Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th May 2006 20:03 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Permalink for comment 121234
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-31
@terracotta: No, it's not that. that is the explanation. I'm going well back behind that. at the decision of using windowsCE in beginning.
The fact that they blocked the BIOS cannot be sustained with the fact that the aquirer wanted them to block their employee or customer from installing anything else.
They could have made different operating sistem (namely two) and then let the customer decide wich one they wanted and that would have locked the BIOS.
Instead , plain Windows and BIOS locked, Finito.
No mate, sorry, but this is selling a product with windows inside, and an illegal block to alternatives.