3 ms·

>There is almost no downside to requiring this, except for the fact that it can only serve to hurt their business. I'm not sure I blame them from a business per

>There is almost no downside to requiring this, except for the fact that it can only serve to hurt their business. I'm not sure I blame them from a business perspective, but it feels awful par-for-the-course-Microsofty. I think your energy will be better served railing against the alleged OEMs that won't include the option, instead of against MS. They're trying to clean up rootkits that load before antivirus to make their OS more secure. >(I don't mean to be rude or presumptuous, but your other comment seems to indicate that you're not fully understanding the technical workings or implications of a non-disable-able UEFI secure boot). Care to tell how?

drivebyacct2 15y ago
>They're trying to clean up rootkits that load before antivirus to make their OS more secure. And that in no way precludes the options that I outlined. To act as if the OEMs act independently or without significant guidance from MS is just misguided. >Care to tell how? You seemed to have missed the entire bit about it... preventing non-Windows OSes from being installed. You keep citing the developer tablets that have very obvious needs for having an unlockable UEFI implementation. It's just like Chromebooks (the CR-48 is unlockable, retail units not so much), or Android (fastboot on Nexus, locked on Moto/HTC). I just don't understand how you cite a developer tablet as proof, when it's obvious that Microsoft won't take the step to ensure that the choice is available for consumers. I mean, you even phrase it as "Microsoft got them to..." in reference to the developer tablets.