Because it's still Windows 8 on both structures hence they are using their OS monopoly to leverage an advantage by forbidding dual boot, if Microsoft had designed a new OS for ARM and ARM only then what you say might be true but since they're using Windows 8
No it isn't, Windows RT != Windows 8, and their monopoly exists on x86 PCs, they don't have a monopoly in the ARM market.
(and thus you can assume that everything that will run on Windows 8 will do so regardless of x86/ARM) then they are leveraging their advantage to restrict competitors.
Wrong, you cannot assume that, in fact you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea about the platforms whatsoever because that assertion is completely wrong. x86 software will not run on ARM.
No, I paid for this feature and I want to benefit from the security it provides.
What security? By most accounts SecureBoot isn't really going to do much at all in terms of actually preventing
Now I have to ask Verisign permission to use MY hardware? And presumably pay them money for the privilege?
So you're problem is with SecureBoot but it's a feature you want to use, do you actually understand SecureBoot and who designed it? I don't agree with it but that's the nature of the feature, personally I won't use it.
Because apparently you didn't think this through very thoroughly.
I have, i just don't really see a need for SecureBoot so I'll turn it off.
Forgive me for being skeptical, that doesn't seem likely given the anti-trust situation that would create. That would be a clear anti-competitive move and abuse of monopoly position so i don't think you're telling the truth, MS would get belted by the US and EU for a move like that.
The fact it's possible to get a key for x86 and not at all for ARM is bad enough
No the fact is your post is completely wrong, the replacement of the BIOS as we know it with (U)EFI was started long ago by Apple and SecureBoot does not prevent alternative OSes from being installed, you can either turn it off, use an OS with an existing key or - if you really see a benefit to SecureBoot for some reason (personally i don't) - and want to use an OS without a key you can get a key from a CA. As for the issue with ARM this is pretty much the norm with current devices, i don't see the point of an ARM Windows device, if I wanted Windows i'd get an x86 device otherwise i'd go with an boot loader unlocked Android device. Basically the only thing changing is the introduction of new devices that didn't exist before - and given amount of negativity surrounding Metro I shouldn't they will become very prevalent.
it seems you don't want to see MS is the driving force, not the manufacturers or Verisign.
Don't want to see? No i can see clearly what is going on, i'm only objecting to your characterisation of it, it isn't MS charging for a certificate because they can't possibly do that, SecureBoot is not a Microsoft feature and Microsoft are not a Certificate Authority.
No, not wrong at all, that's Windows RT, it's only on ARM, how many of these RE-PC places resell existing ARM devices "boot only"? This doesn't have any effect on the sorts of PCs that RE-PC and the like deal with, this restriction is only for a set of devices that as yet does not even exist.
That they will not allow you to turn it off.
Which, as I've understood it, is exactly what they require of all arm-based computers designed to run win8.
That's only ARM devices, not x86 ones. In fact the ARM-based systems that exist are pretty much the same, how many ipads are you finding being re-sold with Linux on them? Or Android tablets out there that are re-sold without Android? If you really want to be able to install other operating systems then an ARM Windows 8 device, or an iOS device or many of the existing Android devices aren't the right choice, choose an Android device with an unlocked bootloader or an x86-based device.
Why not? There's no hardware lock preventing them, turn SecureBoot off and you're good to go. Or if you want to leave SecureBoot on use an OS from a vendor that provides keys. Or if you want to use an OS that doesn't provide keys yet still want SecureBoot on then get a key from a CA like Verisign. I don't see what the problem is here.
Yes it can, MS has a de facto monopoly on the desktop(win 8), they are using that as leverage in another market(by blocking dual boot)
How? If i buy an x86 PC (which is where they have a monopolistic position) then what does that have to do with ARM devices (where dual boot is blocked)? IOW what advantage do they have in blocking dual boot on ARM while having a monopoly in x86 desktops that they wouldn't get if they didn't have a monopoly in x86 desktops?
Neither the calculator, text editor or sound recorder is particularly advanced in comparison with commercially available products in their respective fields
So? That's not the issue.
