21 ms·
> To say MS puts no pressure is ludicrous. If an OEM wants to have the sticker, they have to enable secure boot, end of story. Your wording is ridiculously dec
by daeken 15y ago
> To say MS puts no pressure is ludicrous. If an OEM wants to have the sticker, they have to enable secure boot, end of story.
Your wording is ridiculously deceptive. To get the sticker, they have to enable secure boot, sure. Secure boot is not an issue, as long as you can turn it off, which MS is not requiring. So no, MS is not putting pressure on OEMs to do anything remotely anti-competitive.
As for any incentive that PC makers may have for preventing secure boot's disabling, that's complete conjecture (even if it may be right in the future), so let's stick to the facts rather than FUD, ok?
- rbanffy 15y ago> Secure boot is not an issue, as long as you can turn it off, which MS is not requiring. True enough. They don't require manufacturers to make their computers competition-proof. > So no, MS is not putting pressure on OEMs to do anything remotely anti-competitive. Except that, in order to get the sticker (and to qualify to whatever incentive program Microsoft devises to go with it) manufacturers are required to make it at least very inconvenient to install anything other than the Windows that came built in. How can this be anything other than anti-competitive? A layperson can pop in a Ubuntu DVD and boot up a current PC and experiment with it. Two years from now, they won't. PC manufacturer margins are so low any incentive will sway them. That's why every computer you buy with Windows comes with a ton of crapware - because crapware makers pay the manufacturers to do so and their low margins don't allow them to pass this offer up.