Posted on 01/25/2007 12:26:48 AM PST by Swordmaker
I can't figure out how to use easyBCD.. :(
Maybe it works and i'm just retarded, i'm sure that some here would agree with that on face value.. ;) but, you CAN get around the "unsigned driver" issue by pressing F8 during boot and choose don't check for signed drivers or whatever, its toward the bottom of the choices..
If you notice CPU-z normally DOES NOT run on 64bit Vista RTM.. also speedfan works doing the F8 trick ;)
I'm not sure how to make this an automated process... thats what I'm working on, but since it's a feature built in, its just a setting that i can't figure out how to do, it must be something with the bootloader/BCDedit, I know the command is
bcdedit.exe -set nointegritychecks ON
to use an unsigned driver... not sure how to edit the boot.ini or whatever... file... yet... hmmm still working on it.. should be doable though.
Hmmm... lots of stuff in there, to play with...
64bit has the "driver signing issue" for a reason, its mainly made for Professional use, they want it locked down/secure and above all stable... IF you want more compatibility, go with Vista 32bit for now... 64bit isn't "that" much faster (I think that I'm switching to 32bit Vista... even though all my hardware works fine under 64bit... just because that some of the apps don't work correctly unless you press F8 on every boot) the settings should hold from resuming from sleep, haven't tried but I'm sure it would, you just need to do the F8 , for a "restart", not wake-from-sleep(if you had that F8 setting enabled prior to the sleep state)
yep, just tried it... works fun resuming fro sleep... it remembers the settings from the cold boot F8 "disable signed driver deal"
let me clarify that...
works fine resuming from sleep... it remembers the settings from the cold boot F8 "disable signed drivers deal"
No you're not, which is why I provided a direct link to your former comments to me trying to praise OSX as "free software". If it's free software as you claim who are you to now try to complain about others making copies of it or its features? Just further proof of your endless hypocrisy and again talking in circles.
You're the one who rails against the evil Linux open source giving our technology away to the foreigners
Which you endlessly defend of course, just as you were in the link I provided. In fact in the case of OSX you've been defending the foreign hackers that distributed a crack of it's proprietary parts, making your feint concern now over someone else copying it all the more hypocritical.
yet gives BSD, OpenSolaris and many others a pass.
Because they're not "free software", they use other licenses that are known as "commercial friendly", unlike your beloved Linux that uses the "free software" license of "the father of free software" leftist whacko Richard Stallman. Don't act like any of this is new, you've been defending Linux and that scumbag for years including when you attempted to claim OSX was "free software", plus recently defending the Russian hackers that distributed cracks of the proprietary parts. To now infer something terrible was done if someone made a copy of OSX is the height of absurdity, when you've defended the Chinese renaming "Red Hat" Linux to "Red Flag" for years.
Here's the definition of "free software" from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software):
Perfect proof of you attempting to blur the lines, just as you did recently when you tried to equate making personal backups to the criminal actions of the Russian hackers who distributed cracks of Apple's OSX to the entire internet, previously trying to claim OSX is "free software", but now somehow be outraged that someone would dare copy any of it.
What's wrong, don't like it when I couple a few of your outlandish contradictory claims together to show your history of deceit? I know you'd rather wander off into unrelated BS over minute technical details, but those are the facts, and give a clear representation of your overall hypocrisy in constant defense of Linux and free software for foreigners, even if they have to hack it like they did OSX, then you'll come along and try to use the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" or claim Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution is quote "BS". Too bad I won't let you get away with it is what you mean.
Yep, you are trying to hijack this thread.
Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in one of the comments is not hijacking the thread. You've referred to OSX as "free software" and even defended foreign criminals that hacked it, to now attempt to feign concern it may be copied by someone else is the height of absurdity.
No, that was reminding you of your contradictory views.
previously trying to claim OSX is "free software", but now somehow be outraged that someone would dare copy any of it.
Now I see the tenuous logic you used to try a hijack. Even according to the post you quoted, I never claimed OS X is free software. I said it uses free software (most of the server utilities) and runs on a free software base (BSD). Are you going to claim that's a lie now? Anyway, it's actually the proprietary part, the GUI and libraries that sit on top of BSD, that Microsoft is trying to copy.
Although Microsoft finally copied something that's been in free and proprietary UNIX for years -- symbolic file links. It's about time.
It would be far more appropriate to start a thread of your own than to follow AR around FR trying to start the exact same fight on every thread to which he posts ( even though its pretty obvious, at this point, you have some fetish about him)
So that's the real reason, and it explains the apparent contradiction. You don't like it that companies can't just take Linux and resell it without having to give something back. So this is about corporate profit and not national security, because all open source is the same as far as national security is concerned. We guessed that long ago when you didn't think Microsoft selling to China was as bad as China getting Linux for free.
To now infer something terrible was done if someone made a copy of OSX
I never said or implied it was terrible. You falsely inferred that. It is sad, maybe pathetic, but not terrible.
I think I underestimated how much getting exposed as a fraud would anger him. But his fraud/troll status is still going quite strong since he either can't figure out #39 or can't admit his attack was based on ignorance.
My microsoft box still requires a reboot about every five days.
Thought you'd like to know.
You've had no problem with Russian hackers copying that part, endlessly defending them with lies they claiming they couldn't possibly be criminal, that Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution was quote "BS", that Russian hackers wrote software extensively used by the DoD, stuff you even admit were lies made up out of the blue to defend them. Now you're claiming outrage someone else may have copied it LOL.
Back to the subject, I don't really agree with that. I've been reading some technical articles on Vista. It isn't just the OS X wannabe shell that's new, there are a LOT of changes under the hood. From the rewritten network stack to reworked thread and I/O scheduling, there's quite a bit new under there.
The I/O is one of those "it's about time" things. That Explorer can hang to due accessing an unavailable network drive was about the stupidest thing. The new I/O priority should also stop a lot of annoyances.
Besides, if it's "warmed-over" anything, it's warmed-over Windows 2003 Server, not XP.
I'm just exposing his hypocrisy whenever he posts something contradictory with his former posts, in this case his inference that Apple shouldn't be copied by others when he's referred to it as "free software" and even defended those that hacked it illegally to run on cheap PC's. By the way you're following me around lately, so you apparently do one thing but say another yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.