Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:20 UTC, submitted by moondevil
Permalink for comment 503259
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 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-06-24
Yeah that really shows how purely anti-competitive this demand is. There is not a single technical motivation beneficial to the user behind it.
I guess they realized that if they force SecureBoot on x86 as well, people would get angry because they can't install earlier Windows version.
So they are trying to sneak this new "feature" only in the ARM-based PC since earlier Windows versions don't work on ARM anyway.
I have no words to describe how little respect I have for the people that came up with this brillant idea.