Exactly. There are plenty of known vendors who launch whql drivers that are truly crappy, but sure sound reliable since they have the almighty whql logo on it :S
On Aug 10, 1:36 am, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > Pffft I see no reason why we can't get WHQL then :p > > But wow that seems a bit ridiculous, I thought the idea of it was for > Microsoft to test the driver and verify if it's safe, but it sounds > more like pay microsoft money to have your driver sound > trustworthy.... > > > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:34 PM, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > -- > 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
