A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the Windows operating system to directly control hardware. It also raises concerns over who controls the software in PCs, ZDNews claims. Elsewhere, a lawsuit faulting Microsoft for security defects in its products has added a new front in the software giant’s battle against vulnerabilities in its software.
Microsoft Moves to Integrate Windows with BIOS
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I wonder if Valve will sue Microsoft for the apparent buffer overflow in Outlook that was exploited to install a keysniffer and subsequently resulting in the theft of the HalfLife2 source code.
>I can’t wait until microsoft actually ownz my hardware.
I don’t see by how integrating the BIOS and the OS, MS will “own” your hardware. I do see though that some editors are seeing Greys and alien abductions and other conspiracies all around them, 24/7.
seriously, we have to do something before MS is everywhere.
I would never buy a box with a bios made by MS. this would be suicide. Imagine that on a production server?
Such “integrations” are not unheard of. MOST of the embedded OS for appliances are “integrated” in this way. But no one is shouting for them, but if MS do something, everyone does.
We’ve seen this comming from a decade away, haven’t we?
I have a question for many MS enthusiast’s.
With recent price gouging towards linux, better quality software comming from MS and attemps to lock everyone in. Do you finally see what all the screaming was about?
I’m not saying M$ is trying to take over the world though that probably could be argued, what I am saying is we’ve seen what happens when one guy holds all the chips and what happens when he has to compete. Do we REALLY want to let them go back to charging us whatever they feel like and releasing whatever crap is cheapest to make. Or do we want the better prices, the better quality and the freedom to decide for ourselvs what we want?
As always, this will be fuss over nothing.
And please, come up with some new arguments. I already know MS is the devil, and that Bill Gates eats his children and blah blah blah…
I’m surprised no one ever got a class-action suit together against Microsoft for “Windows Me”. I passed on this “product” myself, but EVERYONE that I know that had/has it has had a great deal of trouble with it. No computer shops in my town would even touch it (as in install it or upgrade a system to it) after about the first month of release. It was rushed, poorly cobbled-together software. It was negligent of Microsoft to sell it (especially when so many poor, unsuspecting people got it pre-installed on their computers).
yes you all linux freaks this acctually is a good news. finally Microsoft is making a move towards in apples direction. i.e. becoming hardware company too (ok its a long way to go) & i seriously don’t think that any serious vulnubility will be cause as you see most of the worms which spreaded were identified months ago & its patch was in windows update. also there are firewalls! & another rubbish about microsoft controlling my hardware & crap remember all such things going on when product activation was introduced???????? now i am using windows XP & it isn’t different with P.A. at all. i can still use it the way i want to. SOME THING TO THINK ABOUT!
With the Linux BIOS project, hence fixing the problem.
“Microsoft said Friday that it plans to fight the action on several legal grounds, noting that it has invested considerable resources in responding to (legal) problems and trying to prevent future (financial) vulnerabilities.”
Word in parenthesis are added by me, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
I won’t be using a BIOS or anything else from MS. As for DRM, do you really think Microsoft can write a piece of software that can’t be hacked?
We can bet that this project will get more attention.
http://www.openbios.info/
Also keep in mind that this is just a proposed deal with just one of the BIOS companies.
Personally, I think this is a good idea. If I am correct in my assumption, the majority of the BIOS is unused in most 32-bit-non-VM86 code. I think the standard BIOS in x86 machines are long due for a redesign.
-W
Such “integrations” are not unheard of. MOST of the embedded OS for appliances are “integrated” in this way. But no one is shouting for them, but if MS do something, everyone does.
Nobody is switching hardware on PDA’s like they are in PC’s.
what if this BIOS doesn’t work with Beos,linux,bsd,? can we flash it? or will that be impossible because its made with ‘our security’ in mind. I admit maybe I’m a conspiriacy nut in the sence I beleive nearly all bad things have to come a piece at a time. I’m the same way with only hand guns, only a part of the constitution or only a few religions are bad.
This doesn’t seem too big of a deal but we’re now in the information age where what the color of your skin, gender, philosophy comes second to what information you have. Why are we in such a hurry to have one company incharge of all our new technologys when they’re not even the inventers, just the ones who re-invent something to be used only by thier products.
Sorry for the rant.
C’mon, how can this NOT be bad? DRM was designed to take power away from the consumer (since the user can be another “attacker”), and integrating it into the hardware stops people from using their computers the way they want to.
This is someone trying to control your computer,and it’s not good.
THOM: You have really become a troll lately. Every single Microsoft or Linux thread, you are always first to talk about how the Linux Zealots are going to complain, even before they do. That my friend is trolling.
Have you ever thought that some of the ranting are right? Microsoft’s goal is to get as much money/marketshare as it possibly can,any way. With a company like this, whats to stop them from being ‘evil’?
Bill Gates is a very smart and very rich man. He
*is* anticompetitive, as has been proven over and over.
This is just one more step toward having the entire planet using Windows. What bothers me is that it got there because Gates/Microsoft had the money to make the deals with the hardware makers, in spite of the gargantuan security risks associated with Windows. This deal is just one more. If it goes ahead, I shan’t be upgrading..at least not to anything with a Phoenix bios.
Stable, safer Operating Systems:- OS/2, AmigaOS, OSX, MacOS, BeOS, Linux…
At work, as the servers at work crash every Friday afternoon, I still wonder how it happened.
First of all, I added a ‘:P’ which, as far as I’m concerned, means: don’t take this TOO seriously, I’m exaggerating, or just joking.
