Actually Windows detected the card as a standard VGA card with 16 megs of RAM, so it’s not merely a matter of version. Yes, it’s a problem with both the card manufacturer and with windows. I will say though that the comparisons to Linux or Mac are poor because in the case of Linux you generally have to install the drivers manually, and in the case of Mac they generally are very picky about what hardware they support.
Ooh! Ooh! A dare! Okay: It’s not all about money. It’s not even slightly about money.
Christ, honestly, do you really think Microsoft are sitting there cackling about the $250 they make each time someone makes a new bit of hardware? Even generously (ludicrously) assuming that there are half a million drivers tested a year, and (even more ludicrously) that Microsoft has zero costs associated with testing, the driver signing program would represent something like 0.002 of their annual revenue ($60bn). You really think this is a profit centre for MS? That’s fucking stupid, and I don’t think you’re stupid.
To answer your question: the logo testing fee buys you the time of a Microsoft tester, the marketing benefit of the logo program, and the ease of distribution of Windows Update. Which, frankly, for $250 measly bucks is pretty goddamn cheap.
MS have instituted the signed kernel mode software requirement for a reason. The reason is security, not profit. It may annoy you, but that still doesn’t mean that every ludicrous motive you can impute is actually the case. Microsoft could make the process free and there’d still be idiots whining about how eeeevil M$ are doing down the burgeoning homebrew hardware community. Face it: it’s not a revenue stream, it’s a security choice. It may be one that annoys you, but whinging about ransoms just makes you sound like a nut. Fucking hell, install Vista x86 if it pisses you off that much, or one of the umpteen other operating systems Google can’t be fucked to support properly.
It’s funny when you scratch the woodwork and find one of the like half-dozen M$ nuts out there. Hard to believe that there are die-hards for M$ no?
Dead Badger Why do they even have the ‘search the web for an updated driver’ option if it NEVER WORKS. I have not once seen this actually work. If the driver doesn’t automatically update, then Windows isn’t going to find it, period, in my experience.
I’m not even a die-hard for MS (go search and see how I feel about Word if you’re as bored as you are dim). I just get annoyed by cretins who can’t make their own computers work and instinctively blame everyone else. You want to whinge about something sensible, knock yourself out.
Anyway, “never works” my fucking arse. It works perfectly for me. Perhaps you plugged the graphics card into your cat or something by mistake, I don’t fucking know. Let’s be clear, though: the card did work when you plugged it in, didn’t it, otherwise how did you navigate to NVidia’s website? Using the Force?
Oh, and what did you do with the driver CD that came with the bleeding thing? Is a rectal exam for your dog in order, or did you just assume it was decorative?
Plug and Play didn’t find my driver so I had to install it myself and somehow that’s user error? And you’re the one calling ME dim? Yes, the automated process didn’t work properly and I had no problem correcting the problem, yet it’s clearly MY problem.
Are you really that stupid or is this just an act you play here?
Yep, I guess you really are that stupid. As I explained before, it installed as a generic VGA card. And since you are too stupid to actually comprehend what I write I’ll try to spell it out. The part that searches for the driver on the internet, you know the little button under properties that you press to find a new driver? That has NEVER worked in my more than a decade of experience as a Professional Windows tech. I cannot recall it working once. That does not reflect on the ability of internet explorer to navigate to the vendor’s website, they are two different things. Here you are giving haughty advice and you don’t even know which function I’m referring to.
I ignored it because it’s easier to download it straight from the internet, that it assures that you have the updated driver because:
It’s actually rather comical that you are so invested in your love for M$ that you get this pissed off and have to insult my skills as an user when I had absolutely zero problem with the manual installation, and the gripe here is about the automated process not doing shit.
Hah! It thinks it’s a Windows tech. That’s cute.
The user error in this case is you mashing the “find updated drivers” button when the OS clearly hasn’t spotted what card you’ve got anyway, and expecting it to somehow magically work. The updated drivers button isn’t a do-over; it looks at the version of the driver that’s installed for what it thinks the hardware is, and sees if there’s a newer one available. If it hasn’t recognised the card, it’s not really going to do much good, is it? So, as every single person who buys high-end graphics cards knows, you toddle off to the manufacturer’s site.
That’s because most drivers aren’t updated that often, so Windows either finds one first time, or it doesn’t at all. As above: the updated drivers search is not a magical driver fairy; it just looks to see if there’s a newer version than the one you’ve already got. Besides, do you know how much other hardware in your machine Windows did find drivers for? I can tell you: all of it (because otherwise you’d be whinging about that, too). So it works! There’s a new thing you learnt today! And it only took you a decade of (pfffft) Professional Windows teching.
I’ll be around tomorrow to explain the Start button to you.
It supported itself for ten years on the proceeds.
No see there is a button for searching the web. It’s really funny how in love with M$ you are that this is seriously offending you.
And what I did was toddle off to the manufacturers site, and it worked as I said before you got all upset that I insulted MS. I mean, I see Macolytes all the time, but someone who is as passionate about M$ as a Macolyte is about a Mac is a rare sight indeed!
