Droid, ADB Drivers, and Windows 7

[pcm2a]

Hey all. I've been developing with a G1 and a HTC Magic for many months on
Windows 7 64bit + Eclipse and everything is great.

When I plug my new Moto Droid up it tries to install some Motorola A855 drivers which it cannot find. Bummer.

I tried getting on the motodev site and downloading the XP/Vista 64 bit A855 drivers (.msi package) but they won't install on windows 7. Any ideas on how to get the drivers installed and up and running?

 

[R1Lover]

My win 7 installed the driver automatically.... not sure why yours wouldn't?

 

[SinisterX]

Try installing the drivers using the Compatibility Mode. Right click the install, goto properties, then click the Compatibility Tab, check the box that sais run in compatibility mode, and try either Vista SP1 or XP SP2 and see if that will let you install the drivers that way...if not then there may be something wrong with either your phone or the version of Windows 7 that you're using.

 

[xyvyx]

if compatibility mode doesn't do the trick, you might be able to use this:
InstEd It! - InstEd - Make packaging more productive

With this utility, you can change some of the validation rules to ignore the OS version restriction. I've had multiple occasions on a Win2k8 server x64 where the A855 drivers cannot be found...

 

[praeceps]

It might be a driver signing issue perhaps? IF it is, you CAN get it working by pressing F8 and disabling driver signage limitations. I've had to only ever do this for one thing... the drivers for the PS3 controller. The worst part was it had to be done each boot up. Ugh... and on an a laptop with 11 OSes... you forget to do it really easily, ESPECIALLY when you intend to do it...

 

[Stigy]

Is this the driver you tried to use? USB and PC Charging Drivers - Motorola USA

That is the one I am using on Windows 7 for ADB it works just fine.

Let me know if that works for you.

 

[Randomocity]

There's actually an issue with the droid sdk drivers with win7 x64. In the INF, you'll have to change the device ID for the Droid to whatever it actually comes up with in device manager, otherwise you'll have to force install the drivers. There's a line under Moto Sholes in the INF that says ADB singular driver, change the device ID there for the droid and it should read the drive just fine.

 

[Billy]

There's actually an issue with the droid sdk drivers with win7 x64. In the INF, you'll have to change the device ID for the Droid to whatever it actually comes up with in device manager, otherwise you'll have to force install the drivers. There's a line under Moto Sholes in the INF that says ADB singular driver, change the device ID there for the droid and it should read the drive just fine.

Randomocity,
Could this be why certain people are having troubles with their mounts on USB. The symptom is this:
Plug in Droid
windows "installs Drivers"
Go to droid, USB Connect... Mount...

A couple of seconds later the USB will dis-mount.

Any help?

 

[sir]

I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit and I just setup Eclipse a few days ago and didn't have to do this. Everything's working great when I plug my phone in.

 

[Randomocity]

There's actually an issue with the droid sdk drivers with win7 x64. In the INF, you'll have to change the device ID for the Droid to whatever it actually comes up with in device manager, otherwise you'll have to force install the drivers. There's a line under Moto Sholes in the INF that says ADB singular driver, change the device ID there for the droid and it should read the drive just fine.

Randomocity,
Could this be why certain people are having troubles with their mounts on USB. The symptom is this:
Plug in Droid
windows "installs Drivers"
Go to droid, USB Connect... Mount...

A couple of seconds later the USB will dis-mount.

Any help?

Billy, this is specifically for the adb drivers, not the standard mounting drivers. If you're having your phone continually DC after mounting, I'd either do a hard reset and see if that fixes it or return your phone.

 

[praeceps]

Well, sir(what a screen name), you ARE dealind with a pieace of Microsoft software which has proven itself timelessly unpredictable, unreliable, as well as self contradicitng. Who could guess why it works for someone and not someone else... you do know that your copy of Windows might hyave a different build number than others? This has been true since... foever really. They didn't put the build number in anything until 95 and NT.

 

[Randomocity]

Honestly, please dont bring any fanboyism into this forum, it does no one good. This isnt a windows problem, so much as an issue with the google driver itself.

Trust me, I've already looked at it and fixed it. Don't blame the OS.

 

[praeceps]

Apologies... didn't mean it like that. Honestly, the only thing that came to mind was that individual Windows kernel revisions might allow it and others not... to my understanding, the Google driver is identical in all cases. Perhaps there's more than one driver revision that ships with Win 7, and some who get the early ones get unlucky, and others don't? Now that its clear I really would like to figure out WHY this manifests for some and not others.... what do you think does it?

 

[Randomocity]

Its a device ID issue. The PID on the original sholes was 22B8 PID 41DB. For some reasons, some of the Droids Device IDs are 22B8 PID 41E0. Or at least that's the one that I had. That difference is what causes the driver to not recognize the phone in general. By changing the last 2 numbers on the PID, the OS will recognize and match the driver, but the driver is also not signed by google, so no matter what you have to force install it.

Hope that explanation helps. My apologies on the fanboyism comment. If you have anymore questions, I'll be happy to answer.

 

[praeceps]

Huh... that is interesting... those numbers are only 5 away. Oh, and no problem. You we're just looking out for the good of the forum. It was more warranted than you know... for I am... a Linux user. Regardless, apology accepted, and 5 away is an odd hex leap. The binary for those would be 0010001010111000(22B8) 010000011101(41DB) and 0100000111100000(41E0). That's interesting... they both have the same bit parity... the same number of 1's... just a curiosity I suppose though. It could mean something and we'd never know. It's amazing that this post is still on topic.