Second, the past has proven that a lot over people overreacted when MS made an anouncement; with a very good example being the product activation thing, which, in the end didn’t turn out to be the MS-is-gonna-look-straight-into-my-PC-and-monitor-what-I-do thing after all. All I’m trying to say is, you shouldn’t make any judgements about software/hardware/etc that doesn’t even exist yet; It’s that kind of mentality that started the last Gulf War (oops, I’m not supposed to be political right? Well, I’ll give it a shot).
It’s absolutely no trolling.
If MS controls the BIOS, MS controls the OS you run on the computer – simple as that. If MS controls the bios on 4 out of 5 major PC manufacturer’s PC’s, then it controls what OS you run on that PC. Although it already does this through its OEM deals, this is worse than that. At least with the OEM deals, you could dual boot. If MS is of a mind to, it will lock out other OS’s.
The thing I find astounding is that MS is now using it’s atrocious security record to it’s anti-competitive advantage. Every anti-competitive thing it does today is to “make the personal computer more secure”. Why are people so f***** blind. If MS hadn’t been in a monopoly position, and had to actually provide a quality product to compete against genuine rival software companies, it would have focussed on security in the first place. It’s MS’s monopoly that got us to where we are today, and now they’re using that to perpetuate that monopoly.
What is wrong with the DOJ that they can’t see how they have been completely dorked by MS in the so-called “settlement”. What is wrong with consumers that they can’t see that MS made this security problem, and they should fix it, and not by using it as an excuse to perpetuate their monopoly.
Go the MS apologists – your rock! Not.
Matt
Well, when you ‘joke’ in EVERY SINGLE MS thread, its trolling.
And product activation IS horrible. For example, I upgraded my PC. New processor, mobo and another drive. I upgraded, so its not like I ‘have’ my old PC. This is the same PC that I installed Windows on, but since Microsoft considers it ‘different’, I cant use my LEGALLLY PURCHASED copy of Windows on my LEGAL computer.
This isn’t bad? I did a completly legitamite thing and MS wants me to pay another $200.
Its not so much ‘security’ as it is Microsoft assuming everyone is a pirate. I don’t like to be treated as a criminal, especially when i’m not.
are we going to get a nice smiling windows logo with a grey screen at post now?
I was under the impression that the bios was on its way out.
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3079301
If thats the case then M$ is barking up the wrong tree.
“I do see though that some editors are seeing Greys and alien abductions and other conspiracies all around them, 24/7.”
I think you shouldn’t just laugh it away. Maybe staying alert is a good thing. I don’t care if they integrate the OS and the BIOS (or the browser in the OS) as long as they don’t try to shut out other operating systems.
As someone above said, this is no different from what Macs have: integrated BIOS and OS. If I have to “fear” MS, I have to fear Apple as well. I don’t.
“If MS is of a mind to, it will lock out other OS’s.”
If that’s what they’re after, then why can you still install other browsers? Then why can you still install other mail programs? Then why can you still install another office suite? Then why can you…?
I mean, I’m someone who tries to look at the facts (and the logic)– even though MS has their monopolistic tendencies, they are far from excluding choices; look at the examples named above. If they let you choose which browser/mail etc you want to use, then why should they act otherwise when it comes to OS booting?
And by the way, those guys in Redmond aren’t (that) stupid– they know excluding OS choice will push (even more) people to migrate.
If that’s what they’re after, then why can you still install other browsers? Then why can you still install other mail programs? Then why can you still install another office suite? Then why can you…?
Because they can’t legally or otherwise. That would mean locking out people from writing software on windows, then how far would they get exactly?
Don’t be so nieve.
The situations you described are what you can do NOW not when they make the changes.
This does not mean that when they integrate or make interdependent, the bios and the OS, you will still be able to install anything you want.
Another foot in the door to track you…..BIG BROTHER STUFF.
Probably the reason that Longhorn has been pushed back is to make its tracking mechanisms more secretive….maybe better encryption of its backdoors.
Christ, talk about naive. Look at microsofts business strategy, with longhorn they will be betting everything that the public will accept DRM. If it is too much, MS is gonna alienate huge portions of its user base, if it pays off, MS will be untoppleable for the forseeable future.
Now, i use linux. i will never use a microsoft product because quite frankly, they are too simplistic for me, i cant function without a more robust commandline interface then MS-DOS. So quite frankly, this whole thing has very little relevence to me, unless they start pushing their BS into making hardware that blocks all non MS OSs, but that would require quite a few laws to change, so im not all that worried.
I remember reading something in ESRs BLOG awhile back when people were reporting that WMP9 was unremoveable, this is not verbatim, but it was something along the lines of
“This is almost like walking down the street, watching people whipping themselves, over and over, until rivulets of blood are down their backs. You ask them why, they reply ‘Because its the standard.'”
“Because they can’t legally or otherwise. That would mean locking out people from writing software on windows, then how far would they get exactly?”
Well, actually, it would be more easy for them to forbid people to write software for Windows (sounds crazy, I know, but let me finish), than it is to forbid people to write OS’s for x86. The latter is an “open standard”, they own nothing when it comes to that. They can easily do the former though, even though that of course doesn’t make any sense.
And, do you really think companies such as Intel, AMD, Via … would agree with this? You can’t seriously think that.
Under DRM, if you download a file, you only have the right to view the file on the current system. You may not:
1) Send it to someone else.
2) Edit the content.
3) Move it to an unauthorized media (backup to CD).
If the BIOS lets you boot any OS you want, then problems can happen:
1) The new OS can decript and access the file.
2) The new OS doesn’t have to support DRM.
3) You can kiss the whole DRM concept out the door.
