UAC / Signed Drivers / etc. are a joke :(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Ok, I cannot comprehend what Microsoft was thinking. I cannot install sound
drivers. I cannot install 3rd party applications that I paid for that
require driver installs. For example, Alcohol 120%. I used that to mount
images that I own the rights to. Guess what - no matter what I do or tweak,
Vista 64-bit will NOT allow it to install a driver. Same goes for Cubase.
I'm driving myself insane with this.

If this is how Vista is going to be, it is robbing me of my freedom to run
whatever I want. I am so sick and tired of all the prompts, the
restrictions, etc. I can't even hear sound because of the 64-bit version's
paranoia of unsigned drivers. There is NO way I will ever use Vista as an OS
if this is how it is. I'm sorry, I build my computer with my money and it is
my right to run the show how I'd like and install whatever drivers I want
risky or not.

I really don't understand this. It actually sickens me. Looks like I'll
either be sticking with XP for many more years or I'll have to try to pick up
Linux. :(

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...3a&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.security
 
Ryan said:
Ok, I cannot comprehend what Microsoft was thinking. I cannot install
sound
drivers. I cannot install 3rd party applications that I paid for that
require driver installs. For example, Alcohol 120%. I used that to mount
images that I own the rights to. Guess what - no matter what I do or
tweak,
Vista 64-bit will NOT allow it to install a driver. Same goes for Cubase.
I'm driving myself insane with this.

If this is how Vista is going to be, it is robbing me of my freedom to run
whatever I want. I am so sick and tired of all the prompts, the
restrictions, etc. I can't even hear sound because of the 64-bit
version's
paranoia of unsigned drivers. There is NO way I will ever use Vista as an
OS
if this is how it is. I'm sorry, I build my computer with my money and it
is
my right to run the show how I'd like and install whatever drivers I want
risky or not.

I really don't understand this. It actually sickens me. Looks like I'll
either be sticking with XP for many more years or I'll have to try to pick
up
Linux. :(
Click to expand...

What is your problem with Microsoft? You're running *beta/rc* software! MS
have decided that the 64bit version will not install unsigned drivers, what
a fantastic idea! No more kernel issues or security issues from unsigned,
unsafe software.
Instead of blaming MS and crying about your third party software, blame the
software companies for not releasing new, signed drivers for a *beta/rc*
operating system! They will release the signed drivers once Vista is
released.
Try installing a 32 bit version instead, you'll find most drivers will work.
"my right to run the show how I'd like " "it actaully sickens me" ...
pfffft, you'd be the first to cry if/when an exploit destroyed your data
because you installed an unsigned driver.

Wayne
Brisbane, Oz
 
Buddy, going back to Windows 3.11 I have never once had an "unsigned driver"
destroy any data of mine. I have never had a virus, I have never lost data,
I have never been phished or had my identity stolen, etc. I don't care what
Microsoft's excuse is, these sorts of features belong in the newbie versions
like "Home" not in professional or "Ultimate" editions. It's annoying, it
robs my freedom and there's no official way to turn it off. What the heck is
the point of not allowing you to turn it off? Microsoft is essentially
telling people like myself who've worked in admin positions before to go
screw ourselves that they run the show now.

Seriously, it should be my right to fully utilize my 64-bit abilities. I
shoudn't have to downgrade to a damn 32-bit OS to run the drivers I want. It
really really pisses me off more than I can put into words that I'm forced to
run signed drivers!

I personally think it's just an excuse to "curb" piracy. Seriously, with
them BLOCKING Alcohol 120% and Daemon Tools from install based off their name
alone. Then if you rename the installers / executables to get it to run, it
still denies you the ability to install the mounting driver. Yeah, thanks MS.

I own hundreds and hundreds of games going back to the late 1980s (I can
take a picture of two of my large storage boxes full and my bookshelf full if
you don't believe me). If I want to mount my own images for the sake of
keeping my cds and dvds safe that's my right. Microsoft has really crossed
the line in their paranoia. You really thing that Microsoft is going to give
these companies "Signed" driver rights when they're blocking them from
installing based off their name alone? Yeah, ok.

Microsoft, you may have very well lost a customer. I highly suggest giving
admins the right to disable all this junk or giving us an alternative admin
version of Vista 64-bit.
 
Microsoft, you may have very well lost a customer. I highly suggest
giving
admins the right to disable all this junk or giving us an alternative
admin
version of Vista 64-bit.
Click to expand...

