On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie> wrote: > On 2012.07.12 14:02, Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> I think this is a good for Microsoft's part. WinUSB will play an important >> role in the future and more and more USB device will use WinUSB >> as the driver down the road and not using the generic HID device. > > It certainly looks like Microsoft have done their part, though some XP > support would be nice too. Whether device manufacturers will follow > remains to be seen...
I believe XP will go down very rapidly after 2014. At work I can see that they are planning to move to WIndows 7 64bit from the current XP 32bit. One of our new software packages are based on Visual Studio 2010 Shell and it is a bit painful to run it under 32bit Windows (mainly because of the RAM limitation) and it runs much faster under 64bit Windows 7 with 8GB RAM. As for the vendors, I think it will take some time to update the firmware to catch up. Many existing USB device will probably not get the changes but new ones may get the change. WinUSB is already getting quite popular as a generic USB driver from what I see. >>> Not sure how this will impact libusb-win32 & libusbK though... >> >> I think there will be not much impact. libusb-win32 has many users >> and the compatibility with libusb-0.1 API makes it a good choice >> for people porting libusb-0.1 API based program to Windows. >> And libusb-0.1 API will be there for a long time. >> >> As for libusbK, it is quite new and it is Windows only. I expect it to >> be a niche player (especially the API) behind libusb-win32 and >> libusb-1.0 API (libusb and libusbx) for some time. For Windows only >> users who want nice API to be used, libusbK will still be quite >> attractive if compared to libusb-win32 API and libusb-1.0 API. >> libusbK API is also a superset of WinUSB API. So down the road, >> we expect libusbK API to have quite some users as well, but >> probably not as popular as libusb-0.1/libusb-win32 API and >> libusb-1.0 API. > > Well, libusbx will soon support all of those, so I guess it'll be up to > our developers to decide the driver that suits them best. The driver part of libusbK (libusb0.sys) can almost replace libusb0.sys but the API part of libusbK (libusbK.dll) is the one I am talking about. I do not think you can bend libusb-1.0 API too much toward libusbK API any time soon. > And seeing that all it would take to bring libusb0.sys and libusbK.sys > on par with WinUSB, is for someone to go through WHQL with a libusb0 or > libusbK WCID driver (against a libusb0 or libusbK WCID device then, or, > if we had the funds, we could even try to go through WHQL ourselves), > maybe this is what we should try to encourage. > This way, WinUSB wouldn't have the somewhat unfair advantage of being > the one driver that can skip a manual installation process on Vista and > later. I am not 100% sure if you can do that. libusb0.sys is still under GPL which may have issues with WHQL. libusbK.sys is under dual GPL/BSD so that is not an issue for WHQL. But then the problem is that I am not 100% sure if you can get WHQL for a class of USB device (no specific VID/PID). It seems to be a reserved privilege of Microsoft. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