As for Media Players, MS was fined for that at one point, as to why nothing has happened since then I don't know, possibly because no competitors are complaining. As for mail there has been no complaints about it as far as I know.
It's competitors complaining that their own offerings aren't enticing users away from the standard bundled offering, there's nothing stopping users from switching if there is a compelling alternative. Competitors should be out-innovating the defacto standard so that users actively want to use them.
You better read up about the MS requirements for secure boot with a pre-installed Win8...
I have, and there's nothing that supports your assertion.
What else you think Canonical and RH are doing spending money, time and effort to make their OS'es install in dual boot mode with Win8?
Because they want to support UEFI SecureBoot...duh. You could always turn it off and it would be no different to the way it is now with current BIOS systems, but RedHat and Canonical want to use SecureBoot as well.
We should also have a Calculator ballot screen and a Text Editor ballot screen and an Email ballot screen and a Sound Recorder ballot screen and a Media Player ballot screen, etc... in fact if it's not the kernel you should force the user to choose! But only Microsoft, everyone else can do whatever they want.
The purpose was absolutely to give a leg up to Microsoft's business rivals and competitors. Because Microsoft was convicted of suppressing its business rivals through monopoly abuse. And having a robust marketplace is definitely in the interests of the people when compared to having no choice.
But that was well over a decade ago, how is that relevant today? What consumer-grade operating system these days does not come with a browser made (or specified) by the OS producer? What happened to simply making and marketing a better product? I consider Chrome to be superior to IE, that's why I use it, if I didn't care or didn't know then that would be the fault of Chrome's marketing. I can't even understand how the browser ballot is helpful, if you don't know or don't care then you'll either choose whatever randomly pops up or go with IE because that's from Microsoft and you're using Microsoft's OS and if you do know or do care then you'll download and install your browser of choice anyway. Who is this even targeting?
They have a monopoly on x86 on the desktop (specifically referred to in the anti-trust action) so if they were forcing locked bootloaders there that would be cause for an anti-trust investigation, but of course that's not what they are doing.
It has replaced the BIOS and i's known as EFI or UEFI and prevents any other OS from being installed
That just demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. The UEFI SecureBoot feature is being implemented without custom mode on ARM only, on x86 you can simply turn it off.
unless you pay US$99.- for a 'licence' to MS.
Wrong again, that's $99 you pay to Verisign to get a key to install a custom operating system where the operating system vendor does not provide one for you. That's nothing to do with Microsoft, it's a requirement for SecureBoot and the fee is to Verisign.
I'd still say it's different as IE was built into the OS. Safari is still separate but Apple certainly tries to keep it there for, as far as I can tell, to stop newbs from giving themselves problems.
IE is built into the OS because the OS uses the Trident rendering engine just as OSX uses Webkit, but you'll note from the link you posted there is also deeper integration of Safari as well in that iCloud for example has problems when you remove Safari. Point is neither Windows nor OSX really allow you to remove the browser without doing a force-delete which is going to cause problems for other applications, it's the same in both OSes.
In fact I'd be willing to bet if something weird happened like Apple bought Firefox they could replace Safari quickly. Certainly quicker than doing that with IE.
I can't think of any reason that would be the case, why do you believe that?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1255588
Apple do make it harder to just drag and drop it in the bin perhaps because it can be relied on enough to ensure someone doesn't break the experience by accidentally removing it but it's definitely removable and downloadable as a separate item.
Yeah i'm aware of that but doing a force delete of the executable and libraries is something you can do with internet explorer on Windows too, there's no difference between Safari and IE in terms of the ability the respective platforms offer to remove them.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's still Windows 8 on both structures hence they are using their OS monopoly to leverage an advantage by forbidding dual boot, if Microsoft had designed a new OS for ARM and ARM only then what you say might be true but since they're using Windows 8
No it isn't, Windows RT != Windows 8, and their monopoly exists on x86 PCs, they don't have a monopoly in the ARM market.
(and thus you can assume that everything that will run on Windows 8 will do so regardless of x86/ARM) then they are leveraging their advantage to restrict competitors.