Neither will happen. Either get used to it and stop snivelling, run the 32
bit version or use another operating system.
Personally I think restricting the installation of unsigned drivers is a
great idea.

Wayne
 
Do you work for Microsoft? How can you say it won't happen? Also, why the
heck would it be a good thing NOT to allow people to customize their OS.
Microsoft is not liable for damages, it's no skin off their back if your
entire system gets jacked up by unsigned drivers.

There is NO benefit of this to administrators like myself who run their
systems responsibly, keep them well protected and enjoy control over their
OS. A "ultimate" version should allow the most options of control.

Also, last I checked it is not possible to seamlessly update from 32-bit to
64-bit. I actually formatted my entire C drive for this. Now you're
advising that I format again to go to 32-bit cleanly and then not have the
ability to upgrade to 64-bit easily later if they do resolve all the UAC /
DRM / etc. crap? Talk about a hassle to put your paying customers through!

Myself and my father (who supported my upgrades / MS products until I was
18) have spent well over $3500 on Microsoft non-game products since DOS 3.0
or so. Maybe they could care less about my opinion but I have been
supporting the company for years and telling Linux nerds to go fly a kite.
Now I feel like I'm going to be forced to join them. It's sad.
 
I have been
supporting the company for years and telling Linux nerds to go fly a kite.
Now I feel like I'm going to be forced to join them. It's sad.
Click to expand...

I repeat, you have a choice; like it or lump it. Enjoy running *nix.

Wayne
 
Ryan said:
Do you work for Microsoft? How can you say it won't happen? Also,
why the heck would it be a good thing NOT to allow people to
customize their OS. Microsoft is not liable for damages, it's no skin
off their back if your entire system gets jacked up by unsigned
drivers.

There is NO benefit of this to administrators like myself who run
their systems responsibly, keep them well protected and enjoy control
over their OS. A "ultimate" version should allow the most options of
control.

Also, last I checked it is not possible to seamlessly update from
32-bit to 64-bit. I actually formatted my entire C drive for this.
Now you're advising that I format again to go to 32-bit cleanly and
then not have the ability to upgrade to 64-bit easily later if they
do resolve all the UAC / DRM / etc. crap? Talk about a hassle to put
your paying customers through!

Myself and my father (who supported my upgrades / MS products until I
was 18) have spent well over $3500 on Microsoft non-game products
since DOS 3.0 or so. Maybe they could care less about my opinion but
I have been supporting the company for years and telling Linux nerds
to go fly a kite. Now I feel like I'm going to be forced to join
them. It's sad.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why signed drivers are a good thing. Personally I
think they are a good thing. If you don't, vote with your wallet. Don't buy
Vista. If enough people agree with you Microsoft will change it.

Once Vista is released most reputable companies will get with the program
and put out signed drivers. Many companies are leery of putting out drivers
for an OS that is in Beta. It costs money to develop a driver and also to
support it. With new beta versions coming out every couple of months that
break the old drivers this gets expensive. Now that RC1 is out you will see
more drivers become available. Once the RTM is out expect even more. Until
then remember you are running a beta OS that may not work on all systems and
may have bugs and other problems.
 
Kerry Brown said:
Ryan wrote:
Click to expand...
There are many reasons why signed drivers are a good thing. Personally I
think they are a good thing. If you don't, vote with your wallet. Don't
buy Vista. If enough people agree with you Microsoft will change it.

Once Vista is released most reputable companies will get with the program
and put out signed drivers. Many companies are leery of putting out
drivers for an OS that is in Beta. It costs money to develop a driver and
also to support it. With new beta versions coming out every couple of
months that break the old drivers this gets expensive. Now that RC1 is out
you will see more drivers become available. Once the RTM is out expect
even more. Until then remember you are running a beta OS that may not work
on all systems and may have bugs and other problems.
Click to expand...
Politely put Kerry :) Ryan, try reading pages 7 - 11 of
http://download.microsoft.com/downl...-a137-c1db829637f5/windowsvistasecuritywp.doc
*then* come back with valid objections.

Wayne
 
Well, you guys want to know why I'm so upset? I REALLY like Vista. I love
the navigation system, I love the "Aero" deal, I love the style, etc. I
actually called my brother out in St.Louis and told him this is the coolest
version of Windows yet and that he needs to get the RC too. Then after hours
and hours of trying to get my sound working with non-signed Creative drivers
and then running into issues with my paid for copy of Alcohol (which is
obviously blacklisted by name by the OS itself), I began to wake up from the
dream.

