Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:22 UTC, submitted by kragil
Thread beginning with comment 490639
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.
RE[2]: Oh Thom you spin a good yarn
by lucas_maximus on Sat 24th Sep 2011 20:49
in reply to "RE: Oh Thom you spin a good yarn"
In other words, Microsoft are letting the OEMs decide whether to include a "disable secure boot" in the UEFI BIOS. It's a bit surprising that the UEFI standard didn't actually insist that the user should always be able to disable secure boot (I don't care if it's enabled by default, but I do care if it can't be disabled).
So don't buy from those OEM that do. Simple.
There are surely anti-trust issues if Microsoft effectively force OEMs to only allow Windows to be installed on machines
Which is why they will leave in the option
RE[3]: Oh Thom you spin a good yarn
by js3456 on Sat 24th Sep 2011 22:21
in reply to "RE[2]: Oh Thom you spin a good yarn"
So don't buy from those OEM that do. Simple.
When Dell decided to sell laptop with Ubuntu preinstalled had to quickly bactrack. Eventually they decided to offer only a small number of overpriced and unappealing laptops. Was there Microsoft behind this decision?
I can't prove it, but the number of PCs with Linux preinstalled on the market is so small to sound an alarm bell. How many devices will we find on the market that are not locked ? It's not so simple as you put it.
"There are surely anti-trust issues if Microsoft effectively force OEMs to only allow Windows to be installed on machines
Which is why they will leave in the option "
They can blame the OEMs and pressure them behind the doors. Did you forget the past anti-trust cases?




Member since:
2005-07-06
Interesting how you didn't quote the Microsoft blog's statement:
"OEMs are free to choose how to enable this [Secure Boot] support..."
In other words, Microsoft are letting the OEMs decide whether to include a "disable secure boot" in the UEFI BIOS. It's a bit surprising that the UEFI standard didn't actually insist that the user should always be able to disable secure boot (I don't care if it's enabled by default, but I do care if it can't be disabled).
If Microsoft will indeed insist that the secure boot can't be disabled for OEMs to qualify for the Windows 8 certification logo, then *all* OEMs will do so and those machines won't be able use any other OS than Windows 8 or later. You can be guaranteed that OEMs won't advertise the fact that you can only run Windows 8 or later on their latest kit either, since that's surely a negative selling point?
As people have said, this will potentially impact Windows users too - no XP, Vista or Windows 7 on those new machines and bang goes third-party rescue CDs (you'll be forced to use MS'es signed rescue disks and no others).
There are surely anti-trust issues if Microsoft effectively force OEMs to only allow Windows to be installed on machines, even after the end-user has bought the machine and taken it home? It's a clear monopoly abuse because although MS might claim OEMs had a clear choice, the logo certification program insisting on secure boot not being able to be disabled is a major influence in the OEMs decision.