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

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.

"Wayne McGlinn" wrote:

> "Ryan" <Ryan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:749527BE-1772-44E2-AD97-CA418995153A@microsoft.com...

> > 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.

>
> 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
>
>

"Ryan" <Ryan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:747F759B-CBC4-43B9-98C9-EBE28E953B64@microsoft.com...
<snip ranting and raving>

> 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.
>

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.

"Wayne McGlinn" wrote:

> "Ryan" <Ryan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:747F759B-CBC4-43B9-98C9-EBE28E953B64@microsoft.com...
> <snip ranting and raving>

> > 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.
> >

>
> 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
>
>

"Ryan" <Ryan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:51DC01D3-7D64-46F8-8563-3AAF04E24DA2@microsoft.com...
<snip more ill-informed rantings>

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

Wayne

Ryan wrote:

> 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.

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
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca/forum/Forum.htm

In article <51DC01D3-7D64-46F8-8563-3AAF04E24DA2@microsoft.com>, Ryan
says...

> 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!
>

Do some homework. Absolutely everybody with a clue has ditched x64 in
both XP and Vista because of abysmal driver and application support.


--
Conor

How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the
stupidity-problem solve itself?

"Wayne McGlinn" wrote:

> 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
>
>

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.

On 2006-09-23 18:54:02 +0100, DJJoker <DJJoker@discussions.microsoft.com> said:

>
> 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.

It doesn't need to be signed _by Microsoft_
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlog...ign_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.

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.

--
Robert Moir
Microsoft MVP for Security

www.robertmoir.com