MS can’t build DRM into their system and then let you use a non-DRM OS on the system. To correctly handle this, the BIOS will need to verify that the OS has a valid DRM signature… no signature equals no boot.
>> If they let you choose which browser/mail etc you want to use, then why should they act otherwise when it comes to OS booting?
>>
Are you kidding me? Yes indeed, MS doesn’t want anything other than Windows booting on a PC. If you need help, the folks at BeOS will explain that to you. What do you think the anti-trust case was all about??
Microsoft has NOT changed. When they redesigned the MSN web site recently, for example, their intention was to lock out all non IE users. That’s just a simple web site. Imagine that! And up until today, you still cannot run Windows update without IE. Are you telling me that Microsoft is incapable of designing a non IE dependent update system? Come-on.
Eugenia, the editors are not peddling ridiculous conspiracies at all. Microsoft is not apple, nor is it any of the dozen or so companies working in the embedded space. Yes, the heat level does goes up when Microsoft is the one involved. It goes up because they are dominant, and they haven’t used that dominance in gracious ways. Microsoft is a super-wealthy, aggressive, competition-hating corporation. No matter how you look at it, to have them messing around the BIOS is NOT good. I am sure a better solution can be found. Look beyond your immediate nose to the immense potential for abuse. Evil grows one step at a time.
If that’s what they’re after, then why can you still install other browsers? Then why can you still install other mail programs? Then why can you still install another office suite? Then why can you…?
Read my quote “if they are of a mind to”. Note the IF. For someone who professes to consider logic, you don’t appear able to decipher the logic in a simple sentence construct. I’m saying if they want to, then they have the tools to do so.
And by the way, those guys in Redmond aren’t (that) stupid– they know excluding OS choice will push (even more) people to migrate.
I never said they’re stupid. However, if they can physically prevent you from booting to another OS, then how does that push people to migrate. If x86 hardware cannot be booted except into Windows, then how do you migrate?
I used to think that MS simply couldn’t kill off linux or Mac, because they needed to be able to show that their was at least some competition in the market place to ensure they don’t get broken up. However, since the DOJ settlement I am having some doubts. Furthermore, MS has created the perfect excuse to use anti-competitive practices – “security”. When the DOJ comes and says why are you doing X, which has the effect of shutting product Y out of the market? MS simply says, “oh it’s to improve security – You want us to improve security don’t you? We’re innovating here, leave us alone.”
There is a subtle difference between Apple and MS. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what it is.
Matt
Would somebody please explain, what “The BIOS would also allow better control of unauthorised devices connected to a system, Microsoft said.” is supposed to mean…
Thanks.
You knew that something like this would be happening as soon as Phoenix announced this bios a few months ago. Man… MS is really trying to cram DRM down our throats.
Windows is not my only OS by any means, but the day I need a special motherboard to run Windows is the day I jump ship. I’m sure I’d still run my existing Windows setup (or whatever I’m running when & if this day hits), but new software MS OS’s would be out of the question.
I’m sure the MPAA and RIAA are giggling like schoolgirls over such technology, but when I’m thought of as a criminal by the very people I’m paying for my PC (And really, that’s about the only reason for DRM), it’s time to put my money with a company who respects me and my business.
Be it Apple, Linux, or some other OS, there will always be an alternative, and such a lockin will only ensure that myself and others will be choosing such an alternative.
This would be the equivilant of an auto manufacturer saying “Ok, in order to make this car work, you’ll have to buy all of your gas from only Shell.”, when really, your car should run on whatever gas you want to put in it.
There’s a blurb in todays SkyOS update that kinda sums it up: “Mobo Chipsets arent generally something you code support for, cause in a perfect word, they’d all be perfectly compatible.”
Well said.
OK, what about this?
“The CME would allow PC makers to embed digital rights management directly into the hardware, though they would have the option of allowing users to turn it off.”
eugenia said
I think you shouldn’t just laugh it away. Maybe staying alert is a good thing. I don’t care if they integrate the OS and the BIOS (or the browser in the OS) as long as they don’t try to shut out other operating systems
if they dont lock everybody else out and i would be
surprised if they didnt, they would surely expect
to be paid for all their hard work now wouldnt they.
and eugenia do u remember netscape ? when i was running
win 98 my windoes from time to time it would remove a dll
from my netscape folder and put it somewhere else in
an attempt to stop me from using it.
and i have a question for u eugenia.
do u trust gates ?
First winprinters, winmodems and now winPCs, oh no !!
This would not be a problem if this standard is open, but with M$ in game I doubt it.
> There is a subtle difference between Apple and MS. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what it is.
I see no difference. I see two huge mega-corporations, doing what is best for their interest and their shareholders. That’s it. If integrating BIOS and OS worked well for Apple, is only fair for MS to do the kind of products it desires. If you don’t want them, don’t buy them.
If you dont’ want your computer loaded with DRM OR Longhorn, then simply don’t buy a computer with a phoenix bios? I’m sure they’ll still be selling ‘open’ PC’s that will run whatever you want, except versions of Windows that come after XP.
Anyway, if it is true what so many people are saying and that you really don’t need Windows because Linux runs everything but the kitchen sink, then why does it matter? It’ll be more like two different kinds of computers – one with DRM that runs Windows and one without DRM that does not run Windows.
If you don’t want them, don’t buy them.
I hope I can.
In response to the first part of your post, I see a huge difference. One is a <5% player versus a 90+% player. Apple’s actions do not effect competition in the market-place. MS’s actions do. As the dominant player in the market, they have a different standard to meet in terms of how they act; how they use that dominant position.
