removing windows vista

[VanguardLH]

...

Drivers from HP for their products are digitally signed by HP, not
by Microsoft. Drivers from nVidia are digitally signed by nVidia,
not by Microsoft. Digitally signed and certified are not the same
thing. A driver can be digitally signed by the producer of that
driver but never get certified by Microsoft.

Why would you waste time to recompile a driver to generate a
Vista-specific one with the XP-compatible driver works just as
well? So the hardware may not have a driver that stipulates it is
Vista *certified* but it will still work. The same happened when
XP showed up: user were installing Win2000 drivers into WinXP
although those drivers were not *certified* for use in WinXP (and
whether or not they were digitally signed).

[Snipped: much good stuff for brevity]

I can begin to see where all the confusion arises now. However, I
am bemused by your point that XP drivers works just as well in
Vista. If experience here is anything to go by, that is far from
the case. Indeed, I was contemplating Vista for my latest PC
purchase, but have rejected it because the hardware vendors state
categorically that the XP drivers won't work under Vista and that
they have no intention of producing any, citing signing issues as
the excuse.

Did you install Vista on 64-bit hardware? If so, did you install
Vista x86 (32-bit) or Vista x64 (64-bit)? Well, if you get Windows XP
x64 then you need different drivers than for Windows XP x86 (32-bit),
and you run into the same problem that hardware vendors may not all
support 64-bit platforms. For drivers, you need to install a version
that matches the operating system, not for the hardware. That is,
32-bit drivers will work on 64-bit hardware - especially considering
that the x64 platform is still a 32-bit processor that simply had
64-bit extensions added (x64 is 32-bit plus 64-bit extensions with
enlarged registers versus Itanium which is a true 64-bit processor but
which took off in the consumer market). So the problem of which you
speak is based more on users buying 64-bit hardware without
considering whether or not their other hardware components will be
supported when and *if* they choose to run a *64-bit* operating
system. This wasn't some new problem just for Windows Vista x64 but
also with Windows XP x64. Going 64-bit for an OS can result in
hitting lots of vendors too lazy to build 64-bit versions of their
drivers.

I've seen many users get enthralled with the latest and greatest
hardware being 64-bit without a clue as to whether or not a 64-bit
operating system actually offers them any real advantage without undue
disadvantages. They don't want to buy 32-bit hardware that will
probably be outdated in, say, another 3 years (although that is about
when they will end up buying the next new computer, anyway). 64-bit
hardware is new so that's what they want. Then they bitch about the
lack of 64-bit drivers as though it were a Vista problem when it is
also a problem for Window XP x64 (or any other 64-bit capable OS).
The hardware was okay but they picked the wrong OS (64-bit instead of
32-bit).

Until the supply of x64 drivers matches your complement of hardware
devices, you could install the 32-bit version of Vista on your x64
platform. Going Vista wasn't the problem with the lack of 64-bit
drivers. Going Vista *x64* was the error. Going Vista x86 doesn't
run into the problem because you'll be using 32-bit drivers.

If a 32-bit driver (that was usable under Windows XP) won't install in
a 32-bit version of Vista, it isn't the driver that has the problem.
The driver is the operating system's interface to the hardware.
32-bit drivers work on 64-bit hardware. The same device won't require
more memory space than what it supported previously when it used the
32-bit driver. Hey, the hardware worked before with just 32-bits of
addressing so it can't even use the additional 32-bits, anyway. The
old 32-bit driver simply won't be making any calls to the 64-bit
extensions added to the instruction set to the 32-bit processor that
upped the size of its registers. Upgrading your processor and address
lines in your mobo to 64 bits does not magically transform your old
hardware (printers, scanners, USB driver, etc.) to make use of the
larger address model. You have to match 32-bit drivers with a 32-bit
OS, or 64-bit drivers with a 64-bit OS. So to continue using 32-bit
drivers because of their greater availability then use a 32-bit OS.
It is your choice whether you install Vista x86 or Vista x64 on an x64
platform. If the 32-bit driver refuses to install into 32-bit Vista,
you're getting blocked by the install program, not by the usability of
the driver.

There was a major overhaul in the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model) that was
used in Vista that changed the display driver architecture so you
probably do need to make sure your video card has a Vista-compliant
video driver. See
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/5/9c5b2167-8017-4bae-9fde-d599bac8184a/GraphicsMemory.doc.
Windows Vista supports both the old WDM (Windows Driver Model; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Driver_Model) and the new Windows
Driver Foundation. I remember when moving from Windows 98 to Windows
2000 that I lost some hardware because the old driver used VxD
(Virtual xxx Driver; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxD) which
wasn't supported on NT-based operating systems that went to WDM, and
the hardware maker wouldn't supply a WDM version. Since WDM is still
supported in Vista, I don't see why the old 32-bit WDM driver wouldn't
work in a 32-bit version of Vista.

