3 ms·
I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of th
by recoiledsnake 14y ago
I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here) ?
- fpgeek 14y agoSome of us think that Apple shouldn't be permitted to do some of those things either (e.g. banning side-loading and locked bootloaders).
- koeselitz 14y agoThe expectation was set by Microsoft. This is the first time they've made this move to eliminate dual booting entirely. They are making other unprecedented (for them) moves on the ARM platform in relation to JIT compilation and the other restrictions which make Firefox an impossibility. Imposing these kinds of limitations has never been Microsoft's way before. Above, I noted that they seem to believe this is a battleground; I stand by that statement. Microsoft seems to have made the conscious decision to emulate Apple in locking down ARM in a way that will benefit them. This is not a value judgement; it's an assessment of what seems to be their intention. It may be wholly within their rights, but it's hard to argue that it isn't something of a change for them.