Market economics and the anti-trust laws that are supposed to protect consumers from paying monopoly rents for crapware are not difficult concepts to grasp.
Matt
Keep complaining. Even if you don’t use Windows, your friend, your friend’s girlfriend, you friend’ girlfriend’s uncle, your friend’s girlfriend’s uncle’s daughter are all using Windows. Imagine this world WITHOUT Microsoft. Do you think we lie in a better computer world WITHOUT Microsoft?
It’s Microsoft that allows us to enjoy games like HL2, not Linux.
The difference between MS and Apple is that Microsoft controls 95 percent of the market.
When a company owns the market, they have a social (and legal) responsibility not to ‘lock people out’.
When you buy a mac, you buy an ‘experience’ (so people say). You want higher quality, so you suffer a few incompatabilities.
WINDOWS is designed to run everywhere, from PCs to cell phones,to watches to ATMs.
In answer to your question. One word: yes
“As someone above said, this is no different from what Macs have: integrated BIOS and OS. If I have to “fear” MS, I have to fear Apple as well. I don’t.”
that’s stupid. the mac is a closed platform and the pc is open. bios integration will make the open pc platform into a closed one and you’ll lose the freedom of loading other operating systems on the pc. nobody runs anything other than osx on the new macs and that’s the same thing that will happen to pc’s – it will be a windoze only platform. that is something to fear – being forced to use microsoft. no hell worse than that fate.
I’m still waiting to see how this pans out, but imho, apple uses an open standard , whereas we don’t really know what microsoft has chosen as of yet, who knows for all its worth it may just be the same or it may be that nexus project they are working on.
“the mac is a closed platform and the pc is open”
WRONG. An Apple MAC is open! You can install Yellow Dog LINUX on a MAC! You can also buy them with linux pre-installed. Macs in this case would be more open than a PC. Overall Microsoft is more propriatary then Apple. Apple is becoming more open while microsoft is trying to close their platform.
PC’s won the marketplace because of open hardware, with multiple vendors.
MAC,LINUX,BSD share code among multiple vendors. I see this as being significant.
History will repeat itself, with software this time.
A quick survey of computers at work and home.
Compaq BIOS 4
Dell BIOS 9
IBM BIOS 2
Award BIOS 5
Phoenix 0
I think this is a last ditch effort by MS to fend off the oncoming linux onslaught. Lawsuits are failing to do the trick as is the MS fud plan.Consider this bootloader license prime.
My question is this:
Will intel and AMD just sit there and tolerate this. Will they accept another escalation of MS’ control? I don’t think intel will. I think MS just pushed intel a lot closer to linux, open source, and any other ms alternative.
Intel is going to have to do a serious review of its strategy unless they want to be relegated to
Read it more carefully. “A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the Windows operating system to directly control hardware.” The BIOS is giving complete control of the hardware over to the OS, nothing more. Phoenix is coding it not Microsoft, so you will still be able to install any Operating Systems you please. Its just that Linux wouldn’t be able to use the feature of having complete control of the hardware like Windows.
As far as the comment that Percy made
“that’s stupid. the mac is a closed platform and the pc is open. bios integration will make the open pc platform into a closed one and you’ll lose the freedom of loading other operating systems on the pc. nobody runs anything other than osx on the new macs and that’s the same thing that will happen to pc’s – it will be a windoze only platform. that is something to fear – being forced to use microsoft. no hell worse than that fate.”
That is BS because there are people that install Yellow Dog Linux on iMacs.
Now about DRM. If you dont want to use DRM you can disable it(both through hardware and software). Microsoft is not forcing you to use it. Once I find the links I’ll post it here.
Sandman
Phoenix owns AWARD Bios’
I’ve never post any comment for any news here. But this time … For me, it’s scary .. just plain scary. (And I still have M$-ish stuff on the back of my email address)
“A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the Windows operating system to directly control hardware.” The BIOS is giving complete control of the hardware over to the OS, nothing more. Phoenix is coding it not Microsoft, so you will still be able to install any Operating Systems you please. Its just that Linux wouldn’t be able to use the feature of having complete control of the hardware like Windows.
And this is complete BS on the part of Microsoft. On any modern OS running on x86, which includes Linux, *BSD, and WinNT/2K/XP (I don’t know about Win9x), the BIOS doesn’t have anymore control of the hardware than the OS (with the expception of altering motherboard specfic features such as altering the onboard VGA memory usage, and changing bus/multiplier speeds).
Pretty much everything the BIOS does in terms of hardware detection is repeated by the OS on bootup.
Case in point, one of my CD drives has some buggy microcode where it ignores IDE commands till it’s spun up. This means that on a cold boot, it’s not detected by the BIOS. However, by the time it gets to the OS booting (I have verified this with Windows 2K, Linux, and BSD), it’s finished spinning up and is detected by the OS, where it works without any issues.
My point is that the reasons cited for this are bogus. Unless Microsoft is trying to force some standards for setting lowlevel hardware (unlikely) patterns, I see no reason to add features to an already overbloated BIOS.
> As someone above said, this is no different from what Macs have: integrated BIOS and OS. If I have to “fear” MS, I have to fear Apple as well. I don’t.
First of all: Apple’s Macintosh / MacOS platform is a produkt made by Apple. A PC is a generic “computing device” not controled by any one party. This move by Microsoft is clearly a way for them to lock out competing operatingsystems and take even more control of the PC platform which they do not own. You really have to be very naïeve if you can’t se where Microsoft is taking Windows (into DRM land, Longhorn etc).