Wrong, you cannot assume that, in fact you demonstrate you have absolutely no idea about the platforms whatsoever because that assertion is completely wrong. x86 software will not run on ARM.
No, I paid for this feature and I want to benefit from the security it provides.
What security? By most accounts SecureBoot isn't really going to do much at all in terms of actually preventing
Now I have to ask Verisign permission to use MY hardware? And presumably pay them money for the privilege?
So you're problem is with SecureBoot but it's a feature you want to use, do you actually understand SecureBoot and who designed it? I don't agree with it but that's the nature of the feature, personally I won't use it.
Because apparently you didn't think this through very thoroughly.
I have, i just don't really see a need for SecureBoot so I'll turn it off.
Forgive me for being skeptical, that doesn't seem likely given the anti-trust situation that would create. That would be a clear anti-competitive move and abuse of monopoly position so i don't think you're telling the truth, MS would get belted by the US and EU for a move like that.
But if you want to manufacture and sell a computer with an OEM version of Win8 it is an MS requirement.
Yes.
And for proper dual booting you have to get a licence, not because of Verison or the manufacturer but because of MS.
What license? What are you talking about? You don't need any kind of license to dual boot at all.
The fact it's possible to get a key for x86 and not at all for ARM is bad enough
No the fact is your post is completely wrong, the replacement of the BIOS as we know it with (U)EFI was started long ago by Apple and SecureBoot does not prevent alternative OSes from being installed, you can either turn it off, use an OS with an existing key or - if you really see a benefit to SecureBoot for some reason (personally i don't) - and want to use an OS without a key you can get a key from a CA. As for the issue with ARM this is pretty much the norm with current devices, i don't see the point of an ARM Windows device, if I wanted Windows i'd get an x86 device otherwise i'd go with an boot loader unlocked Android device.
Basically the only thing changing is the introduction of new devices that didn't exist before - and given amount of negativity surrounding Metro I shouldn't they will become very prevalent.
it seems you don't want to see MS is the driving force, not the manufacturers or Verisign.
Don't want to see? No i can see clearly what is going on, i'm only objecting to your characterisation of it, it isn't MS charging for a certificate because they can't possibly do that, SecureBoot is not a Microsoft feature and Microsoft are not a Certificate Authority.
No, not wrong at all, that's Windows RT, it's only on ARM, how many of these RE-PC places resell existing ARM devices "boot only"? This doesn't have any effect on the sorts of PCs that RE-PC and the like deal with, this restriction is only for a set of devices that as yet does not even exist.
Like ipads are iOS-only bricks, and most Android tablets are Android-only bricks.
That they will not allow you to turn it off.
Which, as I've understood it, is exactly what they require of all arm-based computers designed to run win8.
That's only ARM devices, not x86 ones. In fact the ARM-based systems that exist are pretty much the same, how many ipads are you finding being re-sold with Linux on them? Or Android tablets out there that are re-sold without Android? If you really want to be able to install other operating systems then an ARM Windows 8 device, or an iOS device or many of the existing Android devices aren't the right choice, choose an Android device with an unlocked bootloader or an x86-based device.
Sorry douchebag, facts are facts but i suppose if you have so much pent up irrational hatred and anger then crying 'shill' is all you're capable of :P
obviously i meant anti-trust regulations
The mainstream desktop browsers are competitive running under Windows. The mobile browser is bound to the OS.
So what's the difference? I mean at least on the desktop you have choice.
They can't do that, it would be a violation of anti-trust violations, you naive fool :P
Why not? There's no hardware lock preventing them, turn SecureBoot off and you're good to go. Or if you want to leave SecureBoot on use an OS from a vendor that provides keys. Or if you want to use an OS that doesn't provide keys yet still want SecureBoot on then get a key from a CA like Verisign.
I don't see what the problem is here.
Yes it can, MS has a de facto monopoly on the desktop(win 8), they are using that as leverage in another market(by blocking dual boot)
How? If i buy an x86 PC (which is where they have a monopolistic position) then what does that have to do with ARM devices (where dual boot is blocked)? IOW what advantage do they have in blocking dual boot on ARM while having a monopoly in x86 desktops that they wouldn't get if they didn't have a monopoly in x86 desktops?
