Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2015 22:50 UTC
Windows

At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft talked about the hardware requirements for Windows 10. The precise final specs are not available yet, so all this is somewhat subject to change, but right now, Microsoft says that the switch to allow Secure Boot to be turned off is now optional. Hardware can be Designed for Windows 10, and offer no way to opt out of the Secure Boot lock down.

I am so surprised. The next step, of course, is to ban the disable-secure-boot option altogether. Just like everyone who knows Microsoft predicted.

Thread beginning with comment 607564
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Really?
by PJBonoVox on Sat 21st Mar 2015 13:24 UTC
PJBonoVox
Member since:
2006-08-14

I must admit that I don't see this as the coming of the apocalypse that it's being made out to be, but I might be missing something.

All they've done is offered the option for the OEMs to remove the insecure boot, and if any do start to take that path then geeks and self-builders will flock to whichever OEM leaves it enabled. Probably even see them issuing updates to re-enable it at a later date ;)

Or is the issue here that folks are concerned that non-technical users will lose their ability to exercise choice if they wished to? I can see that being a problem, but I couldn't possibly say how much this would affect non-technical users.

Although I'm wondering if it does become a situation where Microsoft starts paying OEMs to remove the option, is a modified BIOS an possible workaround? If so, I can see home-industry suddenly booming around this, much like the DSDT patching that goes on in the Hackintosh world.

Edited 2015-03-21 13:25 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Really?
by UglyKidBill on Sat 21st Mar 2015 15:19 in reply to "Really?"
UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

Here´s why I am so concerned about these moves

All they've done is offered the option for the OEMs to remove the insecure boot, [...]


Hopefully that means they still_ can put the "windows 10 ready" logo on their products.

But if not -and the fear is that this *will* be the upcoming move- then the 'cost' in lost sales to regular users for not being homologated could be seen as higher than the cost in lost sales to technical users. Thus, reducing availability and hurting the alt-oses ecosystem.

[...]and if any do start to take that path then geeks and self-builders will flock to whichever OEM leaves it enabled.


For starters that reduces the choices and raises the costs for technical users that wish to get a "multi OS" machine. Even more in markets where choices are already much lower than richer countries.


Probably even see them issuing updates to re-enable it at a later date ;)


That means extra costs for the manufacturer, as the market shrinks the chances of that shrink too.


Or is the issue here that folks are concerned that non-technical users will lose their ability to exercise choice if they wished to?


Well, non technical users will go for the safe path, and for most of them a "windows X ready" part/machine will sound safer.

If later on they decide to try some alternatives, they won´t be able to, and they surely won´t buy another machine just for the fun of it. That hurts alt-oses ecosystem.

The introduction of alternative OSes to non technical users is through a PC they already have.
Blocking that somehow blocks user´s exposition to alternatives so, again, less available hardware might mean less potential users leading to less interest for the manufacturers.

It´s a downward spiral...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Really?
by Alfman on Sat 21st Mar 2015 17:42 in reply to "RE: Really?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

UglyKidBill,

If later on they decide to try some alternatives, they won´t be able to, and they surely won´t buy another machine just for the fun of it. That hurts alt-oses ecosystem.


What a regression if it happens. I was hoping this was behind us and that the MS requirement to keep the owner in control over x86 boot would continue indefinitely.

You are right, the thing is most alt-os users didn't start out that way. We started out by tinkering with the computers we had around us. For me that meant Linux floppies, today it would be live-cds and thumb drives, etc. If restricted boot media was the norm, I would not have been exposed to linux. And since I still needed Windows, the ability to dual boot was critical. I was able to this because it was a standard feature of the "wintel" computer that my parents bought.

Reply Parent Score: 5