Going from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows Vista is not an
upgrade. That is a migration to a different hardware platform. Most
users, especially with older hardware devices, with 64-bit hardware
should install the 32-bit version of Vista. While 64-bit Vista can
run 32- and 64-bit applications, Vista x64 does not support 32-bit
drivers. That's assuming the user does the install rather than
getting some pre-built computer with the OS pre-installed (so the user
actually gets a choice). If you have hardware devices that have no
64-bit drivers but are critical to your use of your computer then
install the 32-bit version of Vista and use the 32-bit drivers and
wait until 64-bit is better supported for your hardware. Of course,
by then the hardware vendor might not even support that old hardware
so you're still stuck trying to use it.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp
http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-vs-vista-x86-32-bit-or-64-bit-vista-edition/
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709

This isn't just drivers that have a problem. Vista x64 does not
support 16-bit applications. Some installers are still 16-bit
although the program that it installs is 32-bit. That means you can't
install the program although the program itself would run okay.
Unless you have a critical application where 64-bit provides some real
advantage or you truly need the extra security features of 64-bit
hardware (and it is unlikely and an end-user would ever have that
advantage), stick with 32-bit for now. What good is using a
potentially faster and more secure platform if the hardware devices
you need to use won't work?

I thought most pre-installed copies of Vista were 32-bit to avoid the
support nightmare due to the lack of 64-bit drivers. When you get
drivers, you are asked if you need the 32- or 64-bit version. That
has to do with the OS you have installed, not whether you have x86 or
x64 hardware. You can install a 32-bit OS (Windows Vista x86) onto a
64-bit platform (x64); see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932795.
Then use 32-bit drivers. Now you're set to use your 32-bit computing
environment until all your hardware has 64-bit drivers (or its support
gets dropped and you end up having to replace that hardware which does
have 64-bit driver support).

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Huh? How's that? Say that again...

*TimDaniels*

 

[M.I.5¾]

...

...

...

...

There's nothing wrong with Vista!

Depends on whether you're talking about 32-bit versus 64-bit modes.
Also, many applications check for a range of operating system
version and do not use an open-ended top boundary which means it is
closed and will fail if a newer version is installed than the
top-end of the closed range test. If the application is critical,
it supersedes the choice for the OS. Consumers tend to buy their
computers ass-backwards, picking the OS and then figuring out what
apps will run on it rather than compiling a list of their critical
or important apps and then figuring out what OS they can use with
those.

Considering the piggish system requirements for Vista and how it
slows every host when compared with the same hardware platform as
for XP, yes, there is a problem with Vista. Not everyone
appreciates the demand for better and faster hardware just to get a
new OS which is primarily a makeover, especially to a single
consumer versus the advantages that can be taken in a corporate
environment.

If the consumer is willing to go through the growing pains with
Vista for about another couple of years then they should probably
move to it so it is supported during their use of it over several
more years. However, many consumers want to use their OS rather than
play with it.

It's also worth remebering that much existing hardware does not have
Vista drivers available for it (and never will have due to
Microsoft's policy of charging money to approve the drivers).

That doesn't stop hardware makers from producing drivers for a later
OS version. It does, however, eliminate many from bothering to go
through Microsoft's *certification* process and also having to pay for
it. There are LOTS of drivers that are not certified. That is why you
get the prompt window telling you the driver is not signed but you
don't give a fart and know it is the driver from the maker of the
hardware that you want to get working.

No one needs to have drivers approved by Microsoft for users to use
them.

AIUI, that is true for XP. But Vista will not install drivers that are
not digitally signed by Microsoft. I don't use Vista, so have no first
hand experience. If what you say is true, why do the hardware vendors
use it as an excuse not to produce Vista drivers?

Drivers from HP for their products are digitally signed by HP, not by
Microsoft. Drivers from nVidia are digitally signed by nVidia, not by
Microsoft. Digitally signed and certified are not the same thing. A
driver can be digitally signed by the producer of that driver but never
get certified by Microsoft.

Why would you waste time to recompile a driver to generate a
Vista-specific one with the XP-compatible driver works just as well? So
the hardware may not have a driver that stipulates it is Vista
*certified* but it will still work. The same happened when XP showed
up: user were installing Win2000 drivers into WinXP although those
drivers were not *certified* for use in WinXP (and whether or not they
were digitally signed).

[Snipped: much good stuff for brevity]

I can begin to see where all the confusion arises now. However, I am
bemused by your point that XP drivers works just as well in Vista. If
experience here is anything to go by, that is far from the case. Indeed,
I was contemplating Vista for my latest PC purchase, but have rejected it
because the hardware vendors state categorically that the XP drivers
won't work under Vista and that they have no intention of producing any,
citing signing issues as the excuse.

Did you install Vista on 64-bit hardware? If so, did you install Vista
x86 (32-bit) or Vista x64 (64-bit)? Well, if you get Windows XP x64 then
you need different drivers than for Windows XP x86 (32-bit), and you run
into the same problem that hardware vendors may not all support 64-bit
platforms. For drivers, you need to install a version that matches the
operating system, not for the hardware. That is, 32-bit drivers will work
on 64-bit hardware - especially considering that the x64 platform is still
a 32-bit processor that simply had 64-bit extensions added (x64 is 32-bit
plus 64-bit extensions with enlarged registers versus Itanium which is a
true 64-bit processor but which took off in the consumer market). So the
problem of which you speak is based more on users buying 64-bit hardware
without considering whether or not their other hardware components will be
supported when and *if* they choose to run a *64-bit* operating system.
This wasn't some new problem just for Windows Vista x64 but also with
Windows XP x64. Going 64-bit for an OS can result in hitting lots of
vendors too lazy to build 64-bit versions of their drivers.

