I just read an article about Windows 8, and how Microsoft is trying to use it to force manufacturers to “lock” their computers so that you’ll only be able to boot Windows 8, and nothing else:
The gist of the article is that to get a Windows 8 logo, manufacturers will have to get rid of BIOS and replace it with UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) “secure boot.” UEFI will work with keys built into Windows 8, so that you can only boot the installed copy of Windows 8. You would not even be able to install Windows 7. In fact, you wouldn’t be able to install a boxed copy of Windows 8, you’d have to use the one supplied by the OEM. You could forget about installing Linux or any other operating system.
This is the situation that exists on most of the “smart phones.” The phones come with an installed operating system that you cannot change. I never cared much about that because I have a “stupid” phone which I use only to make calls. But my computer is different - I erased Windows the day I bought it and installed Linux, and I’ve customized it to the nth degree. I don’t want Microsoft deciding what software I can run.
The article (which I hope you’ll all read) also points out how much repressive governments are going to love this.
Yeah, except that story isn’t true, it’s some BS that’s going around and none of the computer makers are going to add that no matter how much Microsoft wants it.
Secure boot is an optional UEFI feature and not part of the standard UEFI spec. In fact, your current computer might very well have UEFI instead of BIOS and you wouldn’t even know it, as in many cases it looks just the same.
I can see this being enforced in corporate level notebooks, but not in consumer level devices, just like consumer notebooks don’t ship with TPM modules installed.
Anything that’s an extra cost to the manufacturer is going to be shunned.
If Microsoft is truly going to try to enforce this, then they’re going to lose out too many customers, as no-one would be able to upgrade their old computer to Windows 8 for one and on top of that, they’d end up with a class action law suite in the US by disgruntled customers, so good luck to them if they think this is the way forward.
Microsoft always come up with a bunch of shit ahead of an OS launch and then tend to end up having to backtrack on at least half of it…
Edit: Also if that article was true, how come this works?
Wow Swede. Hate to say this, because usually you are spot on with your tech posts, but this time I think you’re stepping in it.
The article isnt true? Just click the link the article and it takes you to the PowerPoint presentation by Microsoft itself, which you can download and then view (I viewed it in LibreOffice - I don’t have PowerPoint or any other MS junk on my computer). Here are the two most relevant screen captures from that presentation:
Or just do a Google search on the words: Windows 8 UEFI
I just did that. Here’s a good article on the issue (actually better than the one I originally linked to):
Swede, I’m surprised by your faith in the US legal system. Suing Microsoft is like suing God. Their lawyers are like rabid dogs. Class action lawsuit against Microsoft? By whom? Anyone who wants to license Windows from Microsoft doesn’t sue them, because MS can retaliate big time, and will. OEMs can have their volume licensing agreements canceled by suing Microsoft. Don’t have a licensing agreement? Fine, they roll out their thousands of software patents and start counter-suing. The last time the US government tried to sue Microsoft (Clinton administration anti-trust lawsuit in the 1990s), Microsoft gave millions to elect Bush, and Bush administration Justice Department “settled” the lawsuit by surrendering. Another less-noticed “reform” of the Bush administration was to make it very difficult for class-action lawsuits to go forward.
Microsoft basically forced Acer and ASUS to stop putting Linux on their netbooks. They offered them a discounted Windows license, with the threat of retaliation if they didn’t comply. This indeed raised their costs, but what choice did they have? To quote the Godfather movie: “I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse.”
But remember, UEFI is a future requirement. It’s for machines that haven’t even been manufactured yet. For existing machines, you’ll be able to buy a Windows 8 upgrade, and of course you won’t need UEFI (which is implemented in hardware) to run it. The whole issue centers around OEM versions - a full-priced retail box set of Windows 8 can be installed on a machine that does not have UEFI. But OEM versions (which are discounted and installed on new computers whether you want it or not) will require UEFI, unless Microsoft backs down.
And again, please note that this is way most current “smart phones” are made, which is why you can’t simply install your own OS on them. UEFI is not new. It just hasn’t been implemented yet on PCs, but Microsoft seeks to change that.
Now let’s just hope that there is enough negative reaction so that Microsoft will indeed back down. Which is why I posted this thread in the first place. Not that I expect Microsoft management to pay much attention to anything we might say here on Forumosa.
You obviously don’t understand modern computers.
UEFI has already happened and it has nothing to do with Microsoft.
UEFI is a BIOS replacement and it is already in tons of computers, Intel have been putting it on their motherboards for almost two years and you’ll find it in all current notebooks and desktops, it’s not some future tech.
