OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

[TAK]

.

[LAwLz]

There is no requirement for motherboard manufactures to implement this feature on motherboard compatible with Windows 8. So why it would change with Windows 10?

But there is for prebuilt systems. No red herrings please.

[zappian]

There is no requirement for motherboard manufactures to implement this feature on motherboard compatible with Windows 8. So why it would change with Windows 10?

It makes no sense to me also tbh.

 

[GoodBytes]

But there is for prebuilt systems. No red herrings please.

There is no requirement, correct. It is up to manufactures.

Business class system will have the option as discussed. Manufacture have no choice. Most companies uses ghosting software that aren't UEFI ready, and wants a quick and easy solution to image their system, and I think you can even order them to have Secure Boot disabled, if you call and order. Imagine ordering 800 computers, and you need to plug all of them to start disabling secure boot, to start imagining them, with Windows 7 (which doesn't support the feature), or Linux.

Consumer class system, well it will be as simple. In ANY case, most manufactures (I think Dell is one of the few that allows you to do what ever), void the warranty, and cut you off support if you replace the OS that came with the system, even if it is a newer or older version of Windows. They'll all tell you to restore back the system to what it was at manufacture, THEN they'll cover you. They do this as a support cut measurement, to reduce the cost of support, which translate to savings to the consumers, the same way manufactures don't include the OS disk (and there was a study done, which showed that the mass majority of the consumer throws the disk of the system within the first week of buying the system, or looses them). Alienware and business class systems are the only one that gives you recovery disk or/and OS disk (varies between manufactures, and some you need to call and request it). To be specific Alienware includes a USB flash drive containing the recovery image.

Microsoft never requested manufactures to include the OS disk or recovery disk or even a recovery image on the system.

You could have argued that it is in Microsoft best interest to do so, so that people go out and buy a new license of Windows.

Never been a problem as you can see. Consumers throws away the disks if it came with, and only businesses care about this stuff, and they have it. All part of paying the premium price. Businesses class system you can change the OS and you'll be cover. Why? Because you pay more the system meaning more money goes into the warranty service. Microsoft, Dell, and Lenovo, when you call their business section, at least in Canada from personal experience, you get a person that doesn't follow a list on their screen. They'll listen to you, listen to what you tried, and give you help the best they can, and not be a robot, something you do get with consumer grade computers.

You get what you paid for, is what I say. If you are cheap, then the manufacture will be cheap with you. It is that simple.

Plus, you have excellent laptops from Dell, Lenovo, and I believe even HP,m that comes shipped with Linux distro.

The only important thing is that manufactures don't do the act they pulled with Vista, where they sold systems bellow system requirement of Windows Vista, or minimum.

[Dabombinable]

The only important thing is that manufactures don't do the act they pulled with Vista, where they sold systems bellow system requirement of Windows Vista, or minimum.

I've actually witnessed the results of Microsoft doing that multiple times at schools, their computers were stickered as 'vista capable', so they went ahead and installed Windows 7, of course since the computers only had 1GB of RAM that was filled within seconds of opening anything, and as a result the HDD were getting thrashed and the computers ran a lot worse than when they were under XP.

[GoodBytes]

If Microsoft was anti-Linux, and push Windows for it's platform.

That must also explains why Microsoft is offering its popular Azure platform with not only Linux support, but full Enterprise level via Linux experts supports, and you can order your server with Linux installed for you the way you want it. And that Microsoft open source a large part of .NET frameware, which Microsoft calls .NET Core, with Linux and Mac support, why they made Office for Android and iOS, and Microsoft was rated to be the 5th largest contributor to Linux kernel source code.

Wait what? That makes no sense.

If Microsoft wants to close all the doors and push Windows, why are they doing all this? I mean they already have 90%+ of computers. And Microsoft is gaining grounds on the tablet space, and will continue to grow with thanks to Intel push on better Atom based system for the low end system, Core M processors recently released for med range ones, and U series CPUs for ultrabooks and high-end tablets.

