XXHighEnd

I noticed a few days ago in minOS at bottom right of screen there was watermark:-
Test Mode
W10 Pro
Build 10586

Today I noticed an additional water mark asking me to activate W10. I had previously activated W10 with my W7 license key.

Booted back to normOS, Test Mode watermark still displayed. Checked via SYSTEM and W10 is still activated.

Non of this has stopped W10 operating, but my question is should I leave it in Test Mode or apply fix to come out of Test Mode ?

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff553484%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

Colin,

The Testmode indication is indeed from Driver Signing (shut off). Do notice that this is an option in XXHighEnd (in Settings, Output section). Now my question :

Did you use that or is it a W10 quirk ?
It is hard for me to test/check, because I need it already at installing the OS. But at some stage I wondered ...

Then, I am not sure whether you are confusing two subjects. I mean, you seem to relate this Testmode with not being activated. But it isn't. Your "issue" will be :
When in MinOS this is always the case ( I think since Windows 8 ). So say that the service which is checking your Windows activation, is not running. This is not on purpose whatsoever and is just part of "minimising" the OS as far as possible.
I think it appears only after two days.

Anyway : no issue anywhere, regarding this (the both).

Peter

Hi Peter

Must have been me changing the Driver Signing in XXHE for no good reason.

I tried changing it back via XXHE/normOS but after reboot it was still in test mode.

From cmd I executed the command to turn off testmode & rebooted. This got me out of testmode, but xxhe still says "drivers need not be signed" !

Thanks
Colin

Hmm ... that is odd.
Can you show me a screencopy of your BCDEdit output for the OS of concern ?

bcdedit output attached

In itself it is great that you sent that because now I can see that something odd and I already wondered whether I had done that ... not, as it seems.

Look at the DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECK and mind the double D (must be from Double Dutch :)). That doesn't beling there. But it will also be the reason that this option won't be removed by itself. I am looking for DISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECK, which is not there ...

Anyway it is the reason that XXHighEnd still shows it as "Need not be signed".

Don't ask me at this moment what this line does on its own. But I apply this, and the other (and of course at this moment I forgot why).

You can do this, although I wonder whether it works out ... :
BCDEdit /deletevalue loadoptions

Colin,

I now see that something else must be going on as well :

I have a typo in my deletevalue of the testsigin <-- command.
So it looks like that won't get deleted because it does not exist (testsiging does).

Quite a few coincidences.

Anyway, thank you !!
Peter