The only company that has as yet to put it on its motherboards is Gigabyte, but they will start rolling it out soon too.
Your arguments are completely off the mark as you haven’t understood this.
What Microsoft is trying to do, or want they want to happen, is that the notebook and PC makers should implement the secure boot feature in their UEFI implementations.
This is only a requirement for companies that want to sell computers that are Windows 8 logo certified, so it’s not some kind of blanket requirement.
It also doesn’t mean that you can’t install a different OS, although it would require some kind of an option to disable the secure boot option, even Google has a hardware switch on its Chromebooks that disables its own equivalent to secure boot and allows you to install any OS of your choice.
As for smartphones, please don’t even go there, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Hit up XDA developers and you’ll see that people are installing whatever they want on their phones. The problem with phones isn’t the OS, but rather hardware support. Windows Phone 7 for example ONLY runs on very specific Qualcomm hardware, whereas Android and other Linux based OSes can run on a wide range of ARM based processors, BUT there needs to be support for the specific bits in that phone. And seriously, why would you want to install your own OS on a phone? Upgrade to a new version of Android, sure, I’ve done it, several times and it’s generally quite easy unless you own a Motorola or HTC phone, as they added a bunch of hardware locks, something other manufacturers haven’t done. My Galaxy S II was a breeze to root for example.
Next time, please read up on things before you cause a storm in a tea cup, I do actually know what I’m talking about.
And yes, I did read the same powerpoint presentation as you and I got an entirely different impression of it, as I understand the industry, because I work in it.
In as much as I don’t think it’s a good idea of where Microsoft want to take things, this whole thing has been blown out of all proportions.
A side note on the US legal system, well, if it fails, I’m sure the EU will have something to say about and Microsoft has failed there many a times.
The downsides of forcing a small, but vocal minority, to jump through a few hoops to install Linux are far outweighed by the benefits of having the vast majority of systems, which are owned and maintained by morons and luddites, protected by SecureBoot.
SecureBoot will mean idiots who let their PCs get compromised will be forced to “sort that shit out” before they are allowed back on the network (Internet) where they stink the place up for the rest of as part of botnets used to send spam or host malware infecting the systems of other idiots.
Before you get your knickers in a twist and start shouting from the rooftops that “Microsoft is evil”, take a look at what is actually happening.
“PCs shipping with Windows 8 will need to have SecureBoot enabled by default” which is what Microsoft has said, is not the same as “PCs cannot ship with the ability to turn off SecureBoot if customers want to.” as you are implying.
It will be up to the hardware makers and vendors whether they put in the extra engineering effort to add the ability to turn SecureBoot off, so instead of complaining to Microsoft that you don’t want SecureBoot (because let’s be honest what you mean is you don’t want SecureBoot on your PCs, you’d have no problem with the majority of people having it on their PCs), be vocal in letting the OEMs and vendors know that you want this option.
The story about how secure boot for Windows 8, part of UEFI, will hinder the use of non-signed binaries and operating systems, like Linux, has registered at Redmond as well. The company posted about it on the Building Windows 8 blog - but didn’t take any of the worries away. In fact, Red Hat’s Matthew Garrett, who originally broke this story, has some more information - worst of which is that Red Hat has received confirmation from hardware vendors that some of them will not allow you to disable secure boot.
more…
[/quote]
Perhaps the following is worthy of a separate thread, but this also reeks of a Microsoft lock-in. For those who don’t know, starting with Windows 8 Microsoft is introducing Metro which replaces Win32:
If I understand this correctly, this could result in some serious consequences for free software. What if I want to install OpenOffice (now renamed LibreOffice) which competes directly with Microsoft Office? OpenOffice is free, but Microsoft demands 30% of the price in order to place it in the Windows Store. Since 30% of zero is still zero, this means Microsoft will be distributing competing free programs for free…I don’t think so. This issue will crop up with other free programs like Firefox and Google Chrome, which compete with Internet Explorer. I see a potential conflict of interest here.
Now, I’m certainly no expert on Windows since I never use it. However, all of the above makes me uneasy. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
It only applies to paid for metro apps, nothing else.
So standard Windows programs are not part of it.
That said, we’ll have to wait and see about free apps…
I’m reviving this thread from nearly three years ago. Just to say, “I was right.” Not to say that I’m always right, but in this case, yes. Also want to take this opportunity say “fuck you” to Microsoft.