And btw, I have no problem booting Yellow Dog on my iBook. Somehow I don’t think I will be able to do the same with say Debian on a PC with that BIOS.
Secondly: Apple may not be saints, but they are a by far a more consumer friendly company than Microsoft. Apple do have integrated bioses and OS, and soon will Microsoft too. But that doesn’t in any way at all mean that you have to “fear” Apple as much as MS simply because they both have intergrated bioses / OSes. That’s about all Apple and Microsoft do have in common. They do not share the same opinion on DRM, consumers, design, standards or much else either.
This is a good thing and a bad thing. It’s about time that something is down with the BIOS. Nothing has changed to it, and should really be tied more closely to the operating system, or at least give it a GUI for crying out loud!!!
But I’m not liking that Microsoft is the front runner on this. This should really be incorperated with ALL operating system not just Windows.
” I see no difference. I see two huge mega-corporations, doing what is best for their interest and their shareholders. That’s it. If integrating BIOS and OS worked well for Apple, is only fair for MS to do the kind of products it desires. If you don’t want them, don’t buy them.”
Two HUGE differences.
1. Microsoft is a Monopoly, Apple is not.
2. Apple is the hardware manufacturer for thier systems(they essentially ARE ppc), Microsoft is not a PC manufacturer, and there are plenty of other OS’s that have long established roots is X86, IBM is the founder of the PC strain of computers, x86 does not belong to microsoft.
So, you’re in India? Do you work for Microsoft/India?
>> Now about DRM. If you dont want to use DRM you can disable it(both through hardware and software). Microsoft is not forcing you to use it. Once I find the links I’ll post it here.
That option is useless if all/most vendors want you to enable it to run their program(s).
So, what is the problem? You want to run software that you haven’t paid for? Well, that’s another problem.
If you don’t want to pay for the software just use Linux, FreeBSD, OpenOffice, gcc, Java, etc.
Again, please people read the article: at the bottom it says that you will be able to disable the feature thus you can run whatever doesn’t ask you to turn it on (my guess is that no open source application will ask you to do that – even if it does, source is available..)
i think they should stick to the xbox bios that is (cough, cough) easily replaceable..
There were GUI bios’s but they were never a success … my old NexGen 133 motherboard had a point and click bios but it was more of a pain to configure than using the text menu options … and you didn’t have to suffer from mouse incompatibility issues. Also some laptops had a GUI bios which resided on a hidden small partition on the hdd
BS wrote:
“Keep complaining. Even if you don’t use Windows, your friend, your friend’s girlfriend, you friend’ girlfriend’s uncle, your friend’s girlfriend’s uncle’s daughter are all using Windows. Imagine this world WITHOUT Microsoft. Do you think we lie in a better computer world WITHOUT Microsoft?
It’s Microsoft that allows us to enjoy games like HL2, not Linux.”
I don’t even know what HL2 is, but I recommend doing your homework rather than spending time defending MS or playing computer games.
As to your question, the computer world would be a better place if MS did not have its current PC monopoly.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
“It’s Microsoft that allows us to enjoy games like HL2, not Linux.”
I assume you are referring to Half-Life 2.
Here’s a clue. If it follows the the same footsteps as Half-Life, more than 98% of Half-Life 2 servers will run on Linux or BSD.
This is also true for Quake3, Unreal Tournement 2003, and pretty much every other freely playable client-server multiplayer game.
I honestly don’t see why any customer would want DRM tied to hardware, whether it is provided by MS, Pheonix or anyone else. Why would anyone buy hardware encumbered with DRM?
Regards,
Mark Wilson
” Microsoft is planning to tie Windows DRM features to the hardware platform via its controversial Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB) project, formerly known as Palladium. NGSCB is associated with the next version of Windows, code-named Longhorn, which is due in about two years’ time.”
All I have to say, is that NO DRM, or NGSCB BS is welcome into my home, or any computer I use elsewhere. Longhorn will stay millions of miles from me. Windows Server 2003 is the last MS OS I will buy, and use. Hell, I have a copy of every windows version, and all my hardware is compatible with anything from Windows NT 4 SP6a/95 or above, ao I will not have to worry about changing my OS if I want to. DRM= Deadly Rape Mode.
“And please, come up with some new arguments. I already know MS is the devil, and that Bill Gates eats his children”
Don’t mess up conclusions with arguments. Or worse, mess up argumentations with a conclusion up with an evade tactic like this one. Finally, new != by definition good.
As for Microsoft and insecure software. I can give a good example, all too easy. Take Internet Explorer:
http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched
It has unpatched vulnerabilities which are proven for MONTHS.
1) There is nothing new about this. Microsoft has finally realised that to deliver a nicely integrated solution for cusumers, the hardware and software have to work together nicely. In their great wisdom they’ve finally realised that the x86 model for configuring devices is crap and Windows is terrible at managing devices. It took them how long and how much R&D? hell, I could have simply suggested replacing the BIOS with openboot and it would have done away with the problems that plague windows users.
2) There is already a move by a small number of people to bring OpenBoot/Forth Language to x86 so that one day you can flash your BIOS and have it completely replaced with a technically beautiful firmware which is fully openstandards and documented. If SUN wanted to do something really nice, support this project.
If memory serves me the BIOS we currently use did not enable IBM to lock us all to their hardware.
You think this means some MS only x86 world ? Absolutely not. We will see Linux support for the new BIOS.
Personally I’d love it if there was a tighter integration between my hardware and OS. Going into the BIOS on current PCs is a stark reminder that there are two very different ways to configure the basics of the PC. It shouldn’t be like that. Thats old crap from the 80s. Dump it already.
