[Windows 7] 就算Intel想Cut走CSM(BIOS)模組都阻唔到有顯示卡嘅人繼續用Win7

本帖最後由 Okt04175 於 2022-10-6 19:47 編輯

所謂Windows 7 依賴CSM模組只係因為佢嘅VGA基本視訊Driver同服務唔支援UEFI嘅GOP顯示協議需要CSM模組提供BIOS嘅INT10功能去Call VBIOS，只要停用咗呢個Driver同服務直接用AMD/NVIDIA嘅Driver就支援到UEFI GOP協議，搞掂咗呢個問題就唔怕Intel同M$玩野。顯示卡轉會之前記得先換卡入定另一邊嘅Driver落系統先至好刪除舊嘅Driver。

入Driver可以用Dism++之類嘅工具。

無論係用緊嘅Win7 64bit(SP0/SP1)定係Win7 64bit(SP0/SP1)安裝ISO都可以咁樣改。當然Win7 64bit(SP0/SP1)安裝ISO最好就Mix埋Win7 FES/Win8+ 安裝ISO入面嘅EFI資料夾下嘅boot資料夾一齊寫落USB裝置方便做UEFI模式USB boot安裝。

Win7 FES/Win8+ 安裝ISO都有 (ISO檔):/EFI/boot (就係呢個boot資料夾)，Win7(SP0/SP1)同WES7嘅安裝ISO就係需要補返呢個資料夾同入面啲野去做UEFI Booting引導。

建議用Rufus將USB手指從MBR分割區轉做UEFI boot需要嘅GPT分割區，Windows NT內核係限制咗BIOS之下只可以從MBR分割區boot，而UEFI之下則為GPT分割區。

另外，Win7(SP0/SP1)同WES7其實都支援裝喺USB裝置度Boot起，不過呢樣野留返日後有時間整理資料。

簡單講句就係Windows 7(SP0/SP1)暫時係Intel都冇辦法完全將佢拒諸門外，M$嘅奸計( 利用純UEFI模式刻意整死Win7 (SP0/SP1) )仍然冇辦法得呈。

下面係我喺另一個Post講過嘅野：

如果用2013年之後出嘅顯示卡有裝好AMD或NVIDIA顯示卡Driver就應付到UEFI嘅GOP要求連CSM都可以唔使開都照樣Boot到。

Install Windows 7 at UEFI Graphics Output Protocol (GOP) hardware
https://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=21108

要透過Regedit停用vga*.sys嘅服務令系統Fallback去用AMD/NVIDIA
Driver，最好就將vga*.sys改埋名，但係如果需要A卡換N卡或N卡換A卡最好就裝定新Driver先，可以新舊卡裝落部腦度等裝好新Driver先再熄機拆走舊卡，再唔係新舊卡共存可以做少啲野，暫時重新啟用vga*.sys嘅服務都得。

服務位置喺HKLM\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services

BCD部份主要係用BCDedit/Bootice去Set返，要校返bootstatuspolicy IgnoreAllFailures同埋novesa on而bootlog yes同quietboot on就視乎需求，或者自己視乎實際需要再調教，呢部份係令Win7嘅Loader即使Call唔到BIOS嘅INT10功能去Call VBIOS都照載入Win7。

關於BCD設定可以參考M$嘅說明
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us ... evtest/bcdedit--set

0

0

anon893

進階會員

Rank: 3 Rank: 3 Rank: 3

2^#

發表於 2019-1-12 17:40 | 只看該作者

Can you explain what it means by M$嘅奸計( 利用UEFI整死Win7 ), and how that works?