A few months ago, a friend of brought me his new ASUS laptop with Windows 8 installed. He wasn’t really happy with Windows 8, and wanted to put on Linux. I’ve installed Linux literally hundreds of times on all sorts of computers, and never was defeated by various BIOS tricks to force you into using Windows. Until this time.
Couldn’t get that machine to boot Linux. In fact, couldn’t even get into the UEFI interface without first booting Windows, and then going to UEFI. Tried tweaking the settings so that I could boot Linux from a USB or DVD drive, but no go - could not disable secure boot. So if Windows doesn’t boot first, the computer is bricked. I read all sorts of “how to” articles on the Internet - did me no good. Microsoft now has a pretty solid lock on at least some models of computers with UEFI “secure boot” enabled.
There might be a trick to getting past this, but for now I’m finding that at best there are some machines that are very very difficult if not impossible to boot into Linux or any other non-Windows OS. And that is of course by design, not by accident.
Irony of irony is that my friend’s computer now won’t boot at all. A couple of months of Windows 8, and it just dropped dead. He bought the computer from PCHome, so he’s got to jump through all sorts of hoops to get service. Tried just taking it to a local computer shop: their response was to say “you’ve got to reinstall Windows 8 every few months or it stops working.”
Of course, you don’t get a backup/restore CD anymore with Windows. It used to be that you did, but that hasn’t been the case for years. Of course, now if you had such a disk, you wouldn’t be able to use it since you have to boot Windows 8 first before you can boot to DVD, thanks to secure boot. What progress!
Nice going Microsoft. I won’t buy any computer that comes with Windows pre-installed. Or a Windows smart phone. You guys are just evil.
We got a laptop with Win 8 a few months back. Quickly figured out it was a pain in the ass and wanted good old Win 7. Could not install Win 7 otherwise the things crashes!
Of course 3c vendor didn’t tell us this when selling it to us (yes it was cheap).
Stuck with win 8, the repair guy said make sure to not brak the connection during update or we would have to reinstall the whole thing, again.
I was able to go into my R7’s BIOS and switch from UEFI to Legacy. Don’t you do that, and then restart, boot from your installation device, and obliterate the Windows 8 install on the HDD, overwriting with your preferred OS? (Personally I’d also change to a new drive in the laptop. Oh, and don’t forget you might need to make your own Win8 recovery disc or USB thing or something before wiping it)
I only used Windows 8 for a couple of hours on January 1st before updating to 8.1, and this machine’s been brilliant for the past ~seven months - snappy, battery-efficient, no need to use Metro (thank Christ - it looks like it’s set up for dogs to use. Dogs who can see in colour), and 6-second boot times. Now when I go back to Windows 7 on my desktop, it’s literally the worst thing in my life waiting those sixgoshdarnteen seconds for it to load. Although after the boots, it has the advantage of the Start menu being left-click instead of its substitute being right-click (not sure why they changed that, but that’s my biggest annoyance with W8.1 - especially as left-clicking brings you to the interface for dogs).
Dog’s_Breakfast, maybe it’s an ASUS-specific limitation you’ve hit (not sure how, though), because I’ve seen plenty of people talking about installing Linux on Win8 laptops. Here:
“First I had to go into the BIOS and change a few things to get it to boot from the USB and to turn off some security settings. I booted into the live OS off the USB, and Ubuntu ran OK except for the wifi network. Ubuntu did not see the wifi card. It is a Broadcom card. I had the same problem with the Broadcom card in my Dell, and I needed to load the drivers to get it to work, but the problem I have with the Acer R7 is it does not have an Ethernet port so I have no way of loading any drivers.”
Looking at your post, you never seemed to be able to go into the BIOS when starting the laptop - is that correct? Could it be something as simple as not pressing the correct key? Looks like it might be F9 for some ASUS laptops, which I think is weird!
finley, try updating to Windows 8.1. I’ve heard a lot of horror stories about 8. (Although to be fair, I’ve heard a couple of horror stories about trying to update to 8.1, too! Good luck! )
When I had to buy a new motherboard/CPU/RAM for my desktop computer some time ago, I bought an ASUS, and came with UEFI by default. Booted it, went into config, switched to Legacy/no UEFI, installed Ubuntu. No problems there.
When re-installing Ubuntu for the upgrade to 14.04, I tried with the UEFI thing on. It installed flawlessly anyways, I just hit the boot menu (F8), selected the Ubuntu pendrive, and booted the Live image. Installed it, and works perfectly.
Anyways, I didn’t had W8 installed, but the UEFI is a hardware thing, so it should work fine.
)