[CoffeeFiend]

ripigs, on 23 July 2010 - 09:34 PM, said:

But on the signing the packages part, I did not have to do any type of signage.

Then you probably turned off signing verification (i.e. Bcdedit -set testsigning ON) which is not as secure and does leave an ugly "Test Mode" watermark on the desktop too. Or perhaps you're running the 32 bit version of Win 7?

Otherwise, that's pretty much the same as seen on the web like here, or in MS' own docs.

[ricktendo]

TY so much this helped allot

BTW where can I find the full list of DeviceCategory's?

Example

Display.Monitor.LCD
PrintFax.Printer
Imaging.Scanner
etc

Edit: nevermind, coffefriend link has them

This post has been edited by ricktendo64: 24 July 2010 - 12:53 AM

[dencorso]

CoffeeFiend, on 23 July 2010 - 06:20 PM, said:

Knowing it was related to that, your post would likely belong better in the "customizing windows" section.

Agreed. Moved.

[ripigs]

CoffeeFiend, on 24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM, said:

Then you probably turned off signing verification (i.e. Bcdedit -set testsigning ON) which is not as secure and does leave an ugly "Test Mode" watermark on the desktop too. Or perhaps you're running the 32 bit version of Win 7?

Im running 32bit windows 7, not sure if signing verification is off or on, but there is no watermark or test mode for me????

ricktendo64, on 24 July 2010 - 12:51 AM, said:

BTW where can I find the full list of DeviceCategory's?

You can also download in from the info above

[CoffeeFiend]

ripigs, on 24 July 2010 - 07:25 AM, said:

Im running 32bit windows 7

That explains why it works then. But for a lot of us, running the 32 bit version is not an option or very much the last resort.

[jaclaz]

CoffeeFiend, on 24 July 2010 - 11:37 AM, said:

But for a lot of us, running the 32 bit version is not an option or very much the last resort.

OT , but I wonder (exception made for you and a few other blocks here on MSFN, that I would define "advanced users" ) what is the actual *need* for 64 bit.

As often happens MS own articles and numbers within them are deceiving:
http://windowsteambl...-windows-7.aspx


Percentage do not make much sense if you don't multiply them by actual quantities:
http://en.wikipedia....erating_systems

Rough numbers (Windows market share only, covering about 86%÷90% of the market and conversely 100% of MSFN members):
7-64 bit 46%x16%= 7%
Vista 64 bit 11%x20%= 2%
XP 64 bit 0.8%x50%= 4%
Total 64 bit= 13%

7-32 bit 54%x16%= 9%
Vista 32 bit 89%x20%=18%
XP 32 bit 99.2%x50%=50%
Total 32 bit= 87%

So, in the rest of the world the large majority is using 32 bit computing and I presume that had not MS pushed it so much (conveyong the idea that 64 bit is "cool") even the very high percentage - almost 1/2 of the Windows 7 users - could do with 32 bit allright.

AFAIK the large majority of apps available/in use are 32 bit, or has this changed lately?

jaclaz

[CoffeeFiend]

jaclaz, on 24 July 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

I wonder (exception made for you and a few other blocks here on MSFN, that I would define "advanced users" ) what is the actual *need* for 64 bit

I'm not debating against the "advanced users" part. As for a need, for me at least, it comes from needing to run x64 apps for memory and/or speed reasons (Photoshop, SolidWorks, x264, 7zip/winrar, etc) and needing a lot of memory (both for a single app, and for several heavy-ish apps at once). Plus many other other factors, like new video cards having a LOT of memory, having to develop for x64 OS'es, having to run 64 bit OSes in VMs, etc.

jaclaz, on 24 July 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

As often happens MS own articles and numbers within them are deceiving

Not really. XP x64 sucked really bad and it came out years late (bringing WAY more problems than benefits) so of course no one adopted that. When Vista came out, a lot of people (including me) didn't bother yet, as driver availability for x64 OS'es wasn't quite there yet (HW vendors not re-writing drivers for all their older devices), RAM was a bit more expensive so 4GB+ wasn't all that common yet, and there weren't so many x64 apps either.

