What's the difference between drivers and applications

Discussion in 'Windows 64 Bit' started by bob, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. Drivers will take time, the product was released only 2 months ago, so
    things will smooth out over time, I won't be surprised if we see a plethora
    of drivers and software applications supporting x64 by fall or winter.
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 3, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. bob

    John Barnes Guest

    The BJC-8000 driver seems to be working for most Canon printers. Install
    that one and you can read my instructions in another post on how to port it
    to your printer if it does not automatically select your printer.
     
    John Barnes, Jul 3, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charlie, would you call WOW64, Microsofts version of Rosetta?
     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 3, 2005
    #23
  4. bob

    neil1255 Guest

    I am running the 64 bit beta version and my Canon i560 wont work.
    Canon has informed me that they currently have no drivers for 64 bit systems
    andI don't want to buy a new printer so it's back to 32 bit XP unless
    lsomeone knows of a generic driver that will work?????
     
    neil1255, Jul 4, 2005
    #24
  5. bob

    John Barnes Guest

    I am sure the BJC-8000 driver will work with that machine. See my
    instructions elsewhere on porting it to the proper USB port if it doesn't
    set up when you install that 'printer'
     
    John Barnes, Jul 4, 2005
    #25
  6. Actually 128-bit. ;-)


     
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 4, 2005
    #26
  7. AMD64 (aka EM64T) provides direct hardware support for 16/32-bit user
    mode under a 64-bit OS, but it has a hard requirement for the OS to be
    fully 64-bit. Since drivers are part of the OS, they must be 64-bit as
    well.

    Now, I suppose someone truly perverse could find a way to translate
    32-bit drivers into 64-bit ones, or provide some sort of emulation, but
    drivers are by their very nature extremely unportable and expect to have
    access to all sorts of things that emulation or translation can't
    feasibly take into account. In short, it's a _lot_ simpler for the HW
    vendors to port their drivers (even when multiplied by the thousands of
    drivers out there) than it is for MS to support 32-bit drivers on an x64
    system.
    Linux works just fine ;-) As does XP32.

    Seriously though, the only XP64 driver problem I've run into so far is
    Acrobat. You may say I lucked out because all my hardware is from
    vendors who provide 64-bit drivers, but I've been watching very
    carefully over the last year or so when I've done upgrades to make sure
    that'd be the case.

    Shame on all the vendors who can't f'ing recompile their drivers once or
    twice in the last couple years -- this isn't rocket science. Make a
    note of what doesn't work and replace it with something from a vendor
    who adequately supports their products.

    I bet all of this driver debate is why MS decided not to release XP64 as
    a retail product -- there's just too many missing drivers right now to
    let the clueless masses buy it off the shelf. Maybe in another year or
    two...

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Jul 5, 2005
    #27
  8. bob

    Rick Guest

    You need to get educated! AMD64 is NOT aka EM64T!!!!!!!!!!!

    EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort to imitate AMD64 without publicly
    admitting AMD64 has the brains and the balls to do something Intel was
    too chicken and too stupid to even think of on their own!!!!
     
    Rick, Jul 6, 2005
    #28
  9. bob

    Intel_Fan Guest

    Normally, I wouldn't bother with a reply to such a dim-witted post but this
    isn't the first time you made such uninformed statements. Very interesting
    that you feel the "EM64T was Intel's pathetic effort to imitate AMD64"
    especially since Intel released a 64 bit microprocessor (Feb 27, 1989) two
    years before AMD manufactured their first processor, the Am386, in 1991
    (nearly three years after the Intel 386SX). I'll post references for these
    dates if you like. AMD is an excellent company to be sure and I respect
    their decision years ago to optimize their processors to the old x86
    instruction set rather than concentrate on new op codes as Intel did. It was
    a strategy that allows those of you with AMD processors to enjoy a general
    benefit in terms of speed today.

    Jumping off the deep end with unfounded inflammatory statements after
    suggesting that someone else "get educated!" is not a very good method of
    garnering credibility.
     
    Intel_Fan, Jul 6, 2005
    #29
  10. bob

    Intel_Fan Guest

    I stand corrected, AMD developed a "reverse-engineered version of the 8080A
    standard processor" (for real, I copied that straight from AMDs website) in
    1975.
     
    Intel_Fan, Jul 6, 2005
    #30
  11. bob

    Rick Guest

    All your history has very little relevance to the fact that AMD decided
    to do the 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture when Intel said it
    was stupid and there was no market for it. It was only after the AMD64
    CPUs were released that Intel decided there was a market for this
    because of the popularity of the AMD64 and Microsoft's Windows x64.
     
    Rick, Jul 6, 2005
    #31
  12. bob

    DKI Guest

    Well Even though intel tried to make a move away from the old X86 platform
    and release a new 64bit platform built from the ground up that failed only
    because it of most apps being X86 and they got little support from
    manufuctures.

    This is where AMD make there market going 64bit based on the old X86 with
    the 64bit extentions.

    Even though the IA64 is much faster and a true 64bit processor it was'nt
    much help to companies and worth many developers time to rewrite the the
    software and cost to much for them so AMDs solution was keep the X86 and
    extend it with the X64 extentions and also keeping backwards compatability.
    and today its show that it was the right move for them.

    So Intel copied AMD after seeing the popularity of the AMD64 despite intel
    saying the market is not ready for 64bit computing and 32bit was enough. for
    most people (the average user) that is true, but for others it is not.
     
    DKI, Jul 6, 2005
    #32
  13. Sure, Intel and lots of other companies released 64-bit chips earlier,
    but AMD was the first to come up with viable 64-bit extensions to the
    x86 ISA. Being the first to do something is a very different thing from
    being the first to make money at it; Intel is good at the former and AMD
    is good at the latter.

