You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Maybe I'm missing something since there seem to be no posts about 64-bit Windows, but will DriverPacks integration work with a 64-bit Windows CD? All of the drivers say x86-32, but I'm sure some of you out there are running XP 64-bit. If not, then more will be in the future. What's the scoop? I'll be using nLite first, then slipping in DriverPacks, hopefully. Thanks.
Search keywords: 64 bit x64 64bit 64-bit x86-64
Driverpacks does not currently support Windows 64-bit. Sorry. 
That's too bad, but at least I know. I'll still be using DriverPacks for BartPE integration. Works great!
most of the things we do here are driven by requests.
We actually have very few requests for 64bit support. perhaps it will still become popular enough to code.
It seems more likely with SP1 coming out for Vista it will be a high priority soon. LAN for BartPE is my current target.
So, 32-bit drivers are not supported by winxp64?
You mean, if i install winxp64 , i cannot instal for example forceware, can not up all my hardware?
No, you will require specific 64bit drivers.
You cannot use the 32bit ones.
Either your HW manufacturer supplies those drivers (pretty certain that is the case for nVidia's Forceware) or you are out of luck.
The latter is precisely the reason why most folks have not yet emerged to 64bit.
Usually, you cannot find updated (to 64bit) drivers for older HW, so the devices will simply not work.
While most of the time you can use Windows 2k drivers on Win XP or XP on Vista even, you simply cannot use 32bit drivers on a 64bit OS, even if it's the same "family" (eg. 32bit XP vs 64bit XP).
As you may potentially lose a lot of legacy HW support and only really gain support for 4+GB of RAM, that is considered a bad deal in my eyes.
The situation is hopefully to change with Windows 7, which is supposed to come out in a 64bit fashion only (hence, Vista is the last 32bit OS from MS).
That would finally force HW and SW manufacturers to move to 64bit.
While that still does not solve the legacy HW problem, at least all new HW to come out will have drivers that support 64bit mode. Currently, that is not even the case.
Therefore, in my eyes, unless you really have to address 4+ GB of RAM, stick with 32bit for the time being and save yourself a lot of incompatibility hassles.
Hi !
I don´t quite agree with Helmi when it comes to the benefit of going 64bit with Vista. Ram is sooo cheap these days, 40€ für 2 GB ... and Vista really flies with 8GB RAM for instance since contrary to XP it uses that RAM for its cache. Using Vista with 2 GB RAM should be the minimum requirement for any performance oriented user and even 4 GB cannot be used with 32bit Vista completely so going with 64bit is or will be a reality for lots of people soon.
I would encourage you guys to go 64 bit with the driverpacks, at least when doing the Vista packs, you should be doing both 32 and 64 bit at the same time. (I agree, for 64bit XP you won´t find many drivers).
Also, Microsoft already changed the Logoprogram: any hardware designed for Vista must come with 64 bit drivers otherwise they manufacturer is not allowed to use the Windows logo anymore. That will soon lead to lots of 64bit drivers.
By the way: When will Vista driverpacks be in any kind of "betaphase" ? Any timetable for that ?
Vista SP1 is almost released and driverintegration should be much easier with it since it includes the $WinPeDriver$ folder functionality (Vista will look for that folder in the root of any accessible drive during WinPE phase).
Bye,
Alex
I don´t quite agree with Helmi when it comes to the benefit of going 64bit with Vista. Ram is sooo cheap these days, 40€ für 2 GB ... and Vista really flies with 8GB RAM for instance since contrary to XP it uses that RAM for its cache. Using Vista with 2 GB RAM should be the minimum requirement for any performance oriented user and even 4 GB cannot be used with 32bit Vista completely so going with 64bit is or will be a reality for lots of people soon.
While I agree with the fact that Vista simply is no fun with less than 2GB of RAM, the question remains whether the average user actually needs more than 4GB of that right now.
Sure, you can go ahead and buy it while it's cheap but if you still don't use it, it's wasted money.
Also, the number of RAM slots is limited on most motherboards, so you may actually want to pick up the largest modules possible so you can keep free slots for future upgrades - however, these sticks are ususally rather expensive.
Also, DDR-3 is around the corner, the question remains when it will have its finaly break-trough.
Investing in a lot of DDR-2 now may be a wrong choice in the long run.
Anyway, if you are using Vista, you aren't using the DriverPacks anyway, so you may just go 64bit regardless 
As for caching, what makes you think XP does not use the RAM for that?
What else does it use the RAM for, then?
Also, I'd like to re-state that I do not oppose 64bit architechtures in general.
In fact, I would have loved to see MS release Vista as 64bit only (generally, the CPU required to run it properly also does support 64bit instructions already).
It's just that currently, I see little gains in 64bit and huge drawbacks because of compatibility.
Also, AFAIK the 64bit version of Vista does not let you use unsigned drivers anymore (or so I've read).
That's another plus for the 32bit edition in my book (which still allows non-WHQL drivers!).
It is simplier for average user to build up own freebsd on 512 mb ram, than to buy 4 gb of ram for vista.
Vista mustdie forever till windows 7 started...
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
[ Generated in 0.015 seconds, 10 queries executed ]
