I want to run some programs that are not digitally signed

[MikeyLSU]

I have read about something you can change so that it will accept non digitally signed programs to work, but don't know if it has any other bad effect for my computer.

The other is to just F8 and boot up like that every time.

Is there anything bad that could happen from this? Seems not since this is how the x86 version runs anyway.

Also, why did they only do this with x64?

 

[Nothinman]

Stop rebooting so often and hitting F8 to enable the non-signed drivers won't be an issue.

 

[superHARD]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Stop rebooting so often and hitting F8 to enable the non-signed drivers won't be an issue.

huh?

 

[Nothinman]

huh?

In the 64-bit versions of Vista you have to tell it that you want to use unsigned drivers on every bootup otherwise they fail to start, not rebooting so much will mean you don't have to do that all of the time. Just hibernate instead and you'll save yourself a lot of time in other areas too.

 

[MikeyLSU]

most of my rebooting comes from swapping from XP to Vista and back.

It is not that hard to do, but I guess my main question is why they did this? I mean, if it is for security, why is it not added for the x86 Vista?

 

[SynthDude2001]

http://www.vista64.net/forums/238222-post2.html

That worked for me.

 

[Nothinman]

most of my rebooting comes from swapping from XP to Vista and back.

Dualbooting sucks, unless you need XP for things that require hardware acceleration just get a copy of VMWare or Virtual Server and install it there.

 

[MikeyLSU]

I need XP for some games that just run better on it for now. That is the only reason I'm keeping it.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
It is not that hard to do, but I guess my main question is why they did this? I mean, if it is for security, why is it not added for the x86 Vista?

Because they wanted to preserve backward-compatibility in the 32-bit versions (which most "average" users will have) while using the 64-bit versions to cajole manufacturers into jumping on the driver-signing train. Users of the 64-bit versions are assumably more willing to tolerate the fact that some hardware may not work.

And more specifically, they are less likely to have old hardware that will never have signed drivers. The guy with the ancient, no-longer-supported-by-the-manufacturer dialup modem (or whatever) is more likely to be using the 32-bit version than the 64-bit version. Partially because he probably doesn't have a new 64-bit processor, and partially because he is probably not an early-adopter type.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
It is not that hard to do, but I guess my main question is why they did this? I mean, if it is for security, why is it not added for the x86 Vista?

Careful what you wish for.

 

[Skeeedunt]

Isn't this only for certain ("kernel mode"?) drivers? I could have sworn I installed a couple of unsigned drivers last night and all I got was a stern warning.

 

[aka1nas]

IIRC, it is for kernel mode drivers. Mem posted a GPO workaround in another thread earlier today that I wanted to try.