On Jun 17, 10:49=A0am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:
> larwe wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > BTW you haven't yet mentioned the fact that 60% of the drivers for
> > embedded dev hardware are unsigned. Vista 32-bit will not by default
> > allow you to load unsigned drivers (though it is possible to coerce
> > it). Vista 64-bit will not load unsigned drivers, period.
>
> Which begs the question: What were they thinking up there in Redmond?
>
> It's almost like offering a car and telling the cusotmers "Oh, and by
> the way, it won't be able to pass smog".


For Vista/32 it's little more than a strong warning that you're
installing an unsigned driver and that bad things may happen.  For
Vista/64, the driver must be signed, but you can sign it yourself, and
then just have the user install your certificate.  There are, of
course, some warnings when the user installs you cert.  Of course MS
recommends that you do not install unsigned drivers, and that you do
not install anyone's signing cert other than MS's.

V2FybmluZyBhZ2FpbnN0IHVuc2lnbmVkIGRyaXZlcnMgaXMgYSBnb29kIHRoaW5nLiAgSXQncyBh
bWF6aW5nIGhvdyBtdWNoIGZsYWsgTWljcm9zb2Z0IHRha2VzIGZvciBkb2luZyB0aGluZ3Mgcmln
aHQuIA0KDQoiVGhvdSBzaGFsdCBiYXNoIFZpc3RhIiBzZWVtcyB0byBiZSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGNv
bW1hbmRtZW50cyBmb3IgZ2VlayB3YW5uYWJlZXMsIGFsb25nIHdpdGggIlRob3Ugc2hhbHQgcmFu
dCBhZ2FpbnN0IHRvcC1wb3N0aW5nLiINCg0KKFdhbnQgdG8gYmV0IHRoaXMgd2lsbCBicmluZyBv
dXQgYW4gYW50aS10b3AtcG9zdGluZyByYW50Pyk=

On Jun 17, 11:49=A0am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

> > BTW you haven't yet mentioned the fact that 60% of the drivers for
> > embedded dev hardware are unsigned. Vista 32-bit will not by default
> > allow you to load unsigned drivers (though it is possible to coerce
>
> Which begs the question: What were they thinking up there in Redmond?

They were thinking that they want to protect their DRM model. Add
anything not approved by the gods and your system starts to do funky
things whenever multimedia is used.

Vista is the next evolutionary step towards the PC becoming like an
Xbox - only applications signed by Microsoft will run on it. Microsoft
lambasts the iPhone software sales model, but they are working towards
the exact same thing. At which point you might as well have an NC.

It's grossly foolhardy to lock up your business and personal data in
ephemeral formats like this.

On Jun 17, 9:16=A0am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:

> > For small values of "perfectly" where special hardware is involved.
> > The MSP430 Windows USB-JTAG drivers, in particular, cause a kernel
> > panic when you attempt to use such hardware within Parallels or
> > VMWare.
>
> Using the closed source version of Virtual Box (it's closed source, but
> free for most practical uses), you can pass USB devices through to the
> guest system without the host having to have drivers. =A0I've not tried

You can do this in Parallels and VMWare too; no host drivers are
required to use USB hardware. The problem being that the MSP430 USB-
JTAG and ez430 crash the MacOS kernel hard. It's a well-documented
problem with no resolution, and the fact that it happens under two
totally different virtualization environments leads me to believe it's
something intrinsic to the TI hardware.

MC wrote:
> 
> Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing.  It's amazing
> how much flak Microsoft takes for doing things right.
> 
> "Thou shalt bash Vista" seems to be one of the commandments for
> geek wannabees, along with "Thou shalt rant against top-posting."
> 
> (Want to bet this will bring out an anti-top-posting rant?)

Here you are.  :-)  Please do not top-post.  Your answer belongs
after (or intermixed with) the quoted material to which you reply,
after snipping all irrelevant material.  See the following links:

  <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>;
  <http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>;
  <http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>;
  <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>;  (taming google)
  <http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/>;  (newusers)

Also, do try to control your line lengths.  72 is good, 67 better.

-- 
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;
            Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

MC wrote:
> Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing.  It's amazing how
> much flak Microsoft takes for doing things right.
> 
> "Thou shalt bash Vista" seems to be one of the commandments for geek
> wannabees, along with "Thou shalt rant against top-posting."
> 
> (Want to bet this will bring out an anti-top-posting rant?)

You didn't top-post - you failed to quote properly :-)

Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing - disabling unsigned 
drivers is a bad thing.  There's a difference.