Simply put, The reason is that Microsoft doesn't care Windows success. Currently if Windows fails, Microsoft is gone. Microsoft wants competition, wants to spread it wings, and becomes a service company. Why do you think Windows 10 is all free upgrade. I am sure that if the shareholders was not there, Windows 10 would probably be free. Microsoft is going with a new business model: Free, if you think it's worth the service, you'll pay for the full experience.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-evolving-business-model-focuses-on-freemium-tighter-cross-product-integration/

So either I am blind/fanboy.... or I know A LOT about the direction of Microsoft because I am in the field in both using their platform, and developing on it, and the decision the company makes is critical to me, and the company I work for.

That is why I am not concerned about the situation.

[GoodBytes]

I've actually witnessed the results of Microsoft doing that multiple times at schools, their computers were stickered as 'vista capable', so they went ahead and installed Windows 7, of course since the computers only had 1GB of RAM that was filled within seconds of opening anything, and as a result the HDD were getting thrashed and the computers ran a lot worse than when they were under XP.

Yup, and that was with Windows 7, which had a nice set of optimizations and bug fixed over Vista (as Vista was pretty much (large part) redone from scratch, so you loose all the previous work done. So imagine users using Vista. No wonder it was hatted so much. Mixed with the fact that you had HP, and a few others, who decided to not support Vista for many of their new printer and scanners, and opt to rebrand newer models with Vista drivers to try and get everyone to buy their new products. A cleaver person could figure it all out and download the drivers of the new printer for their old printer, which many did, But then HP specifically catches on, and started to add a lock system, which was encrypting the drives, and if the exact printer model is not detected, it won't decrypt the drivers. I had an HP printer. You can imagine where it ended up, and now you know why I am anti-HP these days.

The good news is that all that back fired a lot, but it hurt Vista badly, even more then already starting with. Honestly, 2006-2007 and part of 2008, was really not the time to buy any computers. Very dark days in my book.

[Dabombinable]

If Microsoft was anti-Linux, and push Windows for it's platform.

That must also explains why Microsoft is offering its popular Azure platform with not only Linux support, but full Enterprise level via Linux experts supports, and you can order your server with Linux installed for you the way you want it. And that Microsoft open source a large part of .NET frameware, which Microsoft calls .NET Core, with Linux and Mac support, why they made Office for Android and iOS, and Microsoft was rated to be the 5th largest contributor to Linux kernel source code.

Wait what? That makes no sense.

If Microsoft wants to close all the doors and push Windows, why are they doing all this? I mean they already have 90%+ of computers. And Microsoft is gaining grounds on the tablet space, and will continue to grow with thanks to Intel push on better Atom based system for the low end system, Core M processors recently released for med range ones, and U series CPUs for ultrabooks and high-end tablets.

Simply put, The reason is that Microsoft doesn't care Windows success. Currently if Windows fails, Microsoft is gone. Microsoft wants competition, wants to spread it wings, and becomes a service company. Why do you think Windows 10 is all free upgrade. I am sure that if the shareholders was not there, Windows 10 would probably be free. Microsoft is going with a new business model: Free, if you think it's worth the service, you'll pay for the full experience.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-evolving-business-model-focuses-on-freemium-tighter-cross-product-integration/

So either I am blind/fanboy.... or I know A LOT about the direction of Microsoft because I am in the field in both using their platform, and developing on it, and the decision the company makes is critical to me, and the company I work for.

That is why I am not concerned about the situation.

I can only partly agree with Microsoft not being anti Linux, Microsoft was able to scare devs away from creating games for openGL (and thus Linux) and encourage them to use DirectX. Though that might be fixed partially with the newest itteration of openGL.

[GoodBytes]

That is not really the reason. At work we have OpenGL team they works on it for years (basically their life), and I played around learning it. Themselves agreed that OpenGL is really not great. Documentation is very weak, hard to debug, until lately where AMD and Nvidia started to develop OpenGL debugging tools, which exists since ever for DirectX, and even then, these tools are not great because the way OpenGL is designed. It is also hard to get started if you are new to OpenGL, while much easier to DirectX. And that is to start with. However, OpenGL is multi-platform, and has many many strength over DirectX, strength that are beneficial, apparently, to what the company software does, and hence pick that. DirectX is said to be more "games friendly", said by one of the OpenGL devs I talked to. At least when the decision which path to take when it was started.

