3 ms·

>And there's no reason why Microsoft can't change the requirements for Windows 9 First of all, the requirements are only recommendations in order for the OEMs

>And there's no reason why Microsoft can't change the requirements for Windows 9 First of all, the requirements are only recommendations in order for the OEMs to slap a Windows sticker on it. They can't require or not require anything of the OEMs, because they're legally barred from doing so. They could do anything for Windows 9, if they last that long in the Post-PC era. It's a moot point. And ARM is a red herring, it's a totally new platform and MS could be subsidizing the hardware and/or OS license fees in exchange for App Store revenue (like Kindle Fire), so they lose out if the user swaps the OS. Why is ARM such a big issue when there are about 200 different kinds of Android ARM tablets out there that you can install Ubuntu on?

fpgeek 14y ago
> Why is ARM such a big issue when there are about 200 different kinds of Android ARM tablets out there that you can install Ubuntu on? Some people are interested in dual-booting Windows and "something else" (Android, Ubuntu, ...) on ARM devices. Historically, dual-booting has an important source of Linux users. Microsoft's current policies for ARM prevent that (absent bootloader hacks, of course). Beyond that, if subsidies are really the underlying issue, why not permit customers to "buy off" the bootloader lock (i.e. pay to get permission to install their own keys as well)? Or at least move to that policy after the initial uproar? I think that the reason is that there are more than subsidies at stake here. I think the simplest explanation is that Microsoft wants to establish different default expectations for the "Post-PC era".