I’m looking forward to the new BIOS.
with the expception of altering motherboard specfic features such as altering the onboard VGA memory usage, and changing bus/multiplier speeds).
Which is one of the reasons I’d love to see tighter hardware integration between the BIOS and OS.
If the current BIOS allows good control over the hardware why did I have to fine tune my BIOS to get good FPS from my video card ? I want to be able to do that fully from my OS. That would be sweet.
I’m all for it.
Like contrasutra said, Phoenix bought AwardBIOS some time ago… but that’s not all. Some Dell, Compaq and IBM PCs uses a custom version of Award BIOS. They do have a competitor (AMI), but they’re quiet these days.
…we’ll be able to replace whatever is there with LinuxBIOS.
Just visited their website…3-second boot for single-user mode…(drools)…I want it!!!
This is a good thing and a bad thing. It’s about time that something is down with the BIOS. Nothing has changed to it, and should really be tied more closely to the operating system, or at least give it a GUI for crying out loud!!!
First, AMIBIOS has a GUI at least since 1994. I remember having one on my i486 DX2/80. Second, a GUI takes precious space in 256K/512K of EEPROM. Third, why would you want a GUI? Because it’s easier to use? To have more newbs screwing up their machine? You shouldn’t touch the BIOS if you are mystified by text options…
Conclusion: that idea is retarded and completely pointless.
I see no difference. I see two huge mega-corporations, doing what is best for their interest and their shareholders. That’s it. If integrating BIOS and OS worked well for Apple, is only fair for MS to do the kind of products it desires. If you don’t want them, don’t buy them.
I completely agree with you Eugenia, but what will be the alternative? Keeping our old PCs? I doubt people will start making “open hardware”.
“with the expception of altering motherboard specfic features such as altering the onboard VGA memory usage, and changing bus/multiplier speeds).”
Which is one of the reasons I’d love to see tighter hardware integration between the BIOS and OS.
If the current BIOS allows good control over the hardware why did I have to fine tune my BIOS to get good FPS from my video card ? I want to be able to do that fully from my OS. That would be sweet.
I’m all for it.
None of the BIOS options I’m aware of are ‘fine tuning’. You may notice that the computer reboots between changes? These are fundamental ways in which the motherboard operates. To use the above example, there’s a massive difference between the way the general CPU access’s the main memory, and the way onboard VGA does.
Lets say we want to expand the use of the graphics card’s ram from 4 MB to 8 MB, and the computer has 256 MB of ram in total. The graphics card is currently running on in the 252 MB to 256 MB memory space.
To do this, the kernel has to talk directly to the memory, instead of through the CPU’s MMU, move the running programs
in the Ax248 MB to Ax252 MB memory space to unallocated ram or swap. It then needs to tell the graphics chip to move the current frame buffer memory down from Ax252 to Ax248. The card will need to shut down the chip, signal to the CPU to move the existing memory contents down Ar4, and then restart itself at the new position. The kernel then needs to let the BIOS know about the new memory value (if it’s a running program) or overwrite the BIOS with the new data.
So what’s the problem with the above?
Overhead.
This requires changes and additions to the CPU (in the MMU), the BIOS hardware, the graphics hardware, and the kernel – all so Johnny, in a market with almost zero margins, can change his memory size on the fly.
With a few exceptions, many of these BIOS changes involve turning whole circuits on or off, or changing the way in which they operate.
While every modern computer and OS bigger than a palm pilot has stripped the BIOS to practically nothing, MS is intent on making the x86 BIOS even bigger. In light of their history and bussiness tactics, attitude to competing Operating Systems and open source, to assume that Microsoft is doing this simply for the good of the consumer, is to bury ones head in the sand. This is not for our benefit so we can have greater control over our computers, it’s for Microsoft’s, and Microsoft’s only so they can have greater control at the expense of ours.
1) There is nothing new about this. Microsoft has finally realised that to deliver a nicely integrated solution for cusumers, the hardware and software have to work together nicely. In their great wisdom they’ve finally realised that the x86 model for configuring devices is crap and Windows is terrible at managing devices. It took them how long and how much R&D? hell, I could have simply suggested replacing the BIOS with openboot and it would have done away with the problems that plague windows users.
Can you tell me how Windows is terrible at managing devices? I’m not a low-level programmer, but I doubt that this integration will improve the stability or reliability of Windows-based PCs. I believe it’s only just another step towards DRM. Personally, I don’t care of this crap as long as I’m able to boot up the OSes I want (Windows XP, Linux or FreeBSD). Those alternative OSes won’t be affected as long as they can boot and the hardware doesn’t require a DRM-enabled OS.
Which is one of the reasons I’d love to see tighter hardware integration between the BIOS and OS.
If the current BIOS allows good control over the hardware why did I have to fine tune my BIOS to get good FPS from my video card ? I want to be able to do that fully from my OS. That would be sweet.
I’m all for it.
Wait. That’s a limitation of your OS and its kernel. AFAIK, Linux & co. are only using the BIOS to load a little program in the boot block that will load the kernel. The kernel doesn’t use it after it’s loaded. Theorically, you could change AGP settings and stuff like that on-the-fly. For example, you can disable all your drives in the BIOS and the Linux kernel will probably find them automatically if you boot from a floppy or a CD. You can also change the some AGP settings of your nVidia card only by reloading their binary driver… That’s something you can’t do in Windows.
Then again, there are some programs for Windows out there that allow you to change BIOS settings on-the-fly (WPCREDIT I believe?). There are even some overclocking utilities that allow you to raise your FSB & CPU speed while your OS is loaded. However, these programs can also destabilise your computer. That’s probably why Windows is asking for reboots… and why you won’t see what you want in the near future.