Mixed with the fact that OpenGl drivers on Intel integrated graphics are at best half broken up to today, it doesn't help much in getting interest, especially that many games tries to aim for max system support (so lowest common denominator).

Interesting read: http://richg42.blogspot.ca/2014/05/the-truth-on-opengl-driver-quality.html(Vendor A is Nvidia, B AMD, and C Intel)

On top of things the big problem with OpenGL, is that its development is VERY slow until lately. Mixed with the fact that devs were able to get direct support from Microsoft while has nothing from OpenGL, unless they are working on a big game, and are form a big studio, where they can get help from Nvidia and AMD.

Now with DirectX12 and Vulkan from OpenGL Kronos group, it will be very interesting to see what will happen. It will definitly be exciting for us gamers.

[AlexGoesHigh]

snip

i wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the decade windows would become free for the consumer and their only paid software would be business solution, server cloud stuff and productivity software like office

[MadSprite]

i wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the decade windows would become free for the consumer and their only paid software would be business solution, server cloud stuff and productivity software like office

Thats what everyone hopes for because consumers are Microsoft biggest pirates. No one at the consumer level can be held responsible just because of the fact they can hide, its expensive to buy a new OS and isn't really justifiable in this age.

Businesses tho can't hide, and if Microsoft finds them out they can't move their building or throw out complete systems to disprove it.

[LAwLz]

There is no requirement, correct. It is up to manufactures.

Business class system will have the option as discussed. Manufacture have no choice. Most companies uses ghosting software that aren't UEFI ready, and wants a quick and easy solution to image their system, and I think you can even order them to have Secure Boot disabled, if you call and order. Imagine ordering 800 computers, and you need to plug all of them to start disabling secure boot, to start imagining them, with Windows 7 (which doesn't support the feature), or Linux.

1) There is a requirement for systems that ship with Windows 10 pre-installed. The requirement is that secure boot is configured and enabled by default. Personally I think that's a good thing, but if they are going to force manufacturers to have it on then they should also force them to give users the option to turn it off.

 

Consumer class system, well it will be as simple. In ANY case, most manufactures (I think Dell is one of the few that allows you to do what ever), void the warranty, and cut you off support if you replace the OS that came with the system, even if it is a newer or older version of Windows. They'll all tell you to restore back the system to what it was at manufacture, THEN they'll cover you. They do this as a support cut measurement, to reduce the cost of support, which translate to savings to the consumers, the same way manufactures don't include the OS disk (and there was a study done, which showed that the mass majority of the consumer throws the disk of the system within the first week of buying the system, or looses them). Alienware and business class systems are the only one that gives you recovery disk or/and OS disk (varies between manufactures, and some you need to call and request it). To be specific Alienware includes a USB flash drive containing the recovery image.

So your response to my worries about OEMs possibly starting to dictate what you can and can't install on your own computer, with Microsoft acting as a gatekeeper is "just buy a business class computer"? That's a terrible argument. I shouldn't have to buy a special SKU to be able to install whatever I want on my computer. That's ridiculous.

 

Microsoft never requested manufactures to include the OS disk or recovery disk or even a recovery image on the system.

You could have argued that it is in Microsoft best interest to do so, so that people go out and buy a new license of Windows.

Never been a problem as you can see. Consumers throws away the disks if it came with, and only businesses care about this stuff, and they have it. All part of paying the premium price. Businesses class system you can change the OS and you'll be cover. Why? Because you pay more the system meaning more money goes into the warranty service. Microsoft, Dell, and Lenovo, when you call their business section, at least in Canada from personal experience, you get a person that doesn't follow a list on their screen. They'll listen to you, listen to what you tried, and give you help the best they can, and not be a robot, something you do get with consumer grade computers.

I have no idea why you are bringing that up. I get that you are trying to make some analogy, but I don't see it. If it's just a continuation of your "buy a business class computer" argument then again, I shouldn't have to buy a special SKU just to be able to install a different OS or make modifications like changing theme.

 

I think that artificial restrictions which hurts your competitors should be illegal (I'd gladly see all artificial restrictions made illegal but that's a bit too much to ask). The way secure boot has been used up until this point is most certainly been that, a way for manufacturers to lock customers into their platform. Customers shouldn't have to pay extra to be able to use the competitors things.