Why even have a search the internet function if it doesn’t actually search the web? Seems kind of stupid to me. And as I said, I know it doesn’t work, I just pressed it to see if Vista was any different. 
(Before your small mind explodes, I was getting out of tech support around the time that Vista came around, so no I haven’t played much with Vista. I switched to a Mac at that time because they don’t have these sorts of problems.) I’m back on a PC for games and because my version of Adobe CS is on Windows and it’s more than $ 1000 cheaper than getting a high performance Mac.
It’s funny how you can’t find shit to make fun of me for so you have to go back and explain to me how to do the things I stated that I did at the beginning of the thread. I’m sorry I insulted your boyfriend Bill, I’ll keep in mind what a sensitive subject it is for you. Then you make fun of me for pressing buttons in the OS and then expecting them to work. The ‘Haha dumbass, pressing the button to find a better driver is only for people who already have the correct driver installed!’ part is especially funny.
Haha, Macolyte just rolls off the tongue. What should we call you? What’s a good word for people with an irrational passion for Windows?
It does; it goes online to Microsoft’s repository to see if there’s anything newer there, i.e. newer than the driver set that gets installed with Windows, or newer than what you installed from a CD. What did you think it does, go on Google for you? Hit up www.myuseristoolazytoinsertacd.com?
You are essentially complaining that a button which you have completely misunderstood does not perform complex magic. One doesn’t have to be a Microsoft fanboy (and believe me, I’m not), to find this really stupid.
Actually I think they’re cackling about their ability to block hardware if it doesn’t enforce their copyright mechanisms for protected content. I also think it gives them pretty good leverage to blackmail hardware makers. “do this or we’ll block your windows drivers”. Do you think given their criminal abuses of other companies in the past they can be trusted with such a power?
What does the tester do? Make sure they don’t crash? Anyone qualified to do in depth security analysis would cost way more then $250.
Bullshit. It’s control and profit. This gives them an extra large club to smack hardware venders into compliance with. From Netscape corp.'s perspective, why Microsoft should be trusted with this power?
How would signed kernel code have blocked Sony’s attack?
ADP drivers work on OSX, they work on pretty much any modern Linux out there, and 32 versions of windows. They don’t run on 64 bit windows because of intentional crippling by MS.
What umpteen dozen operating systems don’t the drivers work on?
I try not to hyperventilate about these prognostications of doom, largely because I’m not daft enough to buy products with ludicrous DRM. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I buy a Blu-ray. As long as they don’t monkey with one’s ability to play unprotected media (and they clearly do not), I couldn’t give a rats ass. If Microsoft do start randomly disabling entire companies’ hardware, I’m sure we’ll hear about it. I’ll bet you a tenner they don’t though.
They assess test results generated by a standard package (the Windows Logo Kit), which the hardware manufacturer runs. You can download it and have a play, if you’re curious.
Interestingly, I just discovered I’m wrong; the signed software requirement is actually distinct from the WHQL program. You don’t need to have your code tested at all to sign it, and have it run in kernel mode. From the Kernel Mode Signing doc (bolding mine):
So in fact Microsoft aren’t the gatekeepers for this at all; all you need to do is get a certificate from one of the numerous signing bodies. You can sign it yourself. Google just haven’t bothered.
Once it became apparent, the signature could’ve been revoked (presumably by the signing authority, not Microsoft), making removal much simpler. It’s not perfect, of course, but it’s an improvement. I can’t speculate on whether the rootkit would’ve passed the WHQL tests, if indeed it was ever submitted.
I don’t really care, but if they support everything else, don’t you think that makes it even stranger that they can’t be buggered to pay $250 to get their x64 driver signed?
The two complaints in this thread can be summed up succinctly as: “My hardware manufacturer didn’t register the hardware ID with MS. This is Microsoft’s fault,” and, “My hardware manufacturer can’t be bothered to support my OS. This is Microsoft’s fault.”
Incidentally, if you’re feeling hacky (and brave), you can try out VBootKit, which claims to be able to circumvent the driver signing requirement by inserting itself in the boot sector and disabling key interrupts during Vista’s boot sequence.
So how does that improve security? Wouldn’t it be a simple matter to bait and switch malware test results for good ones?
Since self signing is an option what would have happened if Sony self signed?
Is self signing free? Could I self sign code using only a laptop?
What other operating system asks it’s palms greased to install functional drivers on?
Say as a college project I write a really innovative firewall system. It isn’t perfect, it needs some work so I release the code as an open source project. Some other students, and a guy from Istanbul contribute to the project and it turns into a highly functional, yet light weight and secure product.
An x64 port is made but it needs kernel mode code to function. No one on the team has the funds to spare. Who does this hurt, the hobbiests, or the users who want to use the product?
Well all those other operating systems run fine, and the x64 drivers does work fine if your quick with f8.
Since the trouble isn’t with the driver’s code where else could it be?
