CJM

"Neil" <neil@chapellane69.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eJcJRZ3XHHA.4872@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "CJM" <cjmnews04@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:e9KoV7zXHHA.2640@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Why then is it such a problem getting hold of software that works for
>> x64?
>>
>> a) Because it's not (yet) a priority for many manufacturers.
>
> But for hardware vendors who have already produced an x86 Vista driver,
> the marginal effort required to produce an x64 version (from what you're
> saying) is next-to-non-existent.
>

It suggest it is easier than they make out.

>> b) Because Vista x64 needs it's drivers signing, which involves
>> certificates
>
> Does the vendor have to pay for certification? In which case, I suppose
> that could explain why a piece of hardware might have an x86 driver but no
> x64 version. Though (I'd have thought) the cost of sorting out a Vista
> driver at all must be mostly in the programming.
>

I think it's around $500 for certification but that's just hearsay. I have
no actual experience of this area.

> If it really is that easy, are hardware vendors just thinking, "Ah he's
> installed the x64 version of Vista, he's someone who likes to get new
> stuff for no apparent reason; I bet we can convince him to buy the latest
> version of our thing, by only providing x86 drivers for the slightly older
> stuff." Or am I too cynical?
>

I would bet my granny that manufacturers are dragging their heels on
producing *any* drivers for older equipment in the hope that you'll be
suffiiciently motivated to by new kit. Creative anyone? X-Fi were sorted
first, followed by Audigy 4, then 2, and then older cards....

Just because you are cynical, doesn't mean you are necessarily wrong!