Windows 8 To ARM Tablets: No Disabling Secure Boot For You!

31

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

dstevens

this is a strongarm move by the microsoft / intel / nvidia unholy trinity against its competitors, this should be illigal and considered a monopolizing move on microsofts part but watch the us govt assholes will let them go ahead and do it,

avatar

Holly Golightly

Oh, this is super easy. Microsoft has a strong relationship with Intel. So to be anti-competitive, they sabotage Arm's ability to be a total equal to what Intel has to offer. Making Intel a much better option for people who prefer this freedom. WINtel from the 1990s is back to their old tricks again.

avatar

bhusebye

Microsoft wants to ARM wrestle. They are going to end up like that guy in the Stallone movie that got his freaking arm busted off. I dont want some Nazi tell me what I can do with my machines. If that is the only way they can secure their machines from now on I can go buy something else. Signed code? Freeware signed code? Signed Virus? Signed guitar by Pete Townshend I can smash over Bill Gates and Balmer's melon? Hell I will pay alot more for that then a tablet.

avatar

riopato

Which supports what Microsoft has been saying for the past 5 years!

TABLETS AREN'T PC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD DAM IT!!!!!!!!!!

avatar

loozer

ARM win8 is wortless anyways.  No desktop+no WINDOWS+no real multitasking=worse than apple.

 

Either way, Intel's new mobile chip push will make arm irrelevant in a few years anyways.  It's a good thing that on x86 platforms, our linux rights are fully protected.

avatar

riopato

Finally intel using this chip for what they originally intended

http://youtu.be/66VeS0_tAJM

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

I told you why but the propaganda perps here at Max PC just keep saying I wear a tinfoil hat or haven't taken my meds

Locked bootloaders were undergoing proof of concept at least as far back as the BTX motherboards and can easily be verified

An improper installation procedure of security software can trigger BTX boards to prevent you from ever booting to XP and Linux disks even if you have wiped the BIOS and even if you have removed the hard drive that was affected by this procedure

Anyone in this forum who doesn't verify what I've been telling you now for the past few years is a perp

Simply saying I'm wrong without verifying what I've said is all the proof you need that these cretins are perpetrating a fraud on the public

If you want to verify what I'm telling you, I'd be happy to provide all the evidence to Max PC staff and do a full review of this procedure I have described

but you don't want that now do you?

So how could a 2006 motherboard prevent ealier version of XP from being installed yet allowing later versions install correctly even though the later versions had not even be written yet?

Anyone not wanting to find out is a perp so ignore them and seek the answers if you really are a geek

ALL MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEMS AFTER XP-SP2 ARE NOTHING MORE THAN GOV'T SPONSORED SPYWARE PLATFORMS!

and yes I do have the proof

avatar

riopato

BTX's demise was due to the form factor being rejected by manufacturers and DIYers. The locked bootloaders was one of the least of it issues. Stating that an "improper installation of security software...." is like saying "I'm such an idiot, I'm too stupid that I can't install security software properly" or "My pirated copy of windows stopped working now I need to pirate the new service pack one" so you need to blame Microsoft of some government conspiracy for your inconvenience. The fact that I'm responding to you makes me feel more mentally challenged than what you actually are! I have proof but I don't want to share it with you. You go and look up the proof yourself so I can use it against you later on!

avatar

Scatter

What is a perp and why not show us this proof?

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Simply read all my past posts

Every time I show proof, these idiots just say I have no proof

They say this AFTER I show proof and yet they want the public to believe them without ever offering any proof of their own

They sound like a bunch of dirty Joo bastedz who need to die

A terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist

avatar

brentrad

Hey here's a thought.  Have you ever considered that calling people "dirty Jew bastards who need to die" maybe isn't the best way to get people to seriously consider your point of view? 

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

YES!

Yes I did!

When I was young and naive like you, I thought these people really wanted to learn the truth but then reality bitchslapped me upside the head and I got a clue

How about you?

avatar

thetechchild

People do want to learn the truth... you just obviously don't have it. Or at least, you have a really low patience and terrible communication skills.

Oh, that and you have crazy conspiracy theories that have no real evidence. If you had something that made any sense (think about this) at least SOMEBODY would have listened to you by now.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

Whoa

Loosen up that tinfoil hat a bit

Your cutting off the oxygen to your brain

Anytime Max propaganda staff wants to honestly cover the topic, they know how to reach me!

As for you, I've already told you that whenever I offer proof of spyware, these cretins simply resort to namecalling and refuse to reproduce the methodology required to validate my results, as you would have seen if you had read my past posts as I've already explained

Therefore, if namecalling is what you want, then I can play that game as well

If proof is what you want, then let Max Propaganda reproduce my results or prove me wrong

I have the entire step by step process detailed on video if they wish to prove me wrong

However, as I've already told you and you can verify it from my past posts, you nuttcases just keep telling me I have no proof after I show you the proof !

What a bunch of losers

 

 

 

avatar

riopato

Yeah he is already explained it to you losers who don't think it that he is smart and not rattle on like some kind of retarded, neo nazi, incest baby. He has many proof that he could not copy and paste to proof him wrong because he no like perps in this perp town of max propaganda! He rather waste time trading insults and making up conspiracy theories instead of showing proof.

avatar

TechLarry

This should be none of Microsoft's busines dammit.  As long as a person has a legalliy purchased copy of the OS, then MS should bug out.

