I'll skip catalyst 10.10m WHQL because of this...

Figured as much, since signing those 2 files didn't get them working either.

Thanks for the info Vicious.

 

For now you can test just by pressing F8 and disable driver signature enforcement (at boot). If its working then you can spend the 10 min or so to sign all the files.

I always make sure to boot with F8 before I sign the files just so I can be sure they all properly loaded and initiated.

 

One more thing to keep an eye out for on the 10.10's is a pink tint issue.

Lots of people had it including me.

It seems 10.10 change the color tempature from 6500k to 6600k and gave everything a pink tint. I really noticed it on the NBR forums and the grey firefox toolbar.

I changed it back to 6500k and it seems ok again but it still feels off for some reason to me.

These are my Dell U2410 monitors and they are semi calibrated.

What is scary is I just saw the issue happen all at once a few minutes ago. I noticed when I got home from work that my monitor looked good to me again and not all pink like it was before I left for work.

I read up about the issue and the fix (change the color temp) so I opened my CCC to try the fix and my screen went from nice and white & grey to strong pink all at once when the CCC opened.

So it seems that somehow my colors were not managed by the CCC and were fine until I opened it up.

Now I did the fix it looks much better but still like I said just feels slightly off.

 

If you don't want to hit F8 every boot you can use little utility called ReadyDriverPlus. This utility will do this for you automatically but your startup will be about 15 sec longer then boot without it. Link: Citadel Industries - ReadyDriver Plus

 

Yeah we know about it, but a lot of us dont want a program in our BCD sector. Besides the longer boot who knows what issues it may cause down the road.

I just killed all the data on my C: last week due to a careless mistake, I can image what would happen if I was trying to restore a backup and had an edited BCD from that program and was restoring content that didnt match.

I am not bashing the program itself, its a feasible solution, but for those of us willing to put 10 minutes worth of work into it we can sign our own drivers and save the 15 seconds extra boot and any possible complications.

I think its worth it, especially if you do not plan to change drivers for a while.

 

Please people, stop ranting with extend the booting time by using readyplus. I'm using this awesome tool right now, and I can confirm it extend in 7 seconds the booting time, which is fast already. In addition, you can decrease this time to 3-4 secs because the too for default add 4 secs extra allowing you to chose what config/system/os want to boot. For people who barely reboot their system (as me) won't notice this tool is installed. You can do it manually but if you have a nice tool to do it for you.

 

No rant from me but I prefer 10 minutes once than 15 seconds daily

It adds up over time and you are not dependent on that program working properly and not messing up.

If I do a backup of my OS and restore the way I did it with my own files signed its totally independent of the BDC being hacked with a 3rd party program and so I can restore without worry.

Since I just lost my C: last week and just did a new backup, this is a very real reason to do it the real mans way

If you lost the key to your front door of your house and it only takes you 15 seconds to walk around back and use the back door with a different key.

Would you for the rest of your life spend the 15 seconds each time you need to get into your house walking around, or would you spend the 10 minutes to get a new key or lock for the front door?

 

You can easily disable driver check's from x64 on cmd with this method

bcdedit.exe -set loadoptions DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS
bcdedit.exe -set TESTSIGNING ON

but you will be left with a water mark print on the lower right side of your os.

 

This lets you install the drivers, not use them

Test mode sticks, integrity checks does NOT, it must be done @ every bootup, and since your drivers load @ boot up you have to use the F8 method. Or sign the drivers.

Also there is a program out there to remove the test mode watermark.

 

What program removes the water mark for you? How would I go about signing the driver's?

 

Can anyone else please post their frame rates is SC2 with and w/o MLAA at ultra settings and 1920x1080 res..

Also how come i'm not having to use any of the driver enforcement bypasses even though i have the modded drivers installed..??
It gave me the warning during install and that's it, running fine since then, no problem while boot up..

 

Driver Signature Enforcement Overrider 1.3b

This is what you sign with, and if you click remove watermark it will take you to the website for that program.

How you do it is easy, knowing what files to sign is the more complicated part. I dont know since I do not have 10.10a installed.

 

Good look's Vicious

 

What I do is go to Device Manager, and click on properties for HD5870M. On the Driver tab there is Driver Details. I just sign everything that is in there.

