Viasta x64 : Inability to easily use unsigned drivers = pros or cons ??

ShePearl

ShePearl

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
417
From my reading around, Vista x64's one of main features to increase security and stability is a requirement of signed drivers.

If Microsoft is so concerned about stability and security, why aren't they requiring driver signing for Vista 32-bit? Do they not think that Vista 32-bit users deserve a stable and secure platform? Why is such a supposedly important part of Vista's improved stability and security relegated to a 64-bit platform??
 
Con. I don't want to have to pay a Microsoft Tax to develop (or ship for that matter, even if they give temporary development licenses) drivers.
 
It's being blown way out of proportion. On three Vista x64 systems, I haven't had one issue with this. Even in situations like CoreTemp, if they can't/won't make the software work, there's either a workaround, or another free product that will give the same results.
 
I want to go to V64, and this is one of my concerns.

Pro
There will be fewer problems due to crappy drivers.

Con
Many companies wouldn't want to have to pay to get their drivers signed.
This will put a delay on releasing new drivers.
Fewer components will be compatible.


I wonder if anyone found a way to disable this feature yet.
 
This is a really FUD-tastic thread.

Boot up with F8, disable the driver signing enforcement.

Coretemp works fine with the fix, and F8 is not that big an inconvenience for the only drivers I use that need it (vmware)


OP is clearly flamebait.
 
Arainach said:
Con. I don't want to have to pay a Microsoft Tax to develop (or ship for that matter, even if they give temporary development licenses) drivers.
Click to expand...
Which drivers have you developed for Vista x64 that you haven't released yet?
 
mwarps said:
This is a really FUD-tastic thread.

Boot up with F8, disable the driver signing enforcement.

Coretemp works fine with the fix, and F8 is not that big an inconvenience for the only drivers I use that need it (vmware)


OP is clearly flamebait.
Click to expand...

Some of the updates broke the F8 and disable thing a while back. I'm assuming it's been fixed since then? I honestly didn't keep up with it, as I've been using things like the CoreTemp "fix" without issue.
 
Arainach said:
Irrelevant. No company should have to pay Microsoft to make something Windows compatible.
Click to expand...
If companies tested their drivers better, we wouldn't need a certification program. Furthermore, aside from a handful of small, free system utilities, what else is affected by this? I don't see forums full of people unable to use Vista x64 because of this reason.
 
Arainach said:
Irrelevant. No company should have to pay Microsoft to make something Windows compatible.
Click to expand...
No company has to. There are plenty of 3rd party certificate issuers.

Your post implied you were somehow harmed by this, but since it doesn't even apply to you I don't understand why you're so bent out of shape about it. There are digital signatures/certificates used in many applications, and virtually all that matter are commercial and involve payment to a 3rd party.

And since you apparently have no idea what this thread involves, the certificate requirement is only for x64 kernel mode drivers, something you would definitely want to know is legitimate. :rolleyes:
 
silent-circuit said:
Some of the updates broke the F8 and disable thing a while back. I'm assuming it's been fixed since then? I honestly didn't keep up with it, as I've been using things like the CoreTemp "fix" without issue.
Click to expand...

Did it break the F8 thing? I thought it only prevented the bcdedit change to disable driver signing. But maybe it does, I don't use it (and have started using HWMonitor instead of CoreTemp, since they always agree and HWMonitor doesn't need a driver it seems).
 
Arainach said:
Irrelevant. No company should have to pay Microsoft to make something Windows compatible.
Click to expand...

I've been using Windows for years, and most of the problems come from crappy drivers.

Microsoft has a bad rep when it comes to security. For years people have been breaking their own machines by installing crappy drivers, maleware or whatever that popup told them they needed. Who catches flack for it -- the end user who did it to themselves? Nope, Microsoft for "not having a secure enough OS".

So to protect the user from themselves, they implemented quite a few new security measures, and I think they are good for the most part. It means less trips for me because Mom installed more spyware and forgot to update Adaware before she ran the scan.

It might be nice to be able to trust a driver. But if you could do that, then Joe User would just click the trust button on everything that popped up.
 
dajet24 said:
f8 still works for me to boot without signed drivers
Click to expand...

You used to be able to turn off driver signing completely, now (assuming you installed the hot fix) you have to do it each time you boot up. When people say that it's broken, I believe their referring to the inability to completely shut it off.
 
Demon10000 said:
You used to be able to turn off driver signing completely, now (assuming you installed the hot fix) you have to do it each time you boot up. When people say that it's broken, I believe their referring to the inability to completely shut it off.
Click to expand...

No problem for me - I dont need unsigned drivers and even if I need to turn it off I would use F8 - easy solution for me because my usual uptime is ~ 1month;)
 
Microsoft can’t win with some people. Thank god they win when making money.

What’s the issue with singing a driver? It’s not that big of a deal. Really, if one is dealing with a device driver where the makers won’t bother to sign it that might tell one something.

Would you go to a doctor without a license? Would you go to a college without accreditation? All I see Microsoft doing here is applying standards that are not only expected in other industries and trades, they are expected and the norm.
 
The signed driver thing was a pain in the ass. I reboot my system often, as the box ends up running multiple operating systems / configurations. Yes, you can press F8 on boot. *EVERY STINKING TIME* Why, oh why, can they just not give you the option to disable the 'signed driver' feature once? I've got hardware that does not have a driver, probably will never get one. Made Vista (and therefore probably Windows Server 2008, but have not confirmed yet since I don't have to test that one yet) a real pain.
 
I call it a solid pro.

Sure, the people who bought crappy and no-name hardware are going to have some initial headaches, but it's going to benefit us greatly in the long run. I run all-Intel parts and mature ATI video card, so I don't have buggy/unsigned driver problems. ;)

Arainach said:
Irrelevant. No company should have to pay Microsoft to make something Windows compatible.
Click to expand...

You had your shot and lost it, remember the past 20 years? Crappy drivers and software are what has ruined the modern PC platform, and are the reason people are revolting now that Microsoft is forcing quality control. We wouldn't have this problem if you'd produced good stuff to begin with. Your fault, not mine; I'm glad Microsoft is making you get your act together. As stated before, I wouldn't go to a doctor who isn't properly licensed. ;)
 
I call this a pro because it means that companies won't be able to get away with crappy driver programming anymore.

XP's driver signing was a joke because it was optional. Most hardware manuals included "say 'yes' to the unsigned driver warning prompt" as one of the steps to follow during installation.

Unfortunately, the only way to solve that problem and make driver signing worth something it to make it mandatory. So that's what MS did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top