If Microsoft would just give people like me the ability to take our own
risks, it'd keep up silent about all the methods meant to protect us.
Freedom exists in this world for a reason. Do you see vehicle manufacturers
FORCING you to install roll cages and 4 point seat belts? Do you see
lifeguards forcing people to wear wetsuits, carry oxygen tanks and wear
goggles? Do you see BBQ grills forcing you to cook your steak to well done
to prevent food poisoning? It's STUPID to force people to do things when
everyone has a different preference. It's also stupid to tell me what kind
of seasonings to use on my steak (aka banning stuff like Alcohol). This is
my computer. I built it. I paid for the software I use on it. I paid for
all the OSs I've ever used. All I want is for MS to give me my freedom to
use my computer how I want.

Again, I love Vista but my got is it a shame that to have 64-bit
functionality out of my dual core processor that I build FOR Vista, I have to
be controlled. It's just another in the lost list of lost personal freedoms
except in this case it's not the government doing it, it's Microsoft.
 
It is Microsoft's OS. It is their decision. The standard unspoken answer
is just the same as the military. If you want those features, write them
yourself.
 
Ryan said:
Do you work for Microsoft? How can you say it won't happen? Also, why the
heck would it be a good thing NOT to allow people to customize their OS.
Microsoft is not liable for damages, it's no skin off their back if your
entire system gets jacked up by unsigned drivers.

There is NO benefit of this to administrators like myself who run their
systems responsibly, keep them well protected and enjoy control over their
OS. A "ultimate" version should allow the most options of control.

Also, last I checked it is not possible to seamlessly update from 32-bit to
64-bit. I actually formatted my entire C drive for this. Now you're
advising that I format again to go to 32-bit cleanly and then not have the
ability to upgrade to 64-bit easily later if they do resolve all the UAC /
DRM / etc. crap? Talk about a hassle to put your paying customers through!
Click to expand...
Do some homework. Absolutely everybody with a clue has ditched x64 in
both XP and Vista because of abysmal driver and application support.
 
Ryan said:
Well, you guys want to know why I'm so upset? I REALLY like Vista. I love
the navigation system, I love the "Aero" deal, I love the style, etc. I
actually called my brother out in St.Louis and told him this is the coolest
version of Windows yet and that he needs to get the RC too. Then after hours
and hours of trying to get my sound working with non-signed Creative drivers
and then running into issues with my paid for copy of Alcohol (which is
obviously blacklisted by name by the OS itself), I began to wake up from the
dream.
Click to expand...
What OS is Alcohol written for? XP. What OS are you trying to run it
on? Vista. Vista is not XP. It has a different driver architecture. You
MAY get away with running SOME XP drivers but it isn't guaranteed.

The problem isn't Microsoft. It is YOU. You should be chasing the
authors of Alcohol for a Vista version.
 
I already reverted to 32-bit and I have been able to run everything. I even
found a cd-mounter which hasn't been blocked by MS yet. It really sucks that
I had to downgrade to get control over my system though. :(
 
Ryan, if you have a spare partition or hard drive, you may be interested in
downloading and installing the 120 day trial version of XP Professional x64
Edition which is still available from Microsoft. You may be pleasantly
surprised ;-) Don't give up on x64 completely.
 
I just read the complete thread here and also I do not have 64bit system and
can't talk about the technical Aspect of the x64 version - I will say that
Ryan, the Thread-starter is absolutely right in what he is writing.

I experienced something similar what aspects too much "control" :

I have bought "the Sims 2" game and it refused to install on my (legally
preinstalled on my PC) Windows XP and told me "virtual imagedrive was found!
First uninstall that !" .. it was my Alcohol / CloneCD combi (both bought)
You know what ? I have taken the Sims Game and exchanged it in the
Software-Shop and took an other game therefore.
I will never buy games from Electronic Arts anymore. That is what they have
reached by wanting me to tell me what my PC can have installed and waht not
only for their f**ing game.

If Vista will behave that agressive - well...

Back to the DriverProblem of the OP :

In Vista x86 you can press F8 on boot and check "no driver signature force"
..

Try that if you ever run in trouble again with the x86 version.
Also I have a lot of hope that soon after Vista will be RTMed we will see a
lot of Tweaking Programs, articles about how to turn off certain things and
so on.. "VistaAntispy" "TweakVista" "VistaUncovered"... just a matter of
time I guess.

