I have tested approximately 6 different USB Multiport Hubs and Serial Port Adapters. Not one had a "Windows" signed driver. Some had XP drivers which were provided on the manufactures web site and some manufactures advised using their Windows 2000 drivers. The multiport hubs all worked without any problem. The serial port adapters had varying degrees of success.
Whether a driver is "signed" by Microsoft or not is not always an indication that the driver is problematic. A manufacture canproduce drivers using a much more stringent set of requirements than Microsft requires for signing and still not have their drivers signed by Microsoft. Why would they do that, you may ask. Well, Microsoft does not sign drivers for free so the maunfacture now has an additional cost they are faced with if they wish to have the "sacred" Microsoft seal of approval. I know, I know, it's hard to believe that Microsft would actual charge for something like this but they do and manufactures operating on razor thin margins have to choose whether pay MS for driver signing or forgo the exspense and/or use the money for inhouse testing and developement. So is a MS signed driver inherantly "better" than an unsigned driver? No. I know of at least one occassion in which a signed driver has caused serious operating problems for specific hardware running XP. So what do you do? Since you are dealing with an Intel product, do you think Intel's quality control is equal to Microsoft's? Personally I wouldn't think twice about loading an unsigned XP from Intel that Intel says is XP worthly but that's just me. Maybe I am all wrong but I have been dealing with MS products and MS's never ending grab for competitiors and co-operators profits sincethe release of DOS 3.0.
