And so the war on general computing continues. Were you looking forward to ARM laptops and maybe even desktops now that Windows 8 will also be released for ARM? I personally was, because I'd much rather have a thin, but fast and economical machine than a beastly Intel PC. Sadly, it turns out that all our fears regarding UEFI's Secure Boot feature were justified: Microsoft prohibits OEMs from allowing you to install anything other than Windows 8 on ARM devices (the Software Freedom Law Center has more).
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2011-08-08
Not exactly. It only restricts choice as pertaining to specific hardware (configurations). Companies do this to protect their interests, and it's completely within their legal right to do so.
Both incorrect and completely irrelevant. Any potential restrictions are imposed by the hardware vendor, not Microsoft. And as stated previously, companies have the legal right to protect their interests.
Users still have several other options, all easily accessible. So while this may technically be correct, it has little real world impact.
The moment "Designed for Windows 8" hardware hits the shelves, all the other hardware doesn't magically disappear. The existence of "Designed for Windows 8" hardware absolutely has no impact on the above.
Generally, I agree. However, if a user wants to be able to try multiple operating systems on the same hardware, then that user should NOT purchase "Designed for Windows 8" hardware. If they do, they absolutely should not expect to use it in a way other than intended by the maker.
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
False. Secure boot does in fact protect an operating system. The only debatable aspect is the level of protection it offers.
False. Microsoft has not forced anyone into anything. Vendors choose to agree or disagree to Microsoft's licensing. Further, there's no proof anything Microsoft has said was dishonest at the time.
Possibly true but no proof as of yet.
The only problem "Designed for Windows 8" hardware introduces is potentially restricting a users ability to use the hardware outside of its intent. If the users needs extend beyond what "Designed for Windows 8" offers, the user should NOT purchase "Designed for Windows 8" hardware. Instead, the user should elect one of the several other options available. There's simply no getting around this fact.
Member since:2011-07-06
As far as I can see you take a legal approach. Now back to the real world.
Since Microsoft is so dominant on the desktop, no producer in his right state of mind would produce anything other than "Designed for Windows 8" hardware.
So effectively, and not legally, all other os will have become useless.
Member since:2011-01-28
ilovebeer,
"Companies do this to protect their interests, and it's completely within their legal right to do so."
I didn't say it was illegal, I said it prohibits consumer choice.
"Both incorrect and completely irrelevant. Any potential restrictions are imposed by the hardware vendor, not Microsoft."
Please re-read the article then. The restriction is being imposed by microsoft specifically. And secondly, it's an artificial restriction prohibiting software which would otherwise work.
"So while this may technically be correct, it has little real world impact."
For you maybe, but not for users/promoters of alternative operating systems.
"The moment 'Designed for Windows 8' hardware hits the shelves, all the other hardware doesn't magically disappear."
The hardware isn't actually "designed for windows 8", that's a marketing slogan. Under the hood the hardware is virtually identical to unlocked devices in all ways except the firmware boot restrictions. In any case your point doesn't contradict mine.
"Generally, I agree. However, if a user wants to be able to try multiple operating systems on the same hardware, then that user should NOT purchase 'Designed for Windows 8' hardware."
Regardless of what users should or should not do, the requirement to buy/carry separate devices at the same time will undeniably give mainstream platforms a huge advantage over independent platforms. Both users and devs who would be willing to participate in early development through the use of dual booting will be put off that they cannot. This barrier will hurt alternative project membership.
"In theory, yes. In practice, no."
Are you saying secure boot will be broken? Or are you saying that manufacturers will not drop support?
"False. Secure boot does in fact protect an operating system. The only debatable aspect is the level of protection it offers. "
As I said, it won't protect operating system level vulnerabilities. The only new piece of protection not previously possible is making sure the bootloader is signed.
"False. Microsoft has not forced anyone into anything. Vendors choose to agree or disagree to Microsoft's licensing. Further, there's no proof anything Microsoft has said was dishonest at the time."
Re-read the article and complain to it's author if you disagree, not me.
"Possibly true but no proof as of yet."
The spec is published, it's not speculation.
"So in summary... Google has pulled the plug on support on a protocol they've helped popularize, after years of promising interoperability, for reasons that are dubious at best, and in a way that leaves people who don't jump to the new Hangouts app unable to talk to their contacts without any feedback that their IMs aren't getting through... And they've done that with no warning to anyone. I imagine there's a bunch of people out there wondering where some of their buddies have gone, or why their messages aren't getting responses, because this isn't documented anywhere." Google really messed this up. Such a dick move.
