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

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/com...vista.security

"Ryan" <> wrote in message
news:749527BE-1772-44E2-AD97-...
> 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

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 ****es 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" <> wrote in message
> news:749527BE-1772-44E2-AD97-...
> > 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" <> wrote in message
news:747F759B-CBC4-43B9-98C9-...
<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" <> wrote in message
> news:747F759B-CBC4-43B9-98C9-...
> <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" <> wrote in message
news:51DC01D3-7D64-46F8-8563-...
<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

"Kerry Brown" <*a*m> wrote in message
news:...
> Ryan wrote:
<snip>
>
> 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
>
Politely put Kerry Ryan, try reading pages 7 - 11 of
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...securitywp.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.

"Kerry Brown" wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

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" <> wrote in message
news:25BF6293-7609-41E0-B23E-...
> 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.
>
> "Kerry Brown" wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>