 

The first part of your post is basically the "I am not racist, I have black friends" argument. I think the Halloween documents as well as Microsoft's Linux FUD campaign called "Get the Facts", which was on their website until late 2007, speaks for themselves. I believe that trust should be earned, and since Microsoft has spent the last ~20 years using flat out illegal methods of choking competitors I don't blindly trust that they have done a 180 and are now saints. I love a lot of the things they have done recently, and I believe they are moving in the right direction, but I think people should continue to be very skeptical and

 

 

If Microsoft was anti-Linux, and push Windows for it's platform.

That must also explains why Microsoft is offering its popular Azure platform with not only Linux support, but full Enterprise level via Linux experts supports, and you can order your server with Linux installed for you the way you want it. And that Microsoft open source a large part of .NET frameware, which Microsoft calls .NET Core, with Linux and Mac support, why they made Office for Android and iOS, and Microsoft was rated to be the 5th largest contributor to Linux kernel source code.

Wait what? That makes no sense.

If Microsoft wants to close all the doors and push Windows, why are they doing all this? I mean they already have 90%+ of computers. And Microsoft is gaining grounds on the tablet space, and will continue to grow with thanks to Intel push on better Atom based system for the low end system, Core M processors recently released for med range ones, and U series CPUs for ultrabooks and high-end tablets.

Simply put, The reason is that Microsoft doesn't care Windows success. Currently if Windows fails, Microsoft is gone. Microsoft wants competition, wants to spread it wings, and becomes a service company. Why do you think Windows 10 is all free upgrade. I am sure that if the shareholders was not there, Windows 10 would probably be free. Microsoft is going with a new business model: Free, if you think it's worth the service, you'll pay for the full experience.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-evolving-business-model-focuses-on-freemium-tighter-cross-product-integration/

So either I am blind/fanboy.... or I know A LOT about the direction of Microsoft because I am in the field in both using their platform, and developing on it, and the decision the company makes is critical to me, and the company I work for.

That is why I am not concerned about the situation.

And yes, you are a fanboy, and I still strongly believe that you do in fact shill for Microsoft. I don't base that assumption on just you always defending Microsoft, but also on things like this post. You never quote (or tag) anyone who says anything bad about Microsoft, but you do quote people who are neutral or positive. Surely I can't be the only one who have noticed this and think it is a very weird behavior. But maybe you got a perfectly logical explanation for it.

[MadSprite]

@LAwLz

 

I think we should just take the approach that we just avoid buying hardware that disables us from running a different os. If you have intentions or thoughts to run small distro linux on your soon to be bought hardware, just shop for hardware with secure boot off options.

Phone OEMs have been doing this with their phone bootloaders, a majority of people will never encounter having a problem with it because they will stick instead the bounderies as they don't need to run a custom rom to do the same thing.

Secure boot is here to stay as Ubuntu and the other major distros are leveraging the security aspect to better protect the end user in the end.

If things get too much, OEMs are the first to repond for the option as they think whats best for their customer as it is in their hands now. As for Microsoft, they will hold onto the key until the linux foundation sees it too much of a problem when OEMs and customers are clashing through a large part of their user base.

Of course, holding a key requires a lot of security and instead of having everyone getting free signing down to the malware developers, money will be paid to prove to Microsoft the legitimacy of the distro. Even if there was another authority, the same steps will be taken to done where money will be exchanged to support the authority.

[LAwLz]

@LAwLz

 

I think we should just take the approach that we just avoid buying hardware that disables us from running a different os. If you have intentions or thoughts to run small distro linux on your soon to be bought hardware, just shop for hardware with secure boot off options.

Phone OEMs have been doing this with their phone bootloaders, a majority of people will never encounter having a problem with it because they will stick instead the bounderies as they don't need to run a custom rom to do the same thing.

Yep, I will certainly try to avoid buying hardware with permanently locked secure boot. Most people won't though, and soon we might lose the right to it altogether. You can't avoid it if it's the only option.

 

 

Secure boot is here to stay as Ubuntu and the other major distros are leveraging the security aspect to better protect the end user in the end.