The Tizen Greek Community has some screenshots of a very recent build of Tizen running on a Samsung GT-i8800. It looks wholly unremarkable.Joint statement to The Next Web from Microsoft and Google: "Microsoft and YouTube are working together to update the new YouTube for Windows Phone app to enable compliance with YouTube's API terms of service, including enabling ads, in the coming weeks. Microsoft will replace the existing YouTube app in Windows Phone Store with the previous version during this time." Good to know these children stopped acting like little pricks. Can we have full Google support in Windows 8 now, please?
Yahoo is acquiring Tumblr, the microblogging and social networking website, for $1.1 billion USD. Tumblr offers little revenue but lots of eyeballs if Yahoo can monetarize them. Now Yahoo is bidding for Hulu, the streaming video service. After years of ineffective responses while Google, Facebook, and others took large chunks of the online advertising market, Yahoo is fighting back. Can Yahoo reignite the momentum it had at the turn of the century? What do you think?
"Sources have described iOS 7 as 'black, white, and flat all over'. This refers to the dropping of heavy textures and the addition of several new black and white user interface elements." I couldn't be happier.
"Ilja van Sprundel, a security researcher with IOActive, has discovered a large number of issues in the way various X client libraries handle the responses they receive from servers, and has worked with X.Org's security team to analyze, confirm, and fix these issues."
"Google is facing a new antitrust probe by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission into whether the company is using its leadership in the online display-advertising market to illegally curb competition, people familiar with the matter said." Sucks to be Google today, apparently."In the midst of the major press blitz surrounding its annual I/O Conference, Google dropped some unfortunate news about its instant messaging plans. In several places around the web, the company is replacing the existing 'Talk' platform with a new one called 'Hangouts' that sharply diminishes support for the open messaging protocol known as XMPP (or sometimes informally Jabber), and also removes the option to disable the archiving of all chat communications. These changes represent a switch from open protocols to proprietary ones, and a clear step backward for many users." That's why I always say: only suckers trust companies."The wave of departures is a sign of internal struggle, but amidst all the bad news, there is a glimmer of hope. According to an anonymous HTC executive cited by WSJ, the crucial HTC One is selling 'pretty good so far'. The executive revealed that HTC sold about five million One units since launch, a performance that is deemed encouraging. However, sales have been limited by the persisting supply issues that still plague the production of the HTC One." Finally some good news for HTC. Five million units amidst supply constraints is very impressive.
"Sony gave the PS4 50% more raw shader performance, plain and simple (768 SPs @ 800MHz vs. 1152 SPs & 800MHz). Unlike last generation, you don't need to be some sort of Jedi to extract the PS4's potential here. The Xbox One and PS4 architectures are quite similar, Sony just has more hardware under the hood. Weâll have to wait and see how this hardware delta gets exposed in games over time, but the gap is definitely there. The funny thing about game consoles is that itâs usually the lowest common denominator that determines the bulk of the experience across all platforms. On the plus side, the Xbox One should enjoy better power/thermal characteristics compared to the PlayStation 4. Even compared to the Xbox 360 we should see improvement in many use cases thanks to modern power management techniques." AnandTech does its usual in-depth thing.
Member since:
2011-01-28
ilovebeer,
Adding to your lists:
Fact: Vendor locks restrict choice (that's the whole point of them)
Fact: The "designed for windows 8" computers would run alternate operating systems fine if not for the microsoft imposed restrictions.
Fact: The more vendors that lock hardware, the smaller the set of users who have the ability to try alternate operating systems on their hardware.
Fact: Independent development projects traditionally start out running on existing off the shelf hardware. When it is locked, it raises the bar to entry, creates fragmentation, and limits market potential.
Fact: Users who must buy (and tote) multiple devices to try out alternate operating systems will be less inclined to do so.
Fact: Locked devices prevent users from recycling/re-provisioning them when the manufacturer drops support.
Fact: Secure boot doesn't protect from operating system vulnerabilities.
Fact: Microsoft made dishonest statements regarding forcing OEMs to lock devices.
Fact: Once these devices hit the market, there will be no way within the UEFI spec to unlock just one device without compromising all of the other devices sharing the same platform keys.
Edited 2012-01-14 07:31 UTC