Vista - Fax Modem refuses to install properly

upgraded HP dv5000 vista capable laptop from XPsp2 to vista64U.

Its a AC97 Soft Data Fax Modem with Smart CP

I have tried around 8 to 10 different drivers so far and the Fax modem receives either code 10 or incompatible modem codec. I'm using driveragent.com and have tried all their drivers but no help.

It would be nice to have this working as a back up connection...

Suggestions???

Thanks!

According to Conexant only the OEM (HP) would be able to provide drivers for
laptop modem chipsets. They don't offer generic Vista driver downloads for
any modems at their website or any drivers for integrated laptop modems. HP
doesn't offer a Vista modem driver either on the product page so either the
modem can use a generic driver already included in Vista or you could try
contacting HP support for the modem driver.

"Xgun" <Xgun.34mdz7@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Xgun.34mdz7@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

Thanks for the info but I've been round and round with both Conexant and hp. hp's customer support is garbage and I informed them of such. I bought this vista capable laptop with XP installed and with the notion I would upgrade it to vista. I also purchased it because of the 64 bit processor hoping to see some great improvements in a 64 bit operating system; what a joke. I believe the 32 bit would run circles around the 64. I waited for vista to be out for awhile before attempting to upgrade it becasue I have had the past experiece of dealing with ms new products....I've wasted more than enough time and money (having lost money due to not having a properly functioning computer) on hp and ms. I'm not spending much more.
While I wait for some solutions for this and other problems I'm going to begin shopping for a APPLE laptop. I know several people over the years who swear by them and I have never heard one of them having the kinds of problems I have seen with windows....wish I would have changed over years ago.

Different ways of dealing with problems I guess. Either the modem is
compatible with Vista or it's not. If it's not I wouldn't waste any time
trying to find drivers for it. If it is compatible then the indications are
that the drivers were either already included in Vista or HP isn't providing
them outside of their own Vista installations. If the former then something
that was done or omitted being done is preventing the modem from being
detected/installed properly. Did you install the motherboard drivers for
that laptop? Vista did it automatically with my desktop but the drivers
might be required for the laptop in order for the OS to detect the on-board
hardware correctly. If HP isn't offering up a Vista driver for the modem
then I'd stop wasting time on it. HP's policy is to only support their PCs
with the OS that it came installed with. Some of their techs might go
farther than that but I couldn't even get an email reply one way or the
other about a Vista keyboard driver for my PC out of them. :-) (other than
that my Vista install on an MCE 2005 PC went quite smoothly)

Unless you run software that was written to take advantage of the 64bits I
wouldn't expect to see a noticeable performance difference over a 32 bit
machine. There are potential bottlenecks in the system hardware that
wouldn't be affected by the OS, like drive data transfer rates.




"Xgun" <Xgun.34qhw0@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Xgun.34qhw0@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

I thought I had bought software (64bit) that would take advantage of my 64bit processor; vista 64 utlimate (piece of). I guess the OPERAING SYSTEM DOESN'T COUNT?

You refered to having installed the mother board drivers. I believe your refering to the bios? Yes, I updated that prior to the upgrade. I also ran both the hp and ms upgade advisory (prior to upgrading) and both returned no problems except for a needed software update (another component) which I had obtained and installed.
For the modem ms reported No action required. Driver is provided with Windows Vista
Evidently I havent found it yet!!!!

responding to There are potential bottlenecks in the system hardware that wouldn't be affected by the OS, like drive data transfer rates

I could go along with this POTENTIAL bottleneck, but vista has an enable advance performance for the hard drive which I would guess would be a larger cache, reducing a bottleneck there. There is 2gig ram in this laptop and according to ms gauges it has never taken over 60% of it to use, except for a few spikes to near 70%. At time's I have had many things running. I would say thats a good size chunk setting idly. Maybe there's a tweak to make it eat more RAM? and maybe run the way you think it should...64bit I would at least expect around at least a 25% improvement over a 32bit OS on the same processor; don't see that here.

No, 32bit software won't run any faster just because you run it in a 64bit
OS. Some older benchmarks here if you don't want to believe it:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1665&page=6

Where you might actually notice a speed difference in a non-64 bit app is in
something like a game that makes heavy use of CPU processing and large
chunks of system RAM. Top game benchmarks tend to belong to 64bit Athlons.

The underwhelming lack of speed difference under ordinary use was also
discussed more recently in the vista.general newsgroup, in a discussion
started by someone who was dual booting 32bit and 64bit Vista on the same
computer. An archive of that thread is here:

http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/mic...bit-vista.html



"Xgun" <Xgun.34s251@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Xgun.34s251@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

The advanced performance would make a difference if the harddrive wasn't
already operating at optimum rates with the 32bit OS. For small amounts of
data you couldn't detect the difference in transfer speeds anyway. Reading
from a larger cache might be nanoseconds faster but refilling the cache will
always take the same amount of time so there's one bottleneck. Writing to
the drive wouldn't be any faster and reading large amounts of data (say when
moving megabytes or gigabytes) wouldn't be faster either. Data transfer
rates from the internet or lan wouldn't be increased, nor would reading data
from CD/DVD or flash RAM devices (USB drives, camera memory cards).

As far as memory usage Windows will use whatever amount it needs for the
tasks that are running.There's no point filling up the remaining RAM with
unusable data. Actually that second link in my other message exactly
addresses the lack of speed difference between 32bit and 64bit Vista on the
same machine, based on other users' experience, so I'll just tack it in here
again.

http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/mic...bit-vista.html


"Xgun" <Xgun.34t741@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Xgun.34t741@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

the first BM at the pcstats site reads:

Athlon 64 manages almost a 25% performance improvement over the same benchmark run in 32-bit.

That's what I'm talking about.
I have just downloaded two upates from amd and have not had the time to install yet
I don't totally agree nor disagree with what your saying, its interesting to see other opinions

Yes, but that is the difference between software that is 32bit versus a
version of the same software that is written to run using 64bits. It isn't
the difference between 32bit only software run in a 32bit OS or a 64bit OS.
That same BM shows it running the same speed. All the benchmarks show that
32bit software runs at virtually the same speed in either 32bit or 64 bit
OS. Any software that you have which is written for 64bit should run faster
than the same program's 32bit version, but your 32bit software, or most of
it, won't run faster just because the OS and CPU are 64bit.

"Xgun" <Xgun.34u0yz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:Xgun.34u0yz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...