If things get too much, OEMs are the first to repond for the option as they think whats best for their customer as it is in their hands now. As for Microsoft, they will hold onto the key until the linux foundation sees it too much of a problem when OEMs and customers are clashing through a large part of their user base.

Of course, holding a key requires a lot of security and instead of having everyone getting free signing down to the malware developers, money will be paid to prove to Microsoft the legitimacy of the distro. Even if there was another authority, the same steps will be taken to done where money will be exchanged to support the authority.

Don't get me wrong, I think secure boot is good. It's good but it has been used for evil, and I see this recent changes as a huge risk.

The problem isn't that you have to pay to get it signed, the problem is that Microsoft is in full control and they have a conflict of interest. With SSL certs you have a ton of choice of providers and they are impartial. With secure boot you only have 1 provider (that is guaranteed to be on every UEFI) and they are the competitor of everyone else. If we look at Microsoft's track record we see that they have used the tactic known as "embrace, extend and extinguish" lots and lots of times before. Here is a description of what it means:

1. Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
2. Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
3. Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

 

Right now we are in the embrace state.

Remember, Microsoft have done this before. They are not to be trusted.

[GoodBytes]

1) There is a requirement for systems that ship with Windows 10 pre-installed. The requirement is that secure boot is configured and enabled by default. Personally I think that's a good thing, but if they are going to force manufacturers to have it on then they should also force them to give users the option to turn it off.

Why?

So your response to my worries about OEMs possibly starting to dictate what you can and can't install on your own computer, with Microsoft acting as a gatekeeper is "just buy a business class computer"? That's a terrible argument. I shouldn't have to buy a special SKU to be able to install whatever I want on my computer. That's ridiculous.

No. That was a worst case scenario. That is was, "If consumers don't care, and all manufactures aim for the bottom bin prices, and cancel their Linux version laptop. AND wants to lock down everything." This includes, that consumers don't care, and favors locked down system. And it is not a SKU, it is a class. HUGE difference. You have low end affordable systems in the business class, like you can have powerful game ready system. The only difference is better engineering, better cooling, better build quality.

I think that artificial restrictions which hurts your competitors should be illegal (I'd gladly see all artificial restrictions made illegal but that's a bit too much to ask). The way secure boot has been used up until this point is most certainly been that, a way for manufacturers to lock customers into their platform. Customers shouldn't have to pay extra to be able to use the competitors things.

Yes they should. They should pay what it really costs to have a excellent experience on their system, that includes system that last for a long time, great warranty service, a system that doesn't sound like a jet plane reactor when browsing through folders. All this is not free. It costs money. The same way you are replacing your Intel stock cooler with an aftermarket one, you not getting a 30$ case with a PSU inside, but rather get a 80Plus certified one as your minimum, and a case that you won't cut yourself, and be solid.

 

The first part of your post is basically the "I am not racist, I have black friends" argument. I think the Halloween documents as well as Microsoft's Linux FUD campaign called "Get the Facts", which was on their website until late 2007, speaks for themselves. I believe that trust should be earned, and since Microsoft has spent the last ~20 years using flat out illegal methods of choking competitors I don't blindly trust that they have done a 180 and are now saints. I love a lot of the things they have done recently, and I believe they are moving in the right direction, but I think people should continue to be very skeptical and

 

 

And yes, you are a fanboy, and I still strongly believe that you do in fact shill for Microsoft. I don't base that assumption on just you always defending Microsoft, but also on things like this post. You never quote (or tag) anyone who says anything bad about Microsoft, but you do quote people who are neutral or positive. Surely I can't be the only one who have noticed this and think it is a very weird behavior. But maybe you got a perfectly logical explanation for it.

No. I am not a fanboy, I am realistic. You are the one that take any news from Microsoft or semi related to them, and call the end of the world! That it is evil Microsoft with a big plan for destruction in action. But Chromebook, locked down to Chrome OS without hacking.. that's kewwwwwwwlll it runs on Linux. Apple iMac and Mac locked down to MacOS, where you need to use Bootcamp to get Windows on it, you can't normally boot off a Windows disk and install out of the box, because everything is locked down.. they are keeeewwwwwwwll as well as they use Unix. I can't install Windows Phone or iOs on an Android phone.. that's kewwwlll as well, as it's Android. etc. But Microsoft.... oh man... what is this? choice?!?! WORLD DOMINATION!!! Boycott Microsoft! I don't care what they do and their huge contribution in the industry, and students in the world, boycott for life! It's all part of some master plan.

