Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:20 UTC, submitted by moondevil
Permalink for comment 503238
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 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-01-18
Microsoft may not have lied. They may very well have not been planning to force OEMs to restrict boxes to Windows using secure boot when they said that they weren't. But it doesn't really matter much. They went back on what they said, once again proving that you can't trust what they say.
And regardless of whether secure boot ends up being locked on X86 systems or not, this is a total dick move. What value is there to the consumer in locking down the device this way? None. It's just screwing us over. I so hope that someone finds a way to take Microsoft to court over this. But I guess that the main thing that we can pray for at this point is that Microsoft won't force OEMs to lock down x86 devices.