Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 531017
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 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 11:43 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-07-15
I have a feeling Microsoft would've found a way to lock things down even without EFI, most likely via extensions to the BIOS that OEMs must add in order to ship Windows. They've had plans for "trusted computing" for a good long time now, ever since Windows XP was code named Whistler and possibly before that. At that time, they wished to require a module on all machines that would run what eventually became XP and would validate the operating system and drivers that load after it. In concept, it was secure boot without EFI. This flopped because this hardware module was expensive and, at that time, most home users weren't upgrading their five-year-old machines as long as they still worked. EFI made it a little easier, but Microsoft has been quietly cooking up plans like this for well over ten years. I hate what they're doing and what it represents and I can't escape the irony that I'll be able to run alternate operating systems more easily on my Mac than on an off-the-shelf Windows 8 machine.