Sorry, but you are the *nix fanboy here. I counter your argument include absolute worst case scenario which I don't believe will be a reality and your response is "that's your solution to my concern? That's pathetic! The only solution is a full boycott of Microsoft, naturally -- said in a very close minded tone, like Microsoft killed your family".

[Victorious Secret]

i wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the decade windows would become free for the consumer and their only paid software would be business solution, server cloud stuff and productivity software like office

 

We seem to be headed in that direction real fast. MS knows its more valuable to sell the service than it is to sell the OS. MS has more to gain by simply having Windows everywhere and then making up the profits in corporate sales, app store and whatever else they can come up with. 

 

Sorry, but you are the *nix fanboy here. I counter your argument include absolute worst case scenario which I don't believe will be a reality and your response is "that's your solution to my concern? That's pathetic! The only solution is a full boycott of Microsoft, naturally -- said in a very close minded tone, like Microsoft killed your family".

 

Windows didn't kill my family but they definitely kicked my dog...

 

/s 

 

It seems like a lot of fear mongering. It is also hypocritical, isn't it? If anything, Microsoft is simply putting Windows on the same level as everything else. OS X doesn't let you just up and install Windows without using either Parallels (3rd party) or Bootcamp (1st party). Apple doesn't stop you from using it, they just give you an approved way that removes as many issues. 

I appreciate that. I like running Bootcamp, I effectively get two 2000 dollar laptops for the price of one. No app issues, no "oh, I can't run that". Cause I can run every last thing I need. I preserve my OS X workflow, I enjoy my more obscure Windows programs. 

Also, lol. You, MS shill. If you're a MS shill, I'm getting paycheques from at least 6 different companies. Can I get 6 different forum badges that show which companies those are?... 

[LAwLz]

Why?

Why they should force manufacturers to have an off switch? Because if manufacturers decide to not include it then it will become a very big issue. I think companies should look after their customers, and now Microsoft has removed something that used to protect customers.

 

 

No. That was a worst case scenario. That is was, "If consumers don't care, and all manufactures aim for the bottom bin prices, and cancel their Linux version laptop. AND wants to lock down everything." This includes, that consumers don't care, and favors locked down system. And it is not a SKU, it is a class. HUGE difference. You have low end affordable systems in the business class, like you can have powerful game ready system. The only difference is better engineering, better cooling, better build quality.

Sadly I think all of the above conditions are very plausible.

• If consumers don't care - Most don't. There is only a small minority who cares. It's a shame that people could have their options limited without even realizing though.
• All manufacturers aim for the bottom bin prices - They might not aim for bottom bin prices, but they certainly aim for the highest profits. It has happened before that computers (especially laptops) were on a race to the bottom. I have already mentioned the Vista era earlier so I know that you remember it.
• Cancel their Linux version laptop - There are next to no GNU/Linux laptops to buy so the selection is already very very limited, and a lot of times they aren't very good.
• AND wants to lock down everything - They have already demonstrated that they want this on phones and tablets.

 

 

No. I am not a fanboy, I am realistic. You are the one that take any news from Microsoft or semi related to them, and call the end of the world! That it is evil Microsoft with a big plan for destruction in action. But Chromebook, locked down to Chrome OS without hacking.. that's kewwwwwwwlll it runs on Linux. Apple iMac and Mac locked down to MacOS, where you need to use Bootcamp to get Windows on it, you can't normally boot off a Windows disk and install out of the box, because everything is locked down.. they are keeeewwwwwwwll as well as they use Unix. I can't install Windows Phone or iOs on an Android phone.. that's kewwwlll as well, as it's Android. etc. But Microsoft.... oh man... what is this? choice?!?! WORLD DOMINATION!!! Boycott Microsoft! I don't care what they do and their huge contribution in the industry, and students in the world, boycott for life! It's all part of some master plan.

