• We recently switched our forum platform. If you experience any issues please email support@crystalfontz.com

CC2 and Vista

jkenzie

New member
Has anyone tried to use CC2 with Windows Vista yet? I'm running a dual boot system with Vista 64bit RC1 build 5600 on a second drive. Vista sees the 635 and loads the usb drivers automaticly, no problem there.
CC2 installs fine to C:\program files(x86), the directory for 32bit apps.
I just can't get CC2 service to start. It shows up in services as running, but the the task bar logo is red. When I try to start the service, the error reads "Could not start service: Could not access the NT service manager"
As near as I can tell Vista supports the same hosting environments and transports as XP, and I haven't had problems loading other services thusfar. Any ideas?

thanks,
John
Looking for additional LCD resources? Check out our LCD blog for the latest developments in LCD technology.
 
Last edited:

jc634

Administrator
You kind of got further than me. I tried the 64b drivers on Vista 64. Would not load the serial drivers.

I then tried Vista 32 and the 32b drivers installed fine, but I got the same problems you did. I'm sure that it has something to do Vista security, but I have no idea where/how to tell Vista to allow the config program to allow access to the NT service manager.

I'm back on XP right now, so if you find out anything, let me know.

BTW, the Creative drivers are in worse shape than the CC2 drivers. And they are supposed to be written for Vista!

Jim
 

jkenzie

New member
BTW, the Creative drivers are in worse shape than the CC2 drivers. And they are supposed to be written for Vista!

Jim

Yea. I spent half a day getting the creative drivers to work. The problem is Creative released their beta drivers unsigned. Vista requires ALL drivers to be signed.There is a workaround. Microsoft have added the ability to turn off the enforced driver signature checking via the boot menu (press F8 for advanced boot options). Doing this lets Vista allow you to load the unsigned driver for your device. BCDEdit (a command-line utility to control how the OS boots) also used to have an option to disable the requirement for signed drivers, but this has now been removed as of RC1. You need to do this before you load unsigned drivers and it appears every time you boot thereafter, otherwise the drivers won't load. It's kindof a pain, but at least I have sound until new driver are released.
 

Heffo

New member
Vista is going to be another ME if you ask me. They have modified that much of the system, introduced too many untried technologies and is forcing every device manufacturer out there to pay them money to be able to have their device's driver so much as load into the system (signing drivers ain't free!).

Not to mention I can't get an app of mine to work under vista. For some reason the LoadLibraryEx call is failing, it returns an invalid handle to the loaded library, but the code returned from GetError is "The operation completed successfully". The exact same code works perfectly under XP. Go figure!

I would love to stick with XP for the duration, but I don't think I am going to have much option.
 

DarkProjekt

New member
Thats interresting. When Microsoft change less functionality, the people say "they just want to make money". And if they change a lot, then the opinion is "unproved technology".

I hope with Vista there is a chance to make a cut with old computer- and feature-support. But this has always an impact to old, existing and running software. For every software developper this has naturally a possible big impact and needs a lot of worktime to make old software running the same way on new technology.

But this is just my opinion.

Greetings
Michael
 

Heffo

New member
The trick is balance between not updating enough of the OS, and changing too much. Personally I think XP was a perfect release in that it was a good balance. I would have liked to have seen the original vista idea, which was an update of XP instead of the major upgrade Win2003 got.

There are a few things I like about vista, for instance..
  • Aero Desktop (D3D Accelerated, Less CPU overhead)
  • Better Malware Protection

But then there are some things I dislike too...
  • Trusted Computing
  • Forced Limited User Accounts
  • Forced Signed Drivers in x86-64

The problem with the Trusted Computing & Signed Drivers is that the "average joe" computer user won't really notice it, won't understand it, and still buy it. Whereas the "guru" users who know exactly how they want to use their PCs will start to hit brick walls like, Can't output DVD to your TV, or very poor quality since your TV doesn't support encrypted data. Can't encode your CDs to unencrypted files like MP3, Can't run Open Source applications since the Trusted Computing module in your system won't allow your unsigned custom-compiled app to run. Websites will start to stop working if your PC isn't running in Trust mode with a Trusted (Non-Open Source) browser.

I have loved my computers ever since I got my 1st one at 5yo (C64) and now I am not really looking forward to the next 10 years as your PC becomes less "yours" and more a tool for the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc to force you to subscribe to every little service and keep paying to listen to music or watch a movie.
 

DarkProjekt

New member
I think here we have two dimension. One is the technical improvement, the other the business and company part.

Technical improvement are nice things like better functionality, better support and use of hardware etc. I think most users will like this improvements.

The business impact are the limitation regarding copy protection (every media to every other media) etc. Here rules the money interests of every single company. If the user like it or not is mostly not important. It's bad, but the world works like this.

Oh, I just found another dimension: the self-imposed limitations. Here I think about the "Forced Signed Drivers in x86-64". For microsoft and a lot of supporter bad written drivers, tools and other code had a lot of unwanted or unexpected reactions provocated. For the "simple" users a crash is a crash. So they mostly blame MS for this. Sure, a part is by mistake of Microsoft, another part by the developer of the tools. By forcing limitations like signed drivers, Microsoft can limit the possible misbehavers of Windows. So, I think the quality of running systems will be improved by this new rules. But we will also loose a lot of helpful, nice tools.

I hope you understand me right. I'm not sponsored by MS and I don't like everything of MS. But some decisions I can understand (or believe that I can). :)

Greetings
Michael
 

Heffo

New member
I do agree, the technical improvements are a really good thing, but then the money/profit side of things comes into it. I want to know though, how much money is enough? Honestly I believe that there is no such thing as enough.

I also know what you mean about the signed drivers only being there to ensure the quality and stability of drivers used in windows to avoid the negative sentiment towards microsoft that is generated when a dodgy 3rd-party driver causes a blue-screen. I feel microsoft could have better addressed this issue by doing exactly what they have done, forcing the use of quality checked signed drivers, only in this case, by not requiring the developer to have to PAY to have their driver signed. After all, why should microsoft want to make money from somone developing a new device to work with windows. Sounds like greed to me.
 

jc634

Administrator
My, oh, my!

This thread has drifted significantly from the OP's questions. And to what point?

MS is just like any OTHER company; their first priority is make money for their investers. And they do a very good job of it! Period.

As far as Vista goes, MS has taken ALOT of heat regarding security and XP. Drivers load/work at the system level. Compromise a system-level driver and you compromise the entire system. Hence, this is good reason (or perhaps a "convenient" reason;) ) to have signed drivers. MS gets to check the security aspects of a driver (among other things) before allowing it to load on a users machine. Who gets the blame for a virus: the operating system or an offending driver?

And as DarkProjekt eluded to; who gets the blame for a BSOD, the operating system or a bad driver?

FWIW, this thread should either address the issues of the original poster or be closed!:( Issues that I have had the same problems with and no solutions for.:(

Jim
 

Grentz

New member
Well, I played around with it quite a bit the other day and found no solution.

I also tried searching google a bit and had no luck :(

Once Vista becomes mainstream though, I am sure more people will find more of these generic problems with programs and find workarounds and fixes.
 
Top