 

Nice Rukus lol im jotting all this down awaiting for my baby to get back from the Asus hospital she had to get flown to cali for a emergency surgery haha

I went over to Gurus forum and noticed everyone messing around with the new 10.10c I think someone stuck this in their mobility and got it to work. Js

 

http://pcaudio.org/stuff/10.10c_mobility.7z

Here's a mirror for 10.10c Mobility package that you don't have to wait for.

 

Problem is that it is actually 10.10 beta that was modded by rflair with some files replaced from 10.10c. As much as I don't like KillerSneak, his DNA 10.10a is actually 10.10a through and through. He may do a 10.10c version and I would probably use that instead. The person who made 10.10c admitted doesn't know what he is doing, he's just attempting to replicate what rflair did by using the exact same files.

 

Oyy. I should read more thread. I'll take it down.

 

Problem is the user doesn't know how to mod the desktop drivers for mobile. So he uses the 10.10 beta mobile and replaces the driver files from 10.10c

But that is incomplete since he just mods the INF but uses the same .msi file from 10.10 beta. You have to edit the corresponding .msi file to the .inf which can only be done with hex editing.

I think in general it works, but it's the old CCC and not likely a complete install.

 

hey guys, I have a question regarding that this digitally unsigned driver issue, I have installed 10.10 ati catalyst from official website and i was able to successfully install it but when i go to device manager and under atitool utility (atitool driver) it says
(Windows cannot verify the digital signature for the drivers required for this device. A recent hardware or software change might have installed a file that is signed incorrectly or damaged, or that might be malicious software from an unknown source. (Code 52).
The question is, It doesnt say anything under display adaptor which is ofcourse ati hd5800 series, it says it is working fine and it is also digitally signed.. so then why this problem is occurring under atitool driver? should i use driver enforcement overdrive program to solve this problem or just leave it like this? cause i did use it once and was able to get rid of this error however, after applying it my windows 7 was a bit slow n weird..
I Have no problem in running games or videos even atitool driver showing the error in device manager.
Thanks

 

I realize I am late to the argument on this thread but I've got to say something with regard to MS driver sig enforcement.
IMHO
While Win7x64 driver sig enforcement does have security
Implications the main reason why Microsoft did this is because of the fiasco that was Win Vista. Remember that Vista had serious problems with bugs and bad performance when it was first released. This together with other annoyances such as UAC and integrated DRM made it the their least successful OS since Win ME.
Now the point is that, at least according to Microsoft, the source of the biggest problem, the bugginess and unusually slow performance was actually due to a huge problem with Nvidia drivers.
In Microsoft's view Nvidia nearly killed an entire OS.
So what does Microsoft do? In typical fashion they impose a heavy handed solution without regards to how it inconveniences the end user.
This has become a pattern with them. In XP they had software validation, in Vista they had UAC and integrated DRM. Now we have this newest "security feature."
I'm not saying that driver signing doesn't have positive implications for security but hey, so does UAC! Also driver signing has been around for years before Win 7x64 but now it requires WHQL or no load of drivers at boot. Microsoft now has absolute control of this part of the system.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here, since I've been developing Windows code since there was Windows and I still work closely with MS...

The vast majority of Vista problems were due to poorly written 3rd party application and driver code.

Citation?

DRM involves many companies/industries...not just Microsoft. Putting that one on Microsoft is silly. UAC restrictions were there before XP but not enforced until Vista. Developers who RTFM knew this and wrote code correctly so UAC wasn't an issue to the end user.

AFAIK, there's no requirement to use Microsoft-signed drivers. Self-signed drivers give a warning - so what? I personally prefer to be warned.

 

All I'm saying is that MS has a habit of using heavy handed solutions whenever a problem is found in their product. All of these were developed in response to legitimate problems, it's just the fact that the solutions can cause problems for the user.
It's their whole MO. Also, it just ticks me off to see people argue that it's all about security. If you look at the facts you can see that it's not true.

EDIT: I'm sorry but I don't have a citation for you. I remember reading this in Maximum PC magazine but I don't remember what issue. It was an interview with a MS rep where he said, like you, that bad 3rd party drivers were the problem with Vista but he specifically mentioned Nvidia drivers. The rest is just my humble conclusion but doesn't it make sense given the fact that they did this in the very next OS. I'm not an expert so please correct me if I'm wrong.