    Intel's EM64T aka IA-32e aka CT was a blatant copy of AMD64, down to
    having the same spelling mistakes and typos that were in an earlier
    revision of AMD's spec. Not that I mind them copying since it makes for
    a unified software market, but at least they could admit it instead of
    pretending they came up with _the same ISA_ independently -- shortly
    after AMD's K8 had started out-selling Itanic, no less.

    There are, of course, minor differences between AMD64 and EM64T, since
    Intel's plagiarists haven't yet copyied the more recent AMD specs, but
    there is a common subset and that is what WinXP x64 seems to be compiled
    for. Kudos to MS for getting this right.

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Jul 8, 2005
    #33
  14. bob

    John Barnes Guest

    I'm confused. When was the last time AMD made a profit on anything? or at
    least enough to recognise as a profit.
     
    John Barnes, Jul 8, 2005
    #34
  15. bob

    Intel_Fan Guest

    Thanks, but I suspect if Intel "copied" anything, it may have been a
    specification of op codes used by xp64 (possibly written by MS). That would
    explain the similarities in the document you mention. I'd like to take a
    look at this if you happen to have a link to it please.
    You may very well be correct in stating that AMD was first with 64 bit
    extensions to the x86 architecture. Intel left the x86 behind 10 years ago
    when they launched the Pentium (as I understand it, that is the reason for
    the name change instead of calling it a 586) so I wouldn't have expected
    them to do it. Where Intel screwed up was insisting on a hefty licensing fee
    and a 15yr NDA to get the new instructions. The Pentium is backward
    compatible and emulates the x86 so nobody bought into it and to this day,
    most software is still written for an ancient processor. There is an amazing
    amount of untapped horsepower under the hood of a P4. I suspect there are
    similarly unutilized functions in the AMD processors as well. It is truly
    unfortunate that most folks will never know just how much they are missing.
     
    Intel_Fan, Jul 8, 2005
    #35
  16. bob

    John Barnes Guest

    The name change was because they couldn't copyright the numeric
    designations, which many knock-offs were using, so they adopted a name they
    could copyright. Had nothing to do with architecture.
     
    John Barnes, Jul 9, 2005
    #36
  17. You're getting things completely out of order.

    MS does not produce ISA specs; they take the specs they're given by CPU
    vendors and decide if/when they will port Windows to that ISA. AMD came
    up with the AMD64 spec, published it, built CPUs around it, and helped
    the Linux and BSD communities port their OSes. They also revised the
    spec a few times to correct errors. Later, MS decided that AMD64 was
    going to be a large market after all and started porting Windows.

    _After_ that news was public, Intel suddenly embraced the idea and
    published their "IA-32e" specification (later renamed EM64T) which
    contained the same typos, errors, etc. that AMD's original documents
    showed. MS then renamed their port "x64", made changes so it would run
    on AMD's older spec that Intel plagiarized (easy to do) just as well as
    the revised specs, and delayed launch until Intel's chips were ready for
    market -- a couple years after AMD64 processors started shipping.
    The various Pentium processors follow the x86 (aka IA-32) ISA. The
    reason Intel didn't use the name "586" is because they couldn't
    trademark a number, and they'd been suffering from other vendors (like
    Cyrix and AMD) calling their processors "486". It's all about branding
    and has nothing to do with the technology inside.
    No, the Pentium _is_ an x86 processor because that's its native ISA.
    That newer models happen to break down x86 instructions into a simpler
    form internally is irrelevant -- every modern x86 chip does that
    regardless of vendor. That advance (pioneered by NexGen, IIRC, not
    Intel) is why RISC never beat out x86 -- modern x86 chips are actually
    RISC cores with a CISC decoder slapped on the front.

    Itanic, OTOH, was a complete redesign with a new native ISA (IA-64) and
    downright pathetic emulation of x86. That project fell flat on its
    face, and Intel is keeping it on life support mainly because they can't
    admit they made _yet another_ mistake like the iAPX432 or i860 (or was
    that i960?).
    Hardly. You can't even run modern x86 code on a 486 or original Pentium
    because so much has been added to the ISA since then. It's a constantly
    moving target.
    Modern code takes advantage of the modern CPUs; it's RAM latency and bad
    compilers that are keeping performance down -- the ISA isn't a limiting
    factor today for general-purpose computers.

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Jul 9, 2005
    #37
  18. bob

    Intel_Fan Guest

    Thanks for the corrections. I'm not so sure about "can't even run modern x86
    code on a 486 or original Pentium" but I do appreciate your insight on this
    subject. I agree that compilers are a shortcoming. I use the Intel IPP as
    much as possible in my projects. It's an easy way to take advantage of the
    SIMD capabilities. It really is amazing what a difference it makes.
    It's very refreshing to get this kind of dialog without it feeling like a
    shouting match. Thanks again.
     
    Intel_Fan, Jul 9, 2005
    #38
  19. bob

    Jon Guest

    Interesting responses to this question - you all seem to say go to the
    hardware vendor. Well, what if the hardware vendor is MICROSOFT.

    I have a Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and the intellipoint
    software does not load - as it's not 64 bit.

    So come on Microsoft, support your OWN hardware.
     
    Jon, Jul 12, 2005
    #39
  20. bob

    GiBB Guest

    So harsh, but ohhh so very true Rick,
    i upgraded my system to x64, but i admited defeat after a month!
    Bob i think thats somthing you should do as well,
    i could barely get anything working on my x64 system but i was foolish and
    thought i was ready, but my job calls for me to have a fully operational pc
    so i had to down grade back to xp sp2 pro, which i admit does not work as
    fast as the x64 but its a hell of a lot easier!
    so take a hint!
     
    GiBB, Jul 15, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.