The other day I tried to move my Hogmonitor application to my Vista x64 machine, so that I could shut down the XP machine that has been running it. I thought it’d be a nice way to save the power used by running the XP box 24/7, since it is otherwise used infrequently. However, I quickly hit up against a brick wall – Windows Vista 64-bit doesn’t allow you to run drivers that haven’t been digitally signed. Since the Hogmonitor uses the InpOut32 library, which relies on a custom driver, I’m out of luck. InpOut32 even has a 64-bit port, so I could have used it fine on a Windows XP 64-bit machine, and it would work on a 32-bit Vista machine. But on 64-bit Vista, there is no way around driver signing.
I understand why Microsoft chose to require driver signing – it’s to keep home users from messing up their systems with weird drivers. But making signed drivers a requirement on 64-bit only is really weird. Aren’t the 64-bit users going to be the power users? I’d be fine with requiring signing by default if I were allowed to turn it off through Group Policy or something, but as far as I know there’s no way to disable this at all in Vista RTM (in the Betas there was a way to disable it, but it doesn’t work anymore). This is the first thing I’ve hit that I can do with an XP machine that I can’t do with a Vista machine (OK, printing too, but that’s HP’s fault). And I don’t hold out hope for the drivers getting a signature, either – those certificates cost $895! That basically prevents any drivers written by people in their spare time from being used in Vista x64. This includes stuff like InpOut32, overclocker fan and temperature monitors, hardware tweakers, and a host of other goodies.
This is really awful, Microsoft. I want to use my computer’s hardware however I want. And if that involves voiding my warranty by installing unsigned drivers so I can communicate with my hobby-project hedgehog sensor, then let me do that. Don’t make me keep around another computer just so I can use simple hardware.