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say Chromebooks or Apple products are kewl? Have you ever seen me in threads related to them? I am usually not pleased with the direction they are going either. Not being able to install iOS or WP on an Android phone is bullshit in my opinion. I even said that in this thread:

 

Last I checked, I can't install iOS on Android phone/tablet, or vice versa... huh...

Yep, and I think that should be illegal. I should be allowed to install whatever I want on my computer. Also "b-b-but company X is doing the same bad thing so therefore you shouldn't be mad at company Y" is quite possibly the worst defense ever.

 

I'd like to think of myself as being completely unbiased. It doesn't matter if it's Google, Microsoft, Apple, Asus, Valve, Samsung or whoever. If they do something that won't benefit (and has the potential/will definitely hurt) the consumers then I will be against it.

This move by Microsoft don't benefit the consumer, and it has the potential to hurt us so I am against it.

 

 

Sorry, but you are the *nix fanboy here. I counter your argument include absolute worst case scenario which I don't believe will be a reality and your response is "that's your solution to my concern? That's pathetic! The only solution is a full boycott of Microsoft, naturally -- said in a very close minded tone, like Microsoft killed your family".

When did I call for a Microsoft boycott? Hell I didn't even say anything good about *nix OSes and yet you call me a *nix fanboy? I guess that if I don't agree with everything Microsoft does then I must be a fanboy of the competitor... It's not like I want Windows to be as good as possible because I personally use it or anything.

 

 

 

 

-snip-

I tried to say sorry over PM but you have blocked me so I'll just tell you here instead (hopefully you will see it).

Just wanted to say I am sorry about the S6 thread where I tagged you. I shouldn't have dragged you into it.

 

 

 

It seems like a lot of fear mongering. It is also hypocritical, isn't it? If anything, Microsoft is simply putting Windows on the same level as everything else. OS X doesn't let you just up and install Windows without using either Parallels (3rd party) or Bootcamp (1st party). Apple doesn't stop you from using it, they just give you an approved way that removes as many issues. 

How is it hypocritical? I don't like that about Apple's computers either. Sure this move might only put Windows on the same level as everyone else, but that level is 1 step lower than the one they used to stand on. That's why I dislike this change. It makes Windows go from being better to being the same (at least in this 1 specific area).

[dmegatool]

OS X doesn't let you just up and install Windows without using either Parallels (3rd party) or Bootcamp (1st party). 

Actually yes, you can install Windows without any other software involved. Bootcamp is just a tool to help people create a new partition. But you don't need bootcamp at any point if you know how to partition a disk. You can just put in your Windows disc (DVD yay !) or plug your bootable drive and you're good to go. 

 

I would say the only thing usefull Bootcamp does is  to provide drivers without hassle. 

[Victorious Secret]

Actually yes, you can install Windows without any other software involved. Bootcamp is just a tool to help people create a new partition. But you don't need bootcamp at any point if you know how to partition a disk. You can just put in your Windows disc (DVD yay !) or plug your bootable drive and you're good to go. 

 

I would say the only thing usefull Bootcamp does is  to provide drivers without hassle. 

 

Oh really? Thats actually pretty neat 

[zappian]

Actually yes, you can install Windows without any other software involved. Bootcamp is just a tool to help people create a new partition. But you don't need bootcamp at any point if you know how to partition a disk. You can just put in your Windows disc (DVD yay !) or plug your bootable drive and you're good to go. 

 

I would say the only thing usefull Bootcamp does is  to provide drivers without hassle. 

So you can dual boot windows with mac os ?

Or did I miss the point entirely.

[Shotgun]

So you can dual boot windows with mac os ?

Or did I miss the point entirely.

Yes you can did'nt you watch linus's hackintosh build guide.

[dmegatool]

So you can dual boot windows with mac os ?

Or did I miss the point entirely.

Yes you can did'nt you watch linus's hackintosh build guide.

We're talking real Apple hardware here. And yes you can. In fact you can since they switched from the PowerPC architecture to x86 back in 2006. The hackintosh require a modded version of OSX and is illegal. Windows on Apple hardware is perfectly fine.

[zappian]

We're talking real Apple hardware here. And yes you can. In fact you can since they switched from the PowerPC architecture to x86 back in 2006. The hackintosh require a modded version of OSX and is illegal. Windows on Apple hardware is perfectly fine.

 

I see.