I've seen many users get enthralled with the latest and greatest hardware
being 64-bit without a clue as to whether or not a 64-bit operating system
actually offers them any real advantage without undue disadvantages. They
don't want to buy 32-bit hardware that will probably be outdated in, say,
another 3 years (although that is about when they will end up buying the
next new computer, anyway). 64-bit hardware is new so that's what they
want. Then they bitch about the lack of 64-bit drivers as though it were
a Vista problem when it is also a problem for Window XP x64 (or any other
64-bit capable OS). The hardware was okay but they picked the wrong OS
(64-bit instead of 32-bit).

Until the supply of x64 drivers matches your complement of hardware
devices, you could install the 32-bit version of Vista on your x64
platform. Going Vista wasn't the problem with the lack of 64-bit drivers.
Going Vista *x64* was the error. Going Vista x86 doesn't run into the
problem because you'll be using 32-bit drivers.

If a 32-bit driver (that was usable under Windows XP) won't install in a
32-bit version of Vista, it isn't the driver that has the problem. The
driver is the operating system's interface to the hardware. 32-bit drivers
work on 64-bit hardware. The same device won't require more memory space
than what it supported previously when it used the 32-bit driver. Hey,
the hardware worked before with just 32-bits of addressing so it can't
even use the additional 32-bits, anyway. The old 32-bit driver simply
won't be making any calls to the 64-bit extensions added to the
instruction set to the 32-bit processor that upped the size of its
registers. Upgrading your processor and address lines in your mobo to 64
bits does not magically transform your old hardware (printers, scanners,
USB driver, etc.) to make use of the larger address model. You have to
match 32-bit drivers with a 32-bit OS, or 64-bit drivers with a 64-bit OS.
So to continue using 32-bit drivers because of their greater availability
then use a 32-bit OS. It is your choice whether you install Vista x86 or
Vista x64 on an x64 platform. If the 32-bit driver refuses to install
into 32-bit Vista, you're getting blocked by the install program, not by
the usability of the driver.

There was a major overhaul in the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model) that was used
in Vista that changed the display driver architecture so you probably do
need to make sure your video card has a Vista-compliant video driver. See
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/5/9c5b2167-8017-4bae-9fde-d599bac8184a/GraphicsMemory.doc.
Windows Vista supports both the old WDM (Windows Driver Model; see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Driver_Model) and the new Windows
Driver Foundation. I remember when moving from Windows 98 to Windows 2000
that I lost some hardware because the old driver used VxD (Virtual xxx
Driver; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxD) which wasn't supported on
NT-based operating systems that went to WDM, and the hardware maker
wouldn't supply a WDM version. Since WDM is still supported in Vista, I
don't see why the old 32-bit WDM driver wouldn't work in a 32-bit version
of Vista.

Going from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows Vista is not an upgrade.
That is a migration to a different hardware platform. Most users,
especially with older hardware devices, with 64-bit hardware should
install the 32-bit version of Vista. While 64-bit Vista can run 32- and
64-bit applications, Vista x64 does not support 32-bit drivers. That's
assuming the user does the install rather than getting some pre-built
computer with the OS pre-installed (so the user actually gets a choice).
If you have hardware devices that have no 64-bit drivers but are critical
to your use of your computer then install the 32-bit version of Vista and
use the 32-bit drivers and wait until 64-bit is better supported for your
hardware. Of course, by then the hardware vendor might not even support
that old hardware so you're still stuck trying to use it.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp
http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-vs-vista-x86-32-bit-or-64-bit-vista-edition/
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709

This isn't just drivers that have a problem. Vista x64 does not support
16-bit applications. Some installers are still 16-bit although the
program that it installs is 32-bit. That means you can't install the
program although the program itself would run okay. Unless you have a
critical application where 64-bit provides some real advantage or you
truly need the extra security features of 64-bit hardware (and it is
unlikely and an end-user would ever have that advantage), stick with
32-bit for now. What good is using a potentially faster and more secure
platform if the hardware devices you need to use won't work?

I thought most pre-installed copies of Vista were 32-bit to avoid the
support nightmare due to the lack of 64-bit drivers. When you get
drivers, you are asked if you need the 32- or 64-bit version. That has to
do with the OS you have installed, not whether you have x86 or x64
hardware. You can install a 32-bit OS (Windows Vista x86) onto a 64-bit
platform (x64); see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932795. Then use
32-bit drivers. Now you're set to use your 32-bit computing environment
until all your hardware has 64-bit drivers (or its support gets dropped
and you end up having to replace that hardware which does have 64-bit
driver support).

Many thanks for all that. I just might turn my new PC into a dual boot
Vista/XP just to test the difference out. Fortunately it a 32 bitter, so I
shouldn't have the problems that you have outlined with the 64 bit OSs.