DavidXanatos / TaskExplorer

Power full Task Manager
https://xanasoft.com/
GNU General Public License v3.0
707 stars 113 forks source link

Installing systeminformer.sys driver on Windows 7-x64 fails #52

Open RHa-iKTL opened 9 months ago

RHa-iKTL commented 9 months ago

Have tried to install the systeminformer.sys driver on my old Windows 7-Pro-x64 Laptop and received the Error Message: "Unsupported Windows Version". Testsigning is set to on. Have tried to use several previous versions using the xprocesshacker.sys driver, but unfortunately the result is the same. Is Windows 7 not supported, respectively, does anyone know where to get a working driver from? Thanks for your attention.

DavidXanatos commented 2 months ago

as we have to use the systeminformer driver we are bound to its limitations and unfortunetely they dropped windows 7 support some time ago, it would be to much work to maintain an own win 7 compatible fork of the driver

RHa-iKTL commented 2 months ago

Hi David!,

Thank you very much for provided information and your outstanding well project.

 

Kind regards

Richard

 

Gesendet: Freitag, 03. Mai 2024 um 21:42 Uhr Von: "DavidXanatos" @.> An: "DavidXanatos/TaskExplorer" @.> Cc: "RHa-iKTL" @.>, "Author" @.> Betreff: Re: [DavidXanatos/TaskExplorer] Installing systeminformer.sys driver on Windows 7-x64 fails (Issue #52)

 

as we have to use the systeminformer driver we are bound to its limitations and unfortunetely they dropped windows 7 support some time ago, it would be to much work to maintain an own win 7 compatible fork of the driver

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

Darthagnon commented 1 month ago

Would it be possible for TaskExplorer to keep retro-compatibility with the legacy Process Hacker driver? It shouldn't be too different to the System Informer driver, and is Windows 7 compatible. I uploaded the final build of Process Hacker here: https://github.com/winsiderss/systeminformer/issues/1253#issuecomment-1326885785