SBJ ( germany )
 
Those applications chose not to have their drivers signed. Microsoft has
made it clear that 64-bit apps will require driver signing. They are not
blocking anyone from making drivers, and they are not forcing you to do
anything.

Microsoft owns the platform. They set the requirements for how 3rd party
programs, such as device drivers, plug in to the operating system. You are
free to use whatever program you want the correctly interfaces with the
platform. It's not Microsoft's fault that some companies refuse to make
compliant software.

It is frustrating in this beta-timeframe when there is poor application
support for 64-bit windows and driver signing. But that will change. That is
the price you pay for running the latest and greatest.

But Microsoft is doing the correct thing - even though it hurts right now.
Change is always painful.
 
Wayne McGlinn said:
What is your problem with Microsoft? You're running *beta/rc* software! MS
have decided that the 64bit version will not install unsigned drivers, what
a fantastic idea! No more kernel issues or security issues from unsigned,
unsafe software.
Instead of blaming MS and crying about your third party software, blame the
software companies for not releasing new, signed drivers for a *beta/rc*
operating system! They will release the signed drivers once Vista is
released.
Try installing a 32 bit version instead, you'll find most drivers will work.
"my right to run the show how I'd like " "it actaully sickens me" ...
pfffft, you'd be the first to cry if/when an exploit destroyed your data
because you installed an unsigned driver.

Wayne
Brisbane, Oz
Click to expand...

Just a small note on this. I noticed that Ryan made reference to Cubase,
which is a professional Audio application. I am in a similar position and
cannot get my sound to work which is probably due to a driver issue.

The BIG problem here is that my soundcard has not and never will be signed
by Microsoft.... all because it does NOT support DRM on the SPDIF connections
which is pretty normal for professional standard equipment.

So the fact that you will NEED driver signing is stupid really, the system
they have in place on Win XP is fine, a suitable warning is enough.
 
Well, you guys want to know why I'm so upset? I REALLY like Vista. I
love the navigation system, I love the "Aero" deal, I love the style,
etc. I actually called my brother out in St.Louis and told him this is
the coolest version of Windows yet and that he needs to get the RC too.
Then after hours and hours of trying to get my sound working with
non-signed Creative drivers and then running into issues with my paid
for copy of Alcohol (which is obviously blacklisted by name by the OS
itself), I began to wake up from the dream.

If Microsoft would just give people like me the ability to take our own
risks, it'd keep up silent about all the methods meant to protect us.
Freedom exists in this world for a reason. Do you see vehicle
manufacturers FORCING you to install roll cages and 4 point seat belts?
Do you see lifeguards forcing people to wear wetsuits, carry oxygen
tanks and wear goggles? Do you see BBQ grills forcing you to cook your
steak to well done to prevent food poisoning? It's STUPID to force
people to do things when everyone has a different preference. It's
also stupid to tell me what kind of seasonings to use on my steak (aka
banning stuff like Alcohol). This is my computer. I built it. I paid
for the software I use on it. I paid for all the OSs I've ever used.
All I want is for MS to give me my freedom to use my computer how I
want.
Again, I love Vista but my got is it a shame that to have 64-bit
functionality out of my dual core processor that I build FOR Vista, I
have to be controlled. It's just another in the lost list of lost
personal freedoms except in this case it's not the government doing it,
it's Microsoft.
Click to expand...

So this version of Alcohol120% you're trying to run. Does it say it's
compatible with Vista? 64-bit Vista? 64 bit Windows XP for that matter?
Or does it just claim to run on 32-bit Windows XP?

Because, you know, you'd look kind of foolish if you were screaming
like a baby over Vista not being able to run software that the software
manufacturer themselves does not certify for 64-bit Vista.
 
Just a small note on this. I noticed that Ryan made reference to
Cubase, which is a professional Audio application. I am in a similar
position and cannot get my sound to work which is probably due to a
driver issue.

The BIG problem here is that my soundcard has not and never will be
signed by Microsoft.... all because it does NOT support DRM on the
SPDIF connections which is pretty normal for professional standard
equipment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be signed _by Microsoft_
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvsign_perOS.mspx

Just needs to be signed properly.
So the fact that you will NEED driver signing is stupid really, the
system they have in place on Win XP is fine, a suitable warning is
enough.
Click to expand...

The XP system might be fine for you, but I've cleaned up enough broken
computers to be able to say that it isn't fine for everyone. Remember,
this system doesn't just have to deal with the best of customers
installing the best of products but also with the worse qualified
customers installing awful products.
 
Back
Top