cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

IR-ADV 6555i can't be installed on Surface Pro X

rpdodds
Apprentice

Can anybody assist in providing printer drivers for Windows 10 ARM-base processors? It's extremely frustrating to purchase a number of $2000 Surface Pro X devices sold as a business system to find that Canon does not provide printer/MFD drivers for Windows 10 ARM CPU's!

5 REPLIES 5

Tiffany
Moderator
Moderator

While our forum community members are welcome to chime in, Canon does not provide direct support for imageRUNNER series products. Instead, your dealer will be able to help you! If you don't have a dealer and you're in the United States, please call us at 1-800-OK-CANON (1-800-652-2666) and we will be happy to provide you with the names of dealers in your area.

If you're outside the USA, visit http://global.canon and choose your country or region from the map for local support.

Thank you!

shadowsports
Legend
Legend

The Surface Pro X is not a true business class device.  Instead of blaming Canon, maybe you should be looking at the amount of research you did or didn't do in this case. 

 

This is on the product's webpage.... Surface Pro X for consumers comes with Windows 10 Home to bring you the powerful Windows features you use most at an exceptional value. If you need additional enterprise management and security tools for the workplace, you can switch to Windows 10 Pro for just $99 or purchase Surface Pro X For Business

 

At this time, Surface Pro X will not install 64-bit applications that have not been ported to ARM64,

 

some games and CAD software, and some third-party drivers or anti-virus software. New 64-bit apps are coming to ARM 64 all the time. Find out more in the FAQ.

 

This is not Canon's fault or some kind of deficiency.  Microsoft sold you the surface devices as a "business system", not Canon.  Same thing happened when Microsoft released the first Surface RT.

 

I'm sorry your purchase decision has resulted in the inability to use your equipment, but you are going to run into the same problems with HP, Epson, Ricoh and many others. 

 

 

 

 

~Rick
Bay Area - CA


~R5 C (1.0.6.1) ~RF Trinity, ~RF 100 Macro, ~RF 100~400, ~RF 100~500, +RF 1.4x TC, +Canon Control Ring, BG-R10, 430EX III-RT ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~DaVinci Resolve ~Windows11 Pro ~ImageClass MF644Cdw/MF656Cdw ~Pixel 8
~CarePaks Are Worth It

"This is not Canon's fault or some kind of deficiency"

 

I beg to differ.   Yes I agree with you in that I made a blunder in not reading further into the Microsoft SQ1 CPU used in the Surface Pro X Business edition and learning that the SQ1 is an ARM-based CPU, and that Canon does not make drivers for that architecture.  But here's the thing:  Printers/MFD's are a 3rd party device.  Microsoft is not responsible for producing compatible drivers - hardware manufacturers are. 

As per the #6 footnote you point out which has a link to https://docs.microsoft.com/en-au/surface/surface-pro-arm-app-performance, it states "...Peripherals and devices only work if the drivers they depend on are built into Windows 10, or if the hardware developer has released ARM64 drivers for the device."

 

Again, my problem for not looking into this further and checking if Canon had drivers for Windows 10 on ARM, but ARM devices are increasingly being used in systems (computers, tablets and phones).  For an enormous company like Canon not to be working on development for supporting more diverse hardware platforms used with the most widely used operating system (Windows), they're kind of shutting out that entire market.

 

It appears that Canon has no Windows on ARM drivers for ANY of its devices - not just corporate printers (we have 11x LBP 351x's, 2x iR-ADV 6555i's and 2x MF419x's), but also consumer devices.   To say that it's "not Canon's fault" is preposterous.

 

FWIW - I've got a case with M$ Support to get the system replaced with an Intel or AMD based Surface Pro 7 that is fit for business use, so I'm not just blaming Canon and putting all my hope in them developing driver support for ARM.

 

---

 

For the Canon mod to say "Canon does not provide direct support for imageRUNNER series products. Instead, your dealer will be able to help you!"... what a cop out!   Why and how could a dealer provide driver support when it's Canon develop the drivers!?  If I'd posted about the LBP 315x's or the MF419's maybe her response would have been different, but a response like that from Canon is one sure way to sour any trust in a hardware vendor.

Hey,

I completely understand your feelings.  You buy something, lay out a sizeable amoint of cash and then find out it doesn't work or meet your needs.  That can be disappointing. 

 

If you stick to AMD or Intel, it won't be an issue.  ARM is still an underdog and because of its reduced instruction set, hasn't gained the marketshare it hoped for. 

 

Development is costly.  Writing and maintaining drivers for a architecture with low or limited ROI isn't cost effective. 

 

And for Image Runner Support.  Canon like other industries had a dealer network which they actively work to protect. 

 

 

 

~Rick
Bay Area - CA


~R5 C (1.0.6.1) ~RF Trinity, ~RF 100 Macro, ~RF 100~400, ~RF 100~500, +RF 1.4x TC, +Canon Control Ring, BG-R10, 430EX III-RT ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~DaVinci Resolve ~Windows11 Pro ~ImageClass MF644Cdw/MF656Cdw ~Pixel 8
~CarePaks Are Worth It

Canon Dealer Tech speaking for myself here:

 

The previous response to this is a bit ridiculous. Microsoft brought Windows to the ARM platform in 2012 with the prosumer oriented Surface RT. While ARM is less common, manufacturers have been developing more and more devices that use this platform. The latest flagship from Microsoft being the Surface Pro X continues the trend. It's unreasonable to maintain that ARM devices aren't "professional" devices. ARM devices have been a part of Windows for 8 years now (as of 2020) and ARM/Acorn has been around for far far longer. Even if you want to argue that they don't make great office workstations (which is debatable), many organizations have BYOD policies in place that offset the cost of employee infrastructure. This would include bringing consumer devices built for the home into the office.

 

While Microsoft distributes driver changes through Windows Update, it's the manufacturer's responsibility to develop and maintain drivers that connect their device (widget X) to the platforms they wish to support (Windows, Linux, Mac OS, Android). Canon already does officially support Canon copiers on Android, and I imagine iOS. Canon drivers are also available for ARM on Linux through architecture independant PPD files.

 

Generally, supporting ARM devices in your C++ application isn't too difficult. It's a few clicks in Visual Studio to add the compliation target. Given that the print driver for most Canon copiers connects to a networked Windows port, I have a hard time believing that there's too many architecture specific holdups regarding special instructions, how interrupts are managed, etc. My understanding is that the cost for Canon to support ARM on Windows would essentially be to recompile the existing driver.

 

This isn't a problem that's going away. Apple has just announced their new line of Macbook Pros (definitely professional devices. Just go to any developer conference.) will be ARM based.

 

Apologies for necro-posting but I had another customer call in about this today. They revamped their entire line up of workstations with ARM machines and now can't print.

Announcements