Unsigned driver prevents running 1701 on Vista x64.

[Colin Barnhorst]

1701 installs on my Vista Ultimate x64 system just fine except for the Copy Protection driver. When I try to run 1701 I get an error message concerning the driver. When I install the x64 driver from the Support folder on the cd I am informed that the Copy Protection driver is unsigned and cannot be installed.

The program works great on XP Pro x64 but Vista x64 enforces driver signing starting with release to manufacturing a couple of weeks ago. I am using the final version of Vista x64 (build 6000), not a beta or release candidate.

When will a signed driver be available and how will I get it?

[Colin Barnhorst]

:lol: :rofl: :scratch: :silly:

That has nothing to do with my question.

[LadyH]

sorry Colin

windows vista will not be supported
the game is made for XP and 2000, as written in the manual.

:huh:

[RoddyC]

Pwned. :bash:

[LadyH]

Hey Colin

just look around here in the forum.
search for Vista
there are more users asking about
maybe together you can find solutions?

[Flying Dutchman]

its not just him running vista, hes also running 64 bit vista. Thats like wondering why your Hummer doesnt fit the european parking places

[slindenau]

Is Vista officially released already? Not here in The Netherlands at least ;).

But indeed, you really shouldnt complain...Vista is to new for the developpers to care about, and most people still have WinXP.

Besides, you have many options...dualboot, viritual windows xp in vista, or just 2 pc's ;).

[Colin Barnhorst]

Thank you for your helpful suggetions.

Vista released to manufacturing around Nov 10 and the final is now available to Microsoft Developer Network subscribers in both the x86 and x64 Ultimate editions by download of the .iso images. They are the versions which will go to enterprise customers starting Thursday and will release to the general public on January 30 here in the US. Beta testers were given copies for personal use last week by Microsoft in return for contibuting bug reports for the past year and a half. That is what I am running.

It has been available to devs on MSDN throughout the beta and release candidate periods (about 18 months) so I disagree that it is new to developers. At least it didn't have to be new to them if they didn't want it to be.

I am in fact dual booting XP Pro x64 and Vista x64 Final on my test box but dual booting in a production environment or on a primary home computer is not a good idea because the Volume Shadowcopy Services drivers in XP and Vista are not compatible and booting into XP causes the loss of files made with the Vista VSS driver (like System Restore points and other backup files). The XP driver thinks the Vista files are corrupt and deletes them to protect the user. Having used it for a year and a half I cannot recommend dual booting, not because it doesn't work, but because the loss of Vista recovery files every time one boots into XP is a bad thing. If all I did in Vista was play 1701 it wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, the fix involves an extensive rewrite to XP and Microsoft has decided not to do it. Dual booting with Windows 2000 would not cause the same problem but Windows 2000 is nearing the end of its product support lifecycle.

I do run Virtual PC in Vista x64. I am a Microsoft MVP (Virtual Machine) so I am pretty experienced with VPC and Virtual Server. I run the beta of VPC 2007 and the current version, VPC 2004 SP1. VPC provides an emulated graphics adaptor that does not support 3D graphics and the graphics adaptor on the host does not matter because it cannot be used in a virtual machine. VPC cannot run games requiring sophisticated graphics.

I have six computers and can play 1701 on any of them, including a MacBook Pro running XP Pro SP2 natively (dual boot with OS/X). 1701 runs fine there.

The issue isn't my not being able to run 1701 or not being savvy about workarounds. The issue is that 1701 ought to run fine on Vista x64 and I thought I could help by identifying an issue.

I simply can't believe that Sunflowers has released a major game this close to Vista launch and has no intention of supporting it on Vista. At least they should have known that driver signing is required in Vista x64 now and simply fixed it.

I am a frequent contributor to the primary Vista newsgroup at microsoft.public.windows.vista.general and had hoped to be able to report back to the group that a new driver would soon enable folks to run 1701 on Vista x64. There is intense interest there about games that work in Vista x64.

I like the game and hate it that I can't encourage Vista x64 users to try it out. I would have loved to have been the first kid on my block to say it works.

[Rnett]

You can't wait for the "Microsoft bubble burst".:plot: :evil:

[Colin Barnhorst]

I simply asked my question. I asked for signed drivers for Vista x64. That's not a question demanding much elaboration. The same question is already coming up in the German forum.

But this is a forum for discussion as well as questions and others replied with suggestions and comments so I shared some background to the question, what I had already tried, etc.

I agree that PC owners don't need to know about driver signing, but developers do and I'm sure Sunflowers knows about it. They just haven't done it yet where needed for Vista x64. For all I know, the Copy Protection driver technology is not even developed inhouse at Sunflowers. No matter, it still needs fixing.

Slindenau and Lady H made some solid suggestions so I shared some backgroud about things they mentioned like VPC (1701 does not work out for VPC) and using other computers. Sure, I can play 1701 on XP (and do). But I think 1701 would achieve even better sales by including Vista as a supported platform. Why not?

In any case, Baldjim, 1701 is a great game and I wish you years of enjoyment with it. If you really like it, push for its success on all possible platforms be it Windows, OS/X, Linux, or Kenmore washing machines.

[Colin Barnhorst]

As to your first point, I had already tried feedback to Sunflowers at a technical level (no reply yet) so I was in one sense hoping to escalate the matter through the forum because I knew there had to be others seeing the same issue who might join the discussion. I was not so much after a technical discussion as attracting support for getting the thing fixed sooner rather than later.

As to your second point, as a Microsoft MVP I am asked in newsgroups for recommendations about software, including whether or not specific games work on a new OS, and I like 1701 enough to want to be able to encourage others to buy it. Potential sales are an inducement to companies to make improvements and fix issues so I brought this up in the hopes that Sunflowers will hear some concerns about the matter. (I do understand that this is really a peer-to-peer forum and not a managed one, but it gets read anyway.)

As to the outlet for the overflow from waste water (and toilets), please be reassured that there are enough AOL chatrooms to handle the load.

Best of luck.

[HCode]

Until signed drivers appear, you can use the current ones like this with Windows Vista x64: you must press F8 at boot time, and select " Disable Driver Signature Enforcement".

[Dobber]

Until signed drivers appear, you can use the current ones like this with Windows Vista x64: you must press F8 at boot time, and select " Disable Driver Signature Enforcement".

Wouldn't a Microsoft MVP such as Mr. Barnhorst know this?

[Angryminer]

I just googled some relevant terms and it seems that the F8 method is commonly used to load unsigned drivers in Vista.

If that actually works I personally consider the problem solved. But that's the personal opinion of someone who doesn't like the concept of forced signed drivers.

Angryminer

[Colin Barnhorst]

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

That worked during beta and with RC1 and RC2 because MS provided that for devs and testers to work with. If I remember right that is turned off in Vista Final. To allow it in the Final would defeat its purpose. What they did is like throwing a switch and recompiling for the Final. Even if it were overlooked, it would not be a satisfactory solution for consumers and I am more concerned with that than anything.