Installing peripherals whenever I want... without having to ask Microsoft permission

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanDroiD

Galvanizer
Ok... so in Vista they started the whole digital signing and user rights security... etc... one of the reasons I hated Vista

In Windows 7..... I thought great one can now bypass the whole user security crap by changing easily accessible settings.:clap::clap:

Now I find that I have to install a driver that Windows 7 doesn't like..... so it lets me go through the whole process and even installs the driver.. then it blocks it and tells me it is installed but not digitally signed, so it won't allow me to use it.

Is this some stupid idea from Microsoft to somehow extort money from manufacturers. I mean who are they to tell ME what I can and can't choose to install on MY machine.:no::no:

And yes I know it is to stop noobs or technically challenged people from screwing up their systems... but then they should offer an easy way for people like me to change it.

Just when I was beginningto think they had something here.. now I'm, just pissed. :@:@:@:@

Ok I'm ranting and raving here... but need to get it out... please help me with a fix for this if you know it...... this particular driver I want to install will never be digitally signed.:sos:
 
Are you using x64 version of Windows?

Coz on 64 bit windows, you cannot install unsigned drivers. Not directly though, there was a mod for Vista x64, search for it, should work on Win 7 too.

Personally, i am with Microsoft here. They have been too leniant with the hardware manufacturers. I had read once that 85% BSODs were due to driver errors. Infact, so many of us started blaming MS for the Vista capable fiasco. People started bashing them up and said that they should have a tighter hold of the OEMs and Manufacturers.

And since 64 bit is a completely different world of computing and is just coming along to mainstream now, i guess MS is doing the right thing by keeping the standards high and safe. For those who have issues, you can still use 32 bit without any issues, but since the way forward is 64 bit, they are doing the right and the hard thing by dictating the terms.

One place where i believe they goofed up was with Home Servers! Now when you are launching a new ecosystem with a completely new product, why not dictate the terms and force people to adopt the things which they should be adopting. Had they released it exclusively in 64 bit, the OEMs would have had to develop their softwares in 64 bit, which even for the 32 bit home server, they have to develop from scratch. So why not lead them down the path to develop it in 64 bit only, no support for 32 bit. As it is there is no UI, so people won't be using any apps on it. Had they forced the developers to developer for the Home Server in 64 bit only, then the developers could have used it as the impetus to focus their attention on 64 bit platform and make native 64 bits apps.

My argument was based on the presumption that you are using 64 bit. If you are not, then simply consider it a pat on the back for MS for doing the right thing.
 
Yes I believe PP is using x64, I'm sure there is a way hidden inside the UI or registry somewhere, just gotta find it... Or you could post on the technet forums, or click the "Send feedback" link near the window close buttons... Since this is a beta they can very well improve the UI before RC.
 
@ PP .. well if i remember correctly .. there were two ways to disable the driver signature check :

Method 1 : Press F8 at bootup immediately after POST .. and from the options select the one to disable the driver signature enforcement .. then simply continue booting.

Method 2 : Run cmd as Administrator. At the prompt, type the following :

Bcdedit /set nointegritychecks ON

and press enter. Try to install the drivers after a reboot :) ...

Hope this helps ..

64 OS requires proper drivers, coz native drivers are still not in full availability .. a driver signature is quite fine, but yeah it does get a bit irritating at times ..
 
The ever dreaded BSOD has historically been a screensaver for people using badly coded device drivers and not because of the instability of the OS itself. Driver signing was intended to cut down on system crashes and it has achieved the goal to a great extent. Vista never crashed on me, or for that matter on a few dozen machines that I worked on.

It high-time manufacturers invested some time and effort into designing and coding their drivers as required by the operating system to avoid system downtime. It's a win-win for both the vendor and the customers.
 
The driver signing was mandatory for x64 systems.
And its for good. No one wants a scenario like Vista, where in the first six months or so, 75% of the BSODs were due to bad Nvidia drivers...

I think its for the safety of our own systems. however, like in Vista, doesn't Win7 stop u from installing these bad drivers. If not u can send a feedback for implementing the same. :)
 
Yes 64 bit...not much point these days to go any other way if you want the performance boost with a quad and more than 4 or 5 gigs of ram.

It's not that i don't agree that manufacturers should be more accountable for the drivers they make BUT.... I still think there ought to be a simple enough way to bypass it. As it so happens... shhhhhhhhh.. I am modding/hacking my rooted G1, so I know the driver is a hack job and that's ok with me... but for what I need it is the only one available.

@deathvirus_me

Thanks, I will try that out

@alsiladka

Thanks for all of your thoughtful comments and help, I know that in many ways you are correct. For the masses it is important to have consistency but for admins and development there should be other choices that are not difficult to implement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom