If I'm not mistaken, microsoft is charging 10,000$ for a whql certification, and that's why both ati and nvidia don't bother getting whql for many of their drivers. Intel on the other hand launches much less drivers, and even then they probably get them for much lower cost or even for free given the whole wintel alliance.
On Aug 9, 9:14 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have to agree with that statement tribaljet. Plus there is > still the one issue on how we would even get the driver to start on a > x64 OS with the driver signature enforcement thing, that is unless we > can somehow get a WHQL signature from microsoft, or if we wanted to > press F8 everytime we started up to load the drivers. > > I went back to x64 windows on my new laptop because I like UEFI boot, > other then that, theres no real advantage for me switching. > > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:04 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > I get what you mean Jeremy, but my machine is a Core Duo with x86 > > architecture, and the driver being only x64 would leave me and many > > others without being able to use it. x64 architecture users can use > > both x86 and x64 drivers, while x86 architecture users can only use > > x86 drivers, so it would leave us all out. Yes, x64 is the future. No, > > the fact that the x64 machines that come with x64 drivers doesn't make > > them run faster (most run faster with x86 OSes and the ram cap). Yes, > > Athlon 64 was a great cpu. > > > My point is that there is no need to exclude all x86 users, specially > > when most software/drivers/apps run slower in a x64 environment. I > > have nothing against it, but after 6 years things certainly aren't > > where they were supposed to be. I hope Angelic doesn't get mad at me > > for saying this, but (if he wanted) the right thing would be to first > > make a x86 driver that ALL can use, then make a x64 version. > > > On Aug 9, 8:01 pm, Jeremy Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> /// third sentance should be split into two sentances, otherwise it would > >> be > >> an accidential contracidtion. > > >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Jeremy Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > tribaljet, lolattheotherguy didn't explain it too well, but he's right. > >> > Most CPU since 2004 are 64bit, even the later Pentium CPU were, too > >> > (netburst based), only Intel's crap-filled Atom and the Core "1" series > >> > aren't. They all are (even the 64bit CPU) X86 achitecture, with 64bit > >> > additions (that AMD developed), called X86-64. > > >> > That being said, it's upto AngelicTears, so don't push him, especially if > >> > his machine is not 64bit (I dunno if it is, and I don't care to check). > > >> > Anyhow, I give up. Goodbye. > > >> > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:37 AM, tribaljet <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > > >> >> Anyway, I'm just going to replace 1GB with 2GB, and keeping the other > >> >> 1GB module. I currently just need that extra amount of ram for my > >> >> system to run smooth as desired. I'm not going to spend any more money > >> >> on it, specially since I'm about to spend quite some money on a new > >> >> soundcard and proper headphones (none of that pc audio crap :D ). > > >> >> On Aug 8, 2:33 pm, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > I'm guessing that wasn't for me as I asked such question a very long > >> >> > time ago and no one answers. Since intel info was contradictory, I had > >> >> > to test it myself on other intel chipsets. > > >> >> > On Aug 8, 8:29 am, "THEfog ." <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > Haha I could have told you that ages ago, however keep in mind some > >> >> that > >> >> > > some mainboards (950 chipset) will flip out and cause crashs and > >> >> graphics > >> >> > > corruption when more that 3.0GB of RAM is installed (confirmed 3 > >> >> cases, can > >> >> > > give model numbers and OS if requested) > > >> >> > > THEfog > > >> >> > > On 07/08/2010 2:46 PM, "tribaljet" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > As long as the cpu doesn't take a hard hit from PAE, I agree as well > >> >> > > (some cpus have heavier overhead from it than others). > > >> >> > > On a non related note, after some research I finally decided to get > >> >> > > a > >> >> > > 2GB module, replacing one of my 1GB modules for one of 2GB. Seems > >> >> > > like > >> >> > > the 945 chipset does support asymmetric dual channel, so I'm kinda > >> >> > > safe :) > > >> >> > > On Aug 7, 4:20 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > hey all, > > >> >> > > > @uncleferassi > >> >> > > > lol, yea... > >> >> > > > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM, tribaljet <[email protected]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > > > Exactly. All systems... > > >> >> -- > >> >> 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > -- > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- > Acer TravelMate 2480 > GFX: GMA950 CPU: Intel Celeron M 420 @ 1.6Ghz RAM: 2GB DDR2 333Mhz > HDD: Samsung 120GB 5400RPM SATA -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