Crap like this is what lands monopoly lawsuits against them, but they never learn.

avatar

riopato

Why is it ok for Apple, Google, carriers and manufacturers to do this and Microsoft gets antitrust lawsuit threats for doing the same?

http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean

http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/10/06/t-mobile-g2-jailbreak-no-chance-as-android-auto-reinstall-kicks-in/

This article doesn't exactly say that Microsoft is doing this. It specifically states the requirements of Windows 8 running on a particular chipset. It's possible that Arm dictated these requirements or that this requirement was part of the negotiation with arm. It's also possible this requirement is a measure to protect Microsoft's IP. It's not like anyone can run to their local store and build their own arm based device from scratch and install the arm version of windows 8. If that's cause for a lawsuit then why no antitrust suits on Apple and Google? Were can I buy Android's rom or ios to install into an arm based device legally instead of jailbreaking or illegally stealing unlicensed roms! Who should sue who in this case?

avatar

Cregan89

It's important to realize that this means that only UNSIGNED code can't be flashed to Windows 8 ARM tablets. This requirement does not in any way prevent manufacturer's from building a signed version of Android that can dual-boot alongside Windows 8 on the same ARM hardware.

I'm not quite sure of the reasoning for this though. I doubt its low-level DRM hooking or pirating related since a DRM system is only as good as its weakest link, and since these same requirements aren't applied to x86/64 systems, DRM hacking will obviously just target these platforms. Its possible that security related. Maybe the underlying ARM architecture makes it less secure than x86/64 when used in a disabled Secure Boot mode. Or maybe there's compatibility issues with ARM if you change the state of Secure Boot on an already installed OS.

But I bet the reason is more related to pricing. I bet Microsoft is going to liscence ARM builds of Windows 8 at a discounted price or alongside significant rebates compared to the x86/64 build in order to make cheaper ARM based tablets more cost effective for manufacturers. And naturally, Microsoft doesn't want consumers to benefit from reduced hardware costs at Microsoft's expense if the customer isn't even going to use Windows 8 and buy into the Windows ecosystem. And honestly, I think that's perfectly fair.

avatar

riopato

Agreed!

I don't think consumers won't even have a choice of being able to install or even purchase a copy of arm version of windows 8 without it already embedded inside the hardware.

If MS does offer it, (which will be surprising if they do)the requirement says nothing against installing windows 8 on an android based tablet! Or any arm based device already available in the current market.

avatar

aarcane

I'm definitely against this.  Tablets, Smartphones, and other portable devices need to become open platforms, just like the PC is now, where we can pick our Operating System of Choice and go.  Until then, they'll never achieve the same level of acceptance and utility.

avatar

riopato

Which supports what Microsoft has been saying for the past 5 years!

TABLETS AREN'T PC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD DAM IT!!!!!!!!!!

avatar

Cy-Kill

Wouldn't this bring about an anti-trust lawsuit over monopolistic practices, I can't see this at all being legal?

avatar

big_montana

Why would it, when Android locks it's boot loader? Plus this is much ado about nothing. Really, how much of the planet actually runs, or cares about, Linux?

avatar

j814wong

REgardless of Linux market share, it is still anti-competitive.

avatar

compro01

"android" locks "its" bootloader?

 

SOME android devices have locked bootloaders.  It is not a requirement to run android, unlike this.

avatar

big_montana

And like I said, it is much ado about NOTHING. The only ones who care are those who run Linux, and want to run it on ARM. I say purchase an ARM based Android tablet then. Also, let's not forget, Apple locks down iOS as well. Where is the outcry over that, and the protests being organized against Apple for doing something for years, that MS has yet to do.

avatar

Engelsstaub

"How much of the planet runs or cares about Linux?"

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/09/despite-enterprise-dominance-microsoft-struggles-in-web-server-market.ars

...about 60% of servers worldwide. More than Windows. And Apple makes its own hardware. That's their business model and there's a hell of a lot of difference.

Microsoft does not make the hardware but presumes to tell people they can't boot Linux or extorts money from open-source vendors for licensing fees for undisclosed patents. ...because they can't yet compete or innovate in the mobile market. (Maybe Windows 8 will change that...)

avatar

j814wong

Locking hardware of software in any case is wrong but because of Microsoft domination in home computing, I suppose people are fearing they will extend their domination further. With Android, its not like Android wins hands down. They are still competing with iOS. But with Microsoft and Windows, Microsoft want to dominate the market completely or as clsoe as possible and people fear that. Instead of having competing systems together in one market, it is fear inspring when one system dominates all or most.

avatar

riopato

Yeah! Bring on that lawsuit! So when they judge against Microsoft. We can finally have a rulling case to destroy Apple and Google's Android division for having done EXACTLY THE SAME THING FOR THE PAST 5 FUCKING YEARS!!!!

avatar

Cregan89

Monopolistic practices on a 0% market share hardware/OS platform?

avatar

riopato

Are you refering that 0% to windows based tablets or windows in general?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.