Neither the calculator, text editor or sound recorder is particularly advanced in comparison with commercially available products in their respective fields
So? That's not the issue.
As for Media Players, MS was fined for that at one point, as to why nothing has happened since then I don't know, possibly because no competitors are complaining. As for mail there has been no complaints about it as far as I know.
It's competitors complaining that their own offerings aren't enticing users away from the standard bundled offering, there's nothing stopping users from switching if there is a compelling alternative. Competitors should be out-innovating the defacto standard so that users actively want to use them.
You better read up about the MS requirements for secure boot with a pre-installed Win8...
I have, and there's nothing that supports your assertion.
What else you think Canonical and RH are doing spending money, time and effort to make their OS'es install in dual boot mode with Win8?
Because they want to support UEFI SecureBoot...duh. You could always turn it off and it would be no different to the way it is now with current BIOS systems, but RedHat and Canonical want to use SecureBoot as well.
We should also have a Calculator ballot screen and a Text Editor ballot screen and an Email ballot screen and a Sound Recorder ballot screen and a Media Player ballot screen, etc... in fact if it's not the kernel you should force the user to choose! But only Microsoft, everyone else can do whatever they want.
The purpose was absolutely to give a leg up to Microsoft's business rivals and competitors. Because Microsoft was convicted of suppressing its business rivals through monopoly abuse. And having a robust marketplace is definitely in the interests of the people when compared to having no choice.
But that was well over a decade ago, how is that relevant today? What consumer-grade operating system these days does not come with a browser made (or specified) by the OS producer? What happened to simply making and marketing a better product? I consider Chrome to be superior to IE, that's why I use it, if I didn't care or didn't know then that would be the fault of Chrome's marketing.
I can't even understand how the browser ballot is helpful, if you don't know or don't care then you'll either choose whatever randomly pops up or go with IE because that's from Microsoft and you're using Microsoft's OS and if you do know or do care then you'll download and install your browser of choice anyway. Who is this even targeting?
Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop.
They have a monopoly on x86 on the desktop (specifically referred to in the anti-trust action) so if they were forcing locked bootloaders there that would be cause for an anti-trust investigation, but of course that's not what they are doing.
It has replaced the BIOS and i's known as EFI or UEFI and prevents any other OS from being installed
That just demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. The UEFI SecureBoot feature is being implemented without custom mode on ARM only, on x86 you can simply turn it off.
unless you pay US$99.- for a 'licence' to MS.
Wrong again, that's $99 you pay to Verisign to get a key to install a custom operating system where the operating system vendor does not provide one for you. That's nothing to do with Microsoft, it's a requirement for SecureBoot and the fee is to Verisign.
what about there boot loader lock in that is even bigger.
Because there's no monopoly issue there, just like the way OSX can bundle Safari and provide no way to remove it.
I'd still say it's different as IE was built into the OS. Safari is still separate but Apple certainly tries to keep it there for, as far as I can tell, to stop newbs from giving themselves problems.
IE is built into the OS because the OS uses the Trident rendering engine just as OSX uses Webkit, but you'll note from the link you posted there is also deeper integration of Safari as well in that iCloud for example has problems when you remove Safari. Point is neither Windows nor OSX really allow you to remove the browser without doing a force-delete which is going to cause problems for other applications, it's the same in both OSes.
In fact I'd be willing to bet if something weird happened like Apple bought Firefox they could replace Safari quickly. Certainly quicker than doing that with IE.
I can't think of any reason that would be the case, why do you believe that?
The point i'm driving at is what is the cost of the software in terms of the product then?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1255588 Apple do make it harder to just drag and drop it in the bin perhaps because it can be relied on enough to ensure someone doesn't break the experience by accidentally removing it but it's definitely removable and downloadable as a separate item.
Yeah i'm aware of that but doing a force delete of the executable and libraries is something you can do with internet explorer on Windows too, there's no difference between Safari and IE in terms of the ability the respective platforms offer to remove them.
So Apple products cost more because of the software? I seem to remember Lion costing $29.99 and a copy of Windows is considerably more than that.