Linux has 30% of the server market (mostly on x86 machines I would say), it is also the fastest growing OS in the world (35% growth in the first quarter 2003). Hardware makers will NOT allow the choice of OS’s to be removed.
And please stop comparing this to Apple. Linux boots on Macs, no sweat.
None of the BIOS options I’m aware of are ‘fine tuning’.
Fast writes on the agp port and a ton of other options. If a new BIOS can integrate these settings into the OS I’m there.
Some video drivers allow you to tweak these settings. Of course I’ve found that at times the setting you specify in the OS dosen’t get toggled in the BIOS. It would be nice to eliminate the BIOS interface or at least streamline it by giving the OS more functional control.
While every modern computer and OS bigger than a palm pilot has stripped the BIOS to practically nothing, MS is intent on making the x86 BIOS even bigger. [snip]
The BIOS is an outdated relic of the original IBM PC.
I don’t care if they have to redesign entirely new motherboards. This thing called technology is supposed to be moving forward, not crawling along on crutches.
Can you tell me how Windows is terrible at managing devices? I’m not a low-level programmer, but I doubt that this integration will improve the stability or reliability of Windows-based PCs. I believe it’s only just another step towards DRM. Personally, I don’t care of this crap as long as I’m able to boot up the OSes I want (Windows XP, Linux or FreeBSD). Those alternative OSes won’t be affected as long as they can boot and the hardware doesn’t require a DRM-enabled OS.
If you take a look at the support groups you’ll see the number of people who have motherboards with BIOS’s that have half baked PnP solutions such as poorly implemented ACPI.
The x86 world is littered with half-baked solutions for PnP and unfortunately Microsoft has to accomidate all this and ensure system stability. When hardware isn’t configured properly, stability issues occur. The only way to ensure stability is to produce quality BIOSs and motherboards, BUT consumers want, “cheap, cheap, cheap” . Replacing the BIOS instead of patching and working around the idiosyncracies will solve alot of problems.
EFI has been mentioned by Intel but why hasn’t it taken off? why are the motherboard and BIOS producers so hell bent on retaining BIOS?
Fast writes on the agp port and a ton of other options. If a new BIOS can integrate these settings into the OS I’m there.
Some video drivers allow you to tweak these settings. Of course I’ve found that at times the setting you specify in the OS dosen’t get toggled in the BIOS. It would be nice to eliminate the BIOS interface or at least streamline it by giving the OS more functional control.
While every modern computer and OS bigger than a palm pilot has stripped the BIOS to practically nothing, MS is intent on making the x86 BIOS even bigger. [snip]
The BIOS is an outdated relic of the original IBM PC.
I don’t care if they have to redesign entirely new motherboards. This thing called technology is supposed to be moving forward, not crawling along on crutches.
I think we’re arguing the same thing from different point of views. As some people have stated above by you and me, and pretty much everyone else, I’d like to see the BIOS stripped back to it’s bare minimum, and let the OS do all the work. I don’t see it as an issue to set things like AGP Fast Writes to conservative values, and let the OS/driver choose the apropriate values.
Given this, I fail the see what value a large MS-centric BIOS would give, aside from it’s disturbing DRM potential.
I think we’re arguing the same thing from different point of views. As some people have stated above by you and me, and pretty much everyone else, I’d like to see the BIOS stripped back to it’s bare minimum, and let the OS do all the work. I don’t see it as an issue to set things like AGP Fast Writes to conservative values, and let the OS/driver choose the apropriate values.
Given this, I fail the see what value a large MS-centric BIOS would give, aside from it’s disturbing DRM potential.
I don’t care for DRM but I do like some of the ideas proposed for integrated encryption at the hardware level. Its been needed for a long time.
Certain aspects of Palladium make sense. Hardware based FIPS random number generation, embedded RSA key pairs. That stuff is needed and if done right can help bring security to averge computer using consumers.
The add-on “lock you into this solution” crap I don’t want. I won’t use it. I’m sure like everything on my current system there will be a way to disable it.
” If memory serves me the BIOS we currently use did not enable IBM to lock us all to their hardware. ”
Yes, but it cost Compaq around $1,000,000 to ‘clean room’ clone it. Got that kind of cash hanging around to fund development on a winbios compatible bios?
” If memory serves me the BIOS we currently use did not enable IBM to lock us all to their hardware. ”
IBM prevented people originally from creating PC clones with its bios for years, until like “Chezzwog” said companies like Compaq created clone Bios that worked, so originally IBM was trying to lock us all to its chosen hardware, so M$ aint tryin somet new.
There is very little value in integrating the BIOS with the Operating system. I personally like the fact that the layers are seperate. Why fix something that isn’t broke.
Very interesting, I had no idea that there was a precedent from Microsoft of this. Though it’s probably a chapter of history they would rather forget….
http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-140.html
“The hardware comes from Tandy, and they call it the Video Information System, or VIS, and hope to sell it for about $700. The software, as usual, comes from Microsoft in the form of Modular Windows, which Microsoft optimized for use with a television as a display device. Microsoft obviously wants certain developers already working on Windows products to scale them down for use with Tandy’s VIS, and since Modular Windows for VIS is based on Windows 3.1, developers shouldn’t have too much trouble, assuming they have already mastered programming Windows, something which various programmers of my acquaintance have likened to eating okra (that ought to get both okra aficionados and Windows programmers, all in one sentence :-)).”
