Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by kragil
Thread beginning with comment 490440
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, 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:
2010-06-08
+1. Microsoft tries to wash hands as usual. Same garbage argument as in case of Windows tax, when MS says that manufacturers aren't forced to bundle anything, and if they do - refund can be claimed. In reality not only the vast majority bundle - to get a refund is close to impossible in most cases.
Same thing here. Microsoft will claim that OEM can give an option to disable the "secured" boot, but in reality OEMs won't do it and there will be no normal way for users to do it.
Edited 2011-09-23 04:18 UTC