Signed drivers also introduce a false sense of security in users.  When 
a driver is signed, it means you can be fairly sure that company X made 
the driver - it gives absolutely no guarantees that it will work, and 
that it won't trash your machine!

If you are a small company, the time and cost involved in getting 
drivers signed is just not realistic.  So forcing driver signing in 
Vista 64 is another one of the thoughtless "kill the little guy" moves. 
  I suppose Vista 64 is not that popular yet, but more demanding users 
are going to see that with Vista taking so much memory itself, 4 GB 
doesn't stretch that far any more, and using a 64-bit system has its 
appeals.

In article <4858b51b$0$14995$8...@news.wineasy.se>, 
d...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com says...
> MC wrote:
> > Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing.  It's amazing how
> > much flak Microsoft takes for doing things right.
> > 
> > "Thou shalt bash Vista" seems to be one of the commandments for geek
> > wannabees, along with "Thou shalt rant against top-posting."
> > 
> > (Want to bet this will bring out an anti-top-posting rant?)
> 
> You didn't top-post - you failed to quote properly :-)
> 
> Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing - disabling unsigned 
> drivers is a bad thing.  There's a difference.
> 
> Signed drivers also introduce a false sense of security in users.  When 
> a driver is signed, it means you can be fairly sure that company X made 
> the driver - it gives absolutely no guarantees that it will work, and 
> that it won't trash your machine!
> 
> If you are a small company, the time and cost involved in getting 
> drivers signed is just not realistic.  So forcing driver signing in 
> Vista 64 is another one of the thoughtless "kill the little guy" moves. 
>   I suppose Vista 64 is not that popular yet, but more demanding users 
> are going to see that with Vista taking so much memory itself, 4 GB 
> doesn't stretch that far any more, and using a 64-bit system has its 
> appeals.
> 
More like 3GB.  If you install 4GB of memory, there is little more than 
3GB available in the address space after the reserved space for memory 
mapped devices and other goodies, and the most apps are given a 2GB 
memory/virtual memory chunk.  If you try to turn on the 3GB switch in 
XP, odds are you will trash your video driver.  

I wanted to build an 8GB system with XP Pro64 or Vista Ultimate 64 bit, 
but after all the crap I keep reading, I'm not sure it is worth the 
trouble to make the switch.  

David Brown wrote:
> MC wrote:
>> Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing.  It's amazing how
>> much flak Microsoft takes for doing things right.
>>
>> "Thou shalt bash Vista" seems to be one of the commandments for geek
>> wannabees, along with "Thou shalt rant against top-posting."
>>
>> (Want to bet this will bring out an anti-top-posting rant?)
> 
> You didn't top-post - you failed to quote properly :-)
> 
> Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing - disabling unsigned 
> drivers is a bad thing.  There's a difference.
> 

Exactamente. And one of the many reasons why Vista won't be used in this 
here office ;-)

[...]

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

>> Which begs the question: What were they thinking up there in Redmond?

>They were thinking that they want to protect their DRM model. Add
>anything not approved by the gods and your system starts to do funky
>things whenever multimedia is used.

They were thinking that with solid DRM they could get the RIAA and MPAA to
sign on, and deliver a killer media box. That's a much bigger market than
hardware hackers, and it could pay on each transaction, instead of for
each license.

Besides, the rest of us will update eventually, when the drivers
stabilize.

-- 
	mac the naïf

rickman wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:29 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
>>   That is likely also the legal framework, behind the note Joerg found :
>>
>> Quote: "After June 18th you have the option to purchase Windows Vista
>> Business or Windows Vista Ultimate with a downgrade (sic) service to
>> Windows XP Professional."
> 
> 
> No, this is what they call "Vista Bonus" which is the most expensive
> version.  In essence, you are paying for both versions of the OS.
> 
> Rick


Has anyone looked at ReactOS?  www.reactos.org  (still in alpha though)

 From the website:

ReactOS Project

ReactOS® is an advanced free open source operating system providing a 
ground-up implementation of a Microsoft Windows® XP compatible operating 
system. ReactOS aims to achieve complete binary compatibility with both 
applications and device drivers meant for NT and XP operating systems, 
by using a similar architecture and providing a complete and equivalent 
public interface.

ReactOS is the most complete working model of a Windows® like operating 
system available. Consequently, working programmers will learn a great 
deal by studying ReactOS source code and even participating in ReactOS 
development.

ReactOS has and will continue to incorporate features from newer 
versions and sometimes even define the state of the art in operating 
system technology.

In short, ReactOS is aiming to run your applications and use your 
hardware, a free operating system for everyone!