No way would I buy a bios like this. To tell me from the beginning what os to use is not something I would ever want. The people here are computer people. But the public doesnt know the difference and much less care about bios or know what it is. I feel this kinda of stuff is just more of MS attempts to fool the public into doing whatever it wants. I am already a Linux person. I know enough of about Linux to get my work done. But I do feel for the unsuspecting public that uses Windows and don’t know or care and they just there computer to work for them. But this is just crazy stuff.
It would nice to know whether Windows is either integrating with the BIOS OR the BIOS is going to have extensions added to make it work nicer with Windows. If the extensions are added and the information is made available, I can’t see why it can’t be a good thing.
There is already an Open Firmware standard, at one point IBM PowerPCs could boot Macintosh (they can again through a strange twist of fate with the 970.) Many Apple, IBM, and SUN systems running the PowerPC platform use Open Firmware, there are some idiosyncracies between them now as time progresses. But, they do have a standard written for the BIOS, at one point it was ratified by ieee, IEEE-1275. This standard is no longer current and is no longer endoresed by IEEE. Mainly because no one cared about it and it languished into relative obscurity.
However many PowerPC systems still use this standard. There is an attempt to get this BIOS on x86 hardware, this is definately noteworthy and I believe would go a long way towards curing hardware incompatibilities across platforms. Here is a link to the Open BIOS project that is trying to make Open Firmware work on IBM-PC systems, http://www.openbios.info/
Isn’t that the real problem? Not enough PC’s out there with Linux, Unix, etc. preinstalled. Sun having trouble deciding whether Solaris should run x86. How long are we going to have to wait before the OEMs get serious about offering choices in operating systems?
This BIOS integration news is about a month old.
“There is very little value in integrating the BIOS with the Operating system. I personally like the fact that the layers are seperate. Why fix something that isn’t broke.”
Well, I must say I don’t quite agree with you. Even though I don’t see the use in it either (on the other hand, it wouldn’t matter to me, either), I do think it could be usefull if it also does something about the MBR. Destroying your MBR can be a disaster. Even though it’s isn’t THAT much to fix it, it still annoyes me sometimes. I think the MBR is kind of “the weakest link” in PC booting. I would love to see either MS or sny other company do something about it. This COULD (emphazised) be a step in the right direction.
I am not a Mac fanatic, but I know they have open firmware and I know that I’ve never had to mess with it, nor have I ever had to mess with interrupts, or other resources, ever, on a Mac. What has Apple been doing this whole time prior to OpenFirmware and now with OpenFirmware that makes their machines totally avoid the issues that the x86 type have suffered since day freakin one?? Can someone explain to me how processor interrupt requests work on a Mac and why x86 sucks so badly in the area of resources and hardware control?
No, I’m not happy to see MS in the pilot’s seat on this initiative, but I have been bitching about x86 BIOS for years. It’s ugly, cumbersome and generally stupid.
Text mode. Meaningless technical jargon. System status info…. why do we need to see this? The “quiet boot” screens are no better because they are clearly still separated from the OS you run. There’s no consistency on x86. Ironically, Apple seems to be throwing the consistency away too. What should I expect…
I think a company who has lost some cases because of it’s stoling (from Apple, etc.), shouldn’t speach about trusted computing and DRM. I want to be the owner of my computer and not a so called OS application!
Such “integrations” are not unheard of. MOST of the embedded OS for appliances are “integrated” in this way. But no one is shouting for them, but if MS do something, everyone does.
Well duh. if palms and cell phones had hard drives they wouldn’t have to “embed” OSes. Allthough PCs have hard drives, so why would we need this. I will bet this will make “windows” the only os allowed on the pc. Oh no my bios has a blue screen, think of all the new threats this would open up.
I’m {sad} glad that the x86 and there for the Bios will
come to an end soon. The day when you can boot to Dos
and save some files when hard drive is losing some
sectors will be gone. With no one to compete with the
quality on ms software would go down making people switch
to other systems. WPA was a step too far……
But that said if the new Bios lets all OS’s use the
new mode we might all see some more speed out of PC’s.
The day when pc become incompatible with each other
because of the BIOS will be the day the x86 dies
along with windows.
I love windows me, it made me switch to linux
Great! Now I can have something I haver never had before. A BSOD before it even boots up.
This will likely allow MS to enforce their MS Certification costs for hardware drivers. Because creative labs sucks so bad at writing drivers, this may not be all that bad. BUT I get this feeling the next generation WORM will flash your MS based BIOS Blank, or worse, use it to damage hardwware, as some bios’s have control, or the ability to control CPU voltages, Ram VOLTAGES, etc.
err– the fact that both Eugenia and MoronPeeCeeUser have “—.client.attbi.com” doesn’t nesceserily mean they are the same person.
MoronPeeCeeUser=Eugenia How fitting
I have no idea who Eugenia is.
I run a mix of operating systems. Windows, Linux (OMG! an MS supporter runs Linux! Say it ain’t so!). Win2k on my desktop and slackware on a server. Yes I’m comfortable with BASH and KDE 3 ain’t too bad. Hell KDevelop is turning out to be a pretty decent IDE.
So label me what you want just because I won’t jump on the bandwagon about some ancient crap being removed from the x86 architecture but I’ve been waiting for the BIOS to deep six for years now.
I really don’t like this. Yes, I think there needs to be a “new” bios, but I really don’t want Microsoft to control it…
Anyone know of any good custom BIOS manufacturers? I was looking at Mr. BIOS but they seem to be in Phoenixs pocket for now…..
IBM did that a long time ago with their microchannel (trademarked by IBM) computers. Seems I got moderated down for saying that. I wonder if anyone else knows MCA?