Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Jul 2013 22:12 UTC
Microsoft The Verge, reporting that Microsoft lost almost a billion dollars with Surface RT, in this quarter alone. "At the end of the day, though, it looks like Microsoft just made too many Surface RT tablets - we heard late last year that Microsoft was building three to five million Surface RT tablets in the fourth quarter, and we also heard that Microsoft had only sold about one million of those tablets in March." That's catastrophically bad.
Thread beginning with comment 567561
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Wow
by Alfman on Sat 20th Jul 2013 03:42 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wow"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Drumhellar,

"Okay. Enlighten me. How else does one guarantee that the boot loader and the kernel haven't been modified prior to boot?"

There are many possible mechanisms. However let me clarify that it's not really the secure boot mechanism that is controversial so much as the policy of keeping owners out of the chain of control over hardware we supposedly own. With x86 thankfully we won the fight as owners to keep control over our hardware's security features. With ARM, this battle is ongoing.

Edited 2013-07-20 03:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Wow
by lucas_maximus on Sat 20th Jul 2013 08:11 in reply to "RE[8]: Wow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

What fight, the option to turn it off was given to you.

I love to know why running an OS has turned into a political campaign.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Wow
by Alfman on Sat 20th Jul 2013 12:51 in reply to "RE[9]: Wow"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"What fight, the option to turn it off was given to you."

I know, and I already said I'm very thankful for that. I think antitrust played a big role in that, however if you want me to give MS credit for doing the right thing then sure I can.

Thank you Microsoft for not locking out owners from control over x86 bootloaders. I'd be grateful if you could give us the same freedoms on ARM computers as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Wow
by Drumhellar on Sat 20th Jul 2013 19:50 in reply to "RE[8]: Wow"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

There are many possible mechanisms.


...I'm still waiting to hear about these mechanisms. Merely saying they exist doesn't make it true.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[10]: Wow
by Alfman on Sat 20th Jul 2013 20:08 in reply to "RE[9]: Wow"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Drumhellar,

Secure boot is already such a mechanism, obviously there are other ways to authenticate the system startup code. But like I said the controversy isn't over the security mechanism itself, so long as owners are ultimately in control over the security mechanism then I'm happy with it. If you really think owners shouldn't have control over their own hardware (aka windows rt), then I'm afraid that you and I are never going to agree.

Edited 2013-07-20 20:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2