TOP

Okt04175

進階會員

Rank: 3 Rank: 3 Rank: 3

3^#

發表於 2019-1-12 18:15 | 只看該作者

本帖最後由 Okt04175 於 2019-1-12 18:29 編輯

M$一嚟冇去完善返Vista同Win7嘅VGA基本視訊呢個Driver，二嚟又冇為Vista同Win7嘅Windows開機管理程式補返UEFI開機引導檔案，原本應該整Patch畀Vista同Win7搞掂返，但係M$專登唔做返啲Patch變相做咗Win8+嘅賣點。再夾埋Intel力推UEFI然後遂步Cut走BIOS相容模組等Win7同之前啲Windows相繼Boot唔起。
只不過M$冇預料到啲人識得喺新版Windows安裝ISO度抄返啲UEFI開機引導檔案同埋Preload返顯示卡Driver畀Win7加上整停原有嘅目基本顯示Driver去Fallback用顯示卡嘅Driver，咁樣拆招之後M$同Intel有排都玩唔到咩招數。

想我用唔到Win7，等M$喺現實物理上接觸到我部電腦先再講啦。

TOP

UltimateGTR

中級會員

Rank: 2 Rank: 2

4^#

發表於 2019-1-12 18:57 | 只看該作者

本帖最後由 UltimateGTR 於 2019-1-12 19:00 編輯

UEFI+secure boot原意不差，但因為有MS+Intel這兩間在行業中有極大話語權的公司想玩野，搞到不如以前既BIOS自由...

之前小弟在另一Post講既野：
From: https://www.hkepc.com/forum/redi ... 39&pid=37074077

講起intel同secure boot, 遲d 2020年又係停止支援UEFI class 0, 1, 2
只會剩下class 3
最大影響係移除Compatibility Support Module
到時仲會唔會裝到XP來玩下呢?
相信大家已經有答案

還有secure boot既證書係由邊個簽發呢?

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story ... -modes-in-2020.html

From: https://www.hkepc.com/forum/redi ... 33&pid=37848694

Intel在2020年會停止支援UEFI class 0, 1, 2, 只會剩下class 3, Compatibility Support Module也會移除...
到時boot唔到XP啦...
仲要諗諗secure boot既證書發行者...

source:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story ... -modes-in-2020.html

quote from comments:
-The Evil Empire, widely known as m$ is trying all that is possible to prevent/discourage people from using op systems other than window$ (and the "old", "obsolete" win versions too). One of the deceptive strategies is to persuade hardware manufacturers (that is, twisting their arms, bribing etc.) to come up with such "inventions" that would prevent (or make it more expensive) the use of, say Linux or/and iOS, as either only or primary or secondary OS within the same PC where window$ resides. Another benefit (for the Empire) is to make so-called cracking harder to implement (under a pretense of being concerned with the software's "safety").
Why (you may wonder)? Because that miserable, butterfly-looking pickpocket who owns m$ got obsessed with the idea of ruling the world, that's why...
There is still a bunch of OSes with no UEFI support, some old ones like XP some not that old. If csm is removed from the bios u won't be able to boot those OSes, period.

-Then there is the "secure" boot mess.... "secure" boot makes it so only digitally signed code can be booted to. The problem here is that code has to be signed against a pre-installed certificate in the bios itself (installing custom certificates is usually locked out or very, very inconvenient) and the original owner of the certificates is MS. Is up to the mb manufacturers to include more certificates but they are not immune to external pressure, if Intel wants it, it can "convince" them to only ship X certificate or the chipset will be more expensive/refuse to work at all.
As an example, upon the release of UEFI a couple years ago, Ubuntu (a linux distribution) had to reach to MS to sign they own code..... that's a monopolistic, greedy and very dangerous situation that consumers should avoid at all costs.

TOP

Okt04175

進階會員

Rank: 3 Rank: 3 Rank: 3

5^#

發表於 2019-1-12 20:55 | 只看該作者

回覆 4# UltimateGTR
喺「所謂安全」同「真正自由」面前我當然會選擇後者，正如喺香港生活同印度生活嘅人免疫力明顯後者更好，一世人用電腦肯定要中過招先識得自己提防同埋去拆招。

如果我用電腦冇上網同安裝Software嘅自由體會唔到上網首頁被劫持又點會學識小心Down野同埋自己解除劫持。

TOP

chue