Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Oct 2011 12:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 495051
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-10-28
What I find most disappointing in this is that just when MS does something rather good in the release of Win 7, which I think we'll all agree is a massive improvement in many areas over their previous offerings, they have to turn around and pull this anti-competitive crap. It's unnecessary really - they already hold the market share and will probably continue to do so without locking folks out with something like a secure boot option. I understand the idea behind the statement concerning greater protection from rootkits, but in reality the folks who wrote rootkits in the first place are probably bright enough to find their way around this obstacle as well, given time. As for the comment above about computers designed for Win 8, it seems to me that the only thing designed for Win 8 in these machines is having that lockout switch enabled to prevent anyone from being able to use the machine for another OS in the future. If that's the case then the hardware manufacturers are being rather dishonest as well in presenting this as some sort of specific design when in reality they're just cozying up to MS for a little discount on the pre-installed OS and a pretty sticker for the case.