DDK version question
in [Device Drivers]
|
Prev: Enabling/Disabling NDIS 5.1 Intermediate Miniport ( 1-2 Mux)
Next: InstallHinfSection fails on Vista with “Copy Error”.
From: Maxim S. Shatskih on 8 May 2008 14:51 > 2. Additionally, I can not even find the WDK version 6000.16386.A for > download anywhere on the MS site. Try WDK 6001.18000 -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation maxim(a)storagecraft.com http://www.storagecraft.com
From: Tim Roberts on 9 May 2008 22:12 "decoder" <rcg_golf(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>>The DDK is dead except if you are targeting something that changed >>>significantly since Server 2003 SP1 such as NDIS. >> >> ... or a BDA driver >> >> The Server 2003 SP1 DDK actually has a lot going for it. > >Are you saying that the Server 2003 SP1 DDK is preferrable to the >WDK 6000 for BDA? If so why? The 3790.1830 DDK is the ONLY one that contains the Europa sample, which is the ONLY example of a full analog/digital TV capture BDA driver Microsoft has ever released. For BUILDING such a driver, I would certainly use one of the WDKs. >Basically I am trying to nail down which DDK/WDK is considered usable for >a production level driver that has a BDA and a USB front end? > >What is the driver community using[build enviroment/samples] for stable >drivers? > >Here's why I ask: > >1. I am currently using the WDK version 6000.16386.A. The relnote.htm that >comes with the installation reads: > > When to use this WDK > > " Use the WDK build environments in this version of the WDK for >production-level coding." > > BUT the relnote.htm that is ACTUALLY installed in the c:\WinDDK\6000 >directory reads: > > "Use the WDK build environments in this version of the WDK for >evaluation and preview purposes only. > Do not use these WDK build environments for production-level coding. " > > Which one do I believe??? The release notes were a mistake. Microsoft forgot to update them when the WDK went RTM. However, the 6001.18000 WDK (also called the Windows Server 2008 WDK) is the current one. >2. Additionally, I can not even find the WDK version 6000.16386.A for >download anywhere on the MS site. > Only the Server 2003 SP1 DDK is available for public download. Does >this implicitly mean, according to MS, that the WDK 6000 > should not be used except for experimentation? No. The 6001 WDK is available on connect.microsoft.com. -- Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
From: Pavel A. on 10 May 2008 08:01
Here is the official Microsoft page about current version of WDK and how to get it. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/wdk/WDKpkg.mspx Regards, --PA "decoder" <rcg_golf(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:elTf9TTsIHA.1768(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>The DDK is dead except if you are targeting something that changed >>>significantly since Server 2003 SP1 such as NDIS. >> >> ... or a BDA driver >> >> The Server 2003 SP1 DDK actually has a lot going for it. > > > Are you saying that the Server 2003 SP1 DDK is preferrable to the > WDK 6000 for BDA? If so why? > > > Basically I am trying to nail down which DDK/WDK is considered usable for > a production level driver that has a BDA and a USB front end? > > What is the driver community using[build enviroment/samples] for stable > drivers? > > Here's why I ask: > > 1. I am currently using the WDK version 6000.16386.A. The relnote.htm > that comes with the > installation reads: > > When to use this WDK > > " Use the WDK build environments in this version of the WDK for > production-level coding." > > BUT the relnote.htm that is ACTUALLY installed in the c:\WinDDK\6000 > directory reads: > > "Use the WDK build environments in this version of the WDK for > evaluation and preview purposes only. > Do not use these WDK build environments for production-level coding. > " > > Which one do I believe??? > > > 2. Additionally, I can not even find the WDK version 6000.16386.A for > download anywhere on the MS site. > Only the Server 2003 SP1 DDK is available for public download. Does > this implicitly mean, according to MS, that the WDK 6000 > should not be used except for experimentation? > > Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks > -decoder > > > > > > > > > |