Hey that’s pretty cool. I heard about something like that but didn’t know it could permently enable unsigned drivers. Thanks!
It’d be pretty trivial to have the windows kit tie test results to a hash of the binaries being tested, so no, I’d imagine that this cunning plan is catered for. If you read the WLK instructions you can see they’re fairly anal about how you package up your submissions.
Self signing still relies on a certificate authority which trades on its reputation; in extremis, Sony’s certificate could be revoked by the CA, just the same as if it had been signed by MS.
You need a certificate from a recognised Root Authority, e.g. Verisign. These cost a couple of hundred bucks (but you can use them to sign as many things as you want). There are also community CAs like CACert that issue free certificates.
I just showed you that Windows doesn’t need its “palms greased.” You don’t need to pay one red cent to Microsoft to sign a driver and have fully functional software. You do need to pay them if you want them to test and distribute your drivers for you, which doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
As above, there are ways to get free certificates. Alternatively, for development purposes it’s possible to create your own test certificate and sign your own code. Individual machines need to have driver testsigning enabled to allow testsigned code to run.
With Google, who can’t be bothered to sign their own code. It costs $250. Google have annual revenue in the billions. Google have not released a functional x64 driver for one of their own products; it is their fault. End of.
Complex magic :rolleyes:
A web search is complex magic now.
Basically, you’re saying that the feature is redundant and calling me stupid for saying that the feature is stupid. If it was in MS’s driver database then Windows would have found it without my pressing the button.
Is it possible (and I’m not arguing pro or con, this is just something that occurred to me), that some folks at Google share the umbrage a few posters have expressed towards Microsoft’s policies? Without delving into the good/evil question–let Google be purely mercenary if it makes a difference–could Google be using its market power to influence Microsoft’s policies? The difficulties are (could be?) stirring up message board traffic and inspiring programmers to find alternate solutions. Monolithic as Microsoft is, it is not immune to market forces, however subtle they may be.
Yeah, actually; a program that searches the entire web for drivers for arbitrary hardware would be pretty fucking special. But don’t tell me; you’ve got ten years of experience writing natural language heuristic search algorithms. Right?
The button does exactly what it says, which is look in MS’s online database for an updated driver for your hardware. To do this, Vista must know what your hardware is. To know this, your hardware manufacturer has to upload the hardware ID into Microsoft’s database, telling it which drivers are compatible (you can read about these here). If it comes up as a generic VGA card, then that’s all that’s in the database for your hardware ID, presumably because that’s what your card manufacturer put there. Mashing the button again and again is not going to magically make it appear. So Windows goes online (to MS’s database), did not find a newer generic VGA card driver (because generic drivers really don’t get rewritten that much), and told you this.
I really don’t know what else you’d like out of the system. It’s up to manufacturers to use it, and yours clearly hasn’t. This is actually pretty reasonable, because everyone who’s not a complete pillock knows you go straight to the manufacturer for graphics card drivers. Hell, even you knew this.
Only if you let it go online the first time, in which case yes, searching again will probably be useless but what the hell do you expect? And if you’ve got preinstalled hardware, then it can check if a newer version has been released. This is usually fruitless, because for most things drivers don’t change much, and they’re pushed out with Windows Update anyway, and have usually been updated for you. For example, new drivers for my wifi card came through last week.
Anyway, fine, carry on whinging about how Microsoft won’t type in w w w . n v i d i a . c o m for you, all because you don’t have a clue what one button does.
I actually just did some googling, and the latest Android SDK does include a driver for 64-bit Windows.
So I suppose the answer is no. 
No, but I have ten years of experience of pressing a button and it launching a web browser that loads search functions that the company has already built. :rolleyes:
And I said ok I can be annoyed at Nvidia as well. I am mostly bemused by the sheer bile this raises in you.
Sure, I get it. I included NVidia in the rant several pages ago. Though apparently Kinthalis had no problem with his card being autodetected.
Right, that’s precisely my point. If Windows had the updated drivers then it would have detected them. If it didn’t then what is the point of even having a button that doesn’t expand the search options beyond the initial limited parameters?
:rolleyes: Microsoft could easily just autoload some search engine features and speed up the process considerably. They choose not to. Thinking that a redundant feature works stupidly, doesn’t make me stupid. It’s funny how you’ve made the best argument for why that feature is stupid and you continue to defend it. Odd really.
There’s already a button that does this, labelled “Internet Explorer”. In fact there are probably three; one in the start menu, one in the quick launch bar, and one on the desktop. Why do you want a fourth?
I would guess that his card is by a different manufacturer, which has bothered to stick their hardware IDs in the database.
I explained this once already: in case the hardware was installed while the machine was offline, or in case there is an updated driver that hasn’t been pushed out via Windows Update. I’m well aware that quite frequently, it won’t find anything new. What I’m trying to explain is that this is perfectly reasonable functionality, and that your expectations of the button are completely stupid.
As best I can tell, what you think the button should do is “load a web browser.” Is this the case? Do you want it to type in search terms for you, too? How would it know what to type?