With Win7 things are much better all-around, and it's finally getting some adoption. We went from "avoid" with XP x64, to "if your HW supports it and has drivers" with Vista, to "preferred" with Win7, and it'll keep going in that direction.

Of course the "overall" figures look low when you include every single machine built in the last decade like you did, when x64 only became "mainstream" with the Win7 release a few months ago. The percentages you show are very promising and will keep climbing pretty fast as supposedly 3/4 of Win7 PCs sold at retail ship with the x64 version (it might even go up as even the newer Atom CPUs now support x64)

XP came out in 2001, or more exactly 3257 days ago. Win7 was 274 days ago. The "mainstream x64 OS" has only been out for 8% as long, and it already has almost as much market share (7% by your math) -- or 13% for x64 overall. If you only include PCs that shipped in the last few years (Vista/7), we'd already be up to 33% adoption overall (and rapidly increasing) which isn't bad at all. By the time Win8 is mainstream (in probably 3 years or so; it's supposed to be the last one with a x86 version too), it'll likely be around 50%.

jaclaz, on 24 July 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

the large majority of apps available/in use are 32 bit, or has this changed lately?

That hasn't changed yet, but a LOT applications are now also getting a native x64 version (even MS Office 2010 now does). And a lot of users are quickly moving to the x64 version, like for Photoshop, where a poll on John Nack's blog back in 2008 showed ~40% of Photoshop users running a x64 OS already, with another 20% or so to switch within a year (again, that was 2 years ago). And it's understandable because it can make for a huge difference in speed too. Also, more and more apps are becoming x64-only, namely Win 2008 R2 (even if you only intend to use it in a VM), Premiere Pro CS5, After Effects CS5, Exchange 2010, etc.

I don't see a reason to stick with x86, besides for those who are completely stuck with "legacy" devices.

[ripigs]

CoffeeFiend, on 24 July 2010 - 12:48 AM, said:

...Bcdedit -set testsigning ON...

I am not using this step of the process, i did not find the need
just copied the the created file to the specified folder

[CoffeeFiend]

ripigs, on 24 July 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

I am not using this step of the process, i did not find the need
just copied the the created file to the specified folder

We already established that when you said you were running the 32 bit version, to which I've replied on post #25

I've merged some of your posts (no need to make a post for every single sentence, you can edit them you know, and you can edit the quoted text to include the relevant part as well)

[ricktendo]

Does not need to be signed, I have Win7 x64 and it works fine

http://img191.images...i/50184563.png/

[jaclaz]

@Coffefiend
Sure, memory and CPU cycles hungry apps like Photoshop and Autocad/Solidworks, rendering apps, etc., i.e. most high-end graphical apps do clearly benefit from the new architecture as well as complex calculus related apps , but Office?

I already find absurd that say (just faked number ) 83.7% of all Word users use it to write a letter (rarely since now everything is done via e-mail) or a max 10 page report, Word 6.0 on a 486 DX2 already outperformed largely the typing speed of a fast writer, not to count the time needed to think what you have to write down.

Same goes for Excel, in the large majority of cases it is used as a simple spreadsheet for things like checking your expenses or listing the petty cash of the office. I consider myself a "demanding" user of spreadsheets (i.e. Excel is the program that runs the most on my machine) and I find no actually difference in response time even on rather complex worksheets between my "normal" table PC with Excel 2000 and a newish x64 Toshiba laptop with Windows 7/Office 2010 I have been working on last week.

Obviously it's just my personal view on the matter, but it seems to me like we have already the needed power for most "normal" use of a PC in any netbook, and that the *need* for more speed/memory is only for people that use professionally high-end apps (and possibly gamers).

Like there is/will be a "fork", "normal" users still using 32 bit for a long time and a few people actually needing 64 bit power + a large number not needing it (but convinced they do) spending the extra money to have 64 bit computing, the former justified by their needs, the latter just because it is cool.


jaclaz

[dencorso]

I do agree with jaclaz, on this matter. :