Computing desk
< December 17	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 18

Windows 10 drivers

If you have Windows 10 drivers for a device, does that mean that you will never need new drivers as Windows 10 is updated? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually not, but it is not possible to 100% sure. Ruslik_Zero 13:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hardware might need or might get a new driver released. This has nothing to do with Windows 10. A new Windows version could break the backwards compatibility with drivers of version pasts, I doubt this could happen with updates within the same version. So, even when Windows moves to Windows 13, your drivers will probably run OK. Windows has also “compatibility mode” options that make the applications believe tehy are running on the old Windows still. --3dcaddy (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all versions of Windows were to be W10 from now on. I had a good Canon scanner, but when one of the new versions of Windows came out several years ago, there were no drivers for it, so it wouldn't work. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to know what the future will bring, but I think "Windows 10 is the last version of Windows" is essentially a branding statement, not a technical one. It's unlikely that Microsoft will suddenly become more averse to major incompatible kernel changes just because they said (some years ago at that point) that every future version of Windows would be called "Windows 10". Most likely they'll change their minds and announce Windows Frobnitz, or effectively fork Windows 10 by not distributing the breaking change to incompatible systems, or something like that. -- BenRG (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see my 5GHz network

I have a laptop running Windows 7 with a wireless-N adapter (Intel Wireless-N 7260) and a dual-band wireless-N router. The 5GHz network is enabled on the router and set to broadcast SSID. Why can't I see it in the list of networks available for connection? Do all wirelsss-N adapters support the 5GHz band? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. All wireless N adapters do not support 5GHZ. Many do not. I have five different adapters in my house. Three do support 5ghz and use it. Two do not and don't even see it. 209.149.113.52 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after a little more online digging, it appears I probably have the single-band version of 7260. Nuts. Stuck with 2.4 for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check to enable the 5 GHz. Some use different SSID. If there are walls between, You might be out of range for connecting the 5 GHz accesspoint. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 14:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One wireless adapter, two networks

Could one run-of-the-mill wireless adapter connect to two wifi networks at the same time? Mine does not support this, but I wonder where the limitation comes from. --3dcaddy (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Linux and Windows have virtual WiFi projects that claim to allow you to connect to multiple wifi networks with one wireless device. I haven't used either one. The Windows one is here. 209.149.113.52 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's from 23 August 2005. It seems kind of a big deal. But, from a technical perspective, what makes multiple connections so difficult in 802.11 wireless networking?--3dcaddy (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that nobody sees a market for it and therefore nobody produces one. I'm just one person but I can't think of a reason that you'd need to be able to do this. At least not on a scale that would make it profitable to produce the software/devices. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most difficult part is that any two "wifi networks" are actually separated at the physical layer (not the network layer). Most modern wifi hardware can not simultaneously transmit- and- receive- on multiple channels - the radio circuits that you can actually build and buy at reasonable price-points simply are not designed that way. This is because wireless radio PHYs are tuned circuits and have frequency-selectivity. To support multiple channels, you'd need redundant hardware transceiver circuits; or, a single wide-band transceiver with significantly higher-performance. If you want a truly simultaneous network connection, you need a simultaneous physical connection.

If you had unlimited engineering time and money, you could design an ultra-wide-band receiver/transmitter, and attach it to an ultra-wide-band digitizer; and attach it to an ultra-fast specialized controller or computer that could manage multiple instances of the network layer incarnated in these multiple physical instances of the physical layer. This work is not easy or cheap. A handful of the better recent WiFi hardware can do simultaneous dual-band (at 2.4GHz and 5 GHz); and perhaps there are some commercial systems that can manage simultaneous full duplex on multiple channels within a single band; but these features are not common. These features are more likely to be found on commercial-grade access points - like a Cisco AeroNet - than on consumer-grade end-points.

Because the hardware support for this kind of feature is rare, the software to support it is even more rare; and free software incarnations are essentially non-existent. The end result is that you can't easily get simultaneous WiFi network connections.

Nimur (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dual boot?

Can I put an XP partition on my computer fitted with windows 7 and boot into it when required?. There are some programs that dont work in W7. Help.--178.110.28.209 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could see if the Windows XP Mode is what you need instead.--Denidi (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instructables to the rescue! This is instructions to do exactly what you want! SteveBaker (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Your computer is fast enough, thing to install and run Windows in a virtual machine. You will be able to recover, restore and backup completely and easly. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 14:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]