message , pjp
writes:
[]
Biggest issue is I have no bluetooth device to check it works, dongle
kinda just fell into lap so to speak.

Do you have a fobile moan? They mostly have Bluetooth these days, I
think, so might be usable to test your adapter.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make!

In article , says...

In message , pjp
writes:
[]
Biggest issue is I have no bluetooth device to check it works, dongle
kinda just fell into lap so to speak.

Do you have a fobile moan? They mostly have Bluetooth these days, I
think, so might be usable to test your adapter.

Never heard the term "fobile moan". It's "meaning"?

pjp wrote:
In article , says...
In message , pjp
writes:
[]
Biggest issue is I have no bluetooth device to check it works, dongle
kinda just fell into lap so to speak.
Do you have a fobile moan? They mostly have Bluetooth these days, I
think, so might be usable to test your adapter.

Never heard the term "fobile moan". It's "meaning"?

The juxtaposition of phonemes ?

mobile phone
mobile fone
fobile moan

luaP

On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 02:00:12 -0300, pjp wrote:

In article , says...
[...]
Do you have a fobile moan? They mostly have Bluetooth these days, I
think, so might be usable to test your adapter.

Never heard the term "fobile moan". It's "meaning"?


spoonerism (plural spoonerisms)

A play on words on a phrase in which the initial (usually consonantal)
sounds of two or more of the main words are transposed.

REF: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spoonerism


--
Kind regards
Ralph