e7221 intel driver for xp64

Hi Jeff, and thanks heartily for your time and expertise! Forgive me if this sounds like a 'Dear Diary,' but I feel the need to ask higher-ups for their wisdom and guidance.

Your advice is understood, and no worries about the answers, I am beginning to understand why I have this problem. I had never used XP 64-bit before. On the advice of a friend who works with servers more than PCs, and who sold me the machine, I thought it would be better to use XP 64 on this 64-bit processor than the good-ole XP Pro which I use on all my other machines. Until now, all of my experience and troubleshooting has been with User-oriented OS's. I'm green on how to use a Server OS, and although I've sat on the trigger to make the switch to 2003 (or any other if you think it wise), I was afraid to pull for fear of getting out of my depth. Once before I installed 2003 for a client. It didn't seem to be as simple to use as a regular OS, and I was glad that someone else was going to handle the setup once I was done. I know this kinda sounds lame, but I really have no background on server OS's. Even though I have a network, I don't have  to run an actual server, so I couldn't see investing the time to learn 2003 and hence know nothing about it. I could make the change, though, if I could learn where to learn, so to speak.

Shoehorning a driver into working with a different OS? Oh yeah, done that lots of times. That's what is hacking me off about this one--it won't play nice. I'm not sure how to force it. Change the INF, maybe, but I spent time today looking through it and I can't tell where the INF signals which OS its for. I didn't even want to post back a reply until I had given it a good go. But, man up I must, and face that I'm out of my depth. I'm not hung up on XP64, I'm much more practical than to give my heart to one particular OS. If you have time for advice, I'll gladly take it to heart coming from the pros.

You guys are the best!

BS

I wouldn't bother using any nt6 OS, the hardware wouldn't handle it.
  Checking the spec sheet here the server came with a Pentium 4.  Which is not a 64-bit processor.
That's why there are no 64-bit drivers on the Dell site.  While the chipset supports 64-bit memory addressing, the CPU must also be 64-bit for the OS to work properly.

I think you're just asking for a world of hurt going this route.
Stick with W2k3 (32-bit) or XP.  You'll be much happier.

Read BEFORE you post.  HWID tool   DriverPacks Tutorial   DONATE!

Not all heroes wear capes, some wear Kevlar!

@Jeff

I'm not sure it was your mistake. If I am in fact mistaken about my system's processor, then I have to take it from there! Thanks again for your kind assistance.

@Mr S

You seem fairly confident in your reading of the situation. Since it challenges a rather basic assumption I've been working under, I'll need to beg some more time from you, if you will so indulge, to explain how.

I'll offer up that my operating assumption is based upon the fact that my SC420 BIOS states that the processor is a 3.4GHz, 64-bit processor that is 64-bit capable, i.e. capable of running 64-bit software. All the research I have done seems to support the belief that the EM64T processor is a 64-bit processor within the definition of a CPU that is capable of running, among other things, a 64-bit OS. I do know there is a difference in name between the PEntium Ds and the Pentium 4s, but I'm not sure how that precludes a P4 from the '64-bit club?' I'll offer up two brief examples of what I have found. First, from IBM's website:

   "The discussion whether or not EM64T and AMD64 really are 64-bit processors can be confusing to some because Intel calls its architecture “Extended Memory 64 Technology”. We know that it extends the IA32 instruction set. Therefore, are EM64T and AMD64 processors “real” 64-bit chips? The answer is absolutely yes. When these processors operate in 64-bit mode, the addresses are 64-bit, the GPRs are 64 bits wide, and the ALUs are able to process data in 64-bit chunks. Therefore, these processors are full-fledged 64-bit processors in this mode." (http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/tips0475.html)

Also, an extract from Wiki's article entitled "64-bit:"

   "64-bit microprocessor architectures (as of 2010[update]) include:

    * The 64-bit extension created by AMD to Intel's x86 architecture (later licensed by Intel); commonly known as "x86-64", "AMD64", or "x64":
          o AMD's AMD64 extensions (used in Athlon 64, Opteron, Sempron, Turion 64, Phenom, Athlon II and Phenom II processors)
          o Intel's Intel 64 extensions (used in newer Celeron, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Xeon, Core 2, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, and Atom processors)
          o VIA Technologies' 64-bit extensions, used in the VIA Nano processors"

Two things. First, its essentially a moot point for my machine, as I don't want to use either Vista or 7 (no disrespect to the eminent Jeff!!)  Second, I have no doubt in your knowledge or experience, so I'm not looking to win an argument with my betters. I'm trying to understand where I could have gotten it wrong, and also to help anyone else who also may believe mistakenly about the 64-bit architecture who stumbles into this thread.

(By the way--I know the message boards are full of what seem to be endless hairsplitting arguments over which definitions are the correct ones, and anyone intelligent enough to understand the material also knows that those sorts of arguments are essentially unwinnable. I won't carry the argument any further, I will just read what you or others have to say. And please forgive my error if this is in the wrong section.)

So, thanks so much for any time you feel to take, and I will assume no wrong if you do not wish to spend anymore. You guys are still the best, and your site will always have my support.

BS