14 ms·
Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware
- pfraze 13y agoWhat's wrong with agreeing to the EULA?
- caf 13y agoBecause you might not agree with the terms in it?
- glesica 13y agoWhy should I have to agree to whatever terms MS has set forth just to be allowed to wipe their operating system off of my hard drive?
- pfraze 13y agoIt's not ideal, but what are the actual effects?
- InclinedPlane 13y agoA EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.
- mikestew 13y agoNote that I commented above that I am in disagreement the way MSFT arranged this. However, to be fair to the one posing the question, the actual outcome of clicking through the EULA to install the OS of your choice is probably nothing (well, you won't be getting your money back for that Windows license). EULA or not, nothing will happen. It's "the principal of the thing". In this case, it's a pretty big matter of principal, though.
- sillysaurus 13y agoIt doesn't matter that the outcome is nothing. What matters is that you agreed to give up your rights. It's an opening for them if they should choose to pursue action against you.
- jeltz 13y agoAs DannyBee said, I doubt a court would hold you to those terms.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- DannyBee 13y agoMost EULAs cannot validly bind consumers to future as-yet-disclosed terms. As above, in this specific situation, where you are agreeing because that is the only way to effectively remove the software, i have trouble seeing any court holding you to those terms. If you were trying to get around agreeing to the license but still using windows 8, sure.
- glesica 13y agoGoing to court at all is a loss. Why should I have to risk having to pay for a lawyer and take time out of my day to convince a judge that I shouldn't be bound to the terms.
- DannyBee 13y agoYou can always be taken to court, they just don't often take you when they are going to lose. Since that is, here, independent of whether you agree, ...
- mikestew 13y agoI shouldn't have to agree to a contract for an OS I don't care to use in order to boot into the OS of my choice. Nor should I have to read the thing in order to see what I'm agreeing to just to boot into the OS of my choice. Make no mistake, I have not been one of the hand-wringers over this whole secure boot thing. But this recent development could turn me into one.
- ddinh 13y agoWhat if the EULA forbids you from installing a third-party OS?
- npsimons 13y agoWhat's wrong with me setting my user-agent to "By allowing me access, you waive all rights and policies regarding my access." and then viewing your website? Hint: it's about as enforceable as a EULA, but just as obnoxious and offensive because it presumes too much and oversteps bounds. Still, in the grand scheme of things, my UA string makes more sense, as putting something online is practically tantamount to putting it in the public domain, whereas you can't perform perfectly reasonable and otherwise legal acts with your legally owned property unless you violate most EULAs.
- comex 13y agoThis EULA is unlikely to be unenforceable, as you have the option of returning the product to the manufacturer if you don't want to agree to it.
- vacri 13y agoMS was the creator of the license that was 'activated' by opening the box in which the license resided. No way to even view the license without 'activating' it.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- doktrin 13y agoI don't see why this comment is being downvoted. Certainly, agreeing clicking through the EULA isn't ideal, but is it anything other than a theoretical nuisance? I'm genuinely curious - does there exist some relevant and concerning precedent here? If this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone - and would be a boon to manufacturers willing to bundle Linux on pre-built machines (such as the Alienware x51 or "developer" x13). However, I sincerely can't see anything coming of this threat.
- yew 13y agoIf this turns out to actually become an issue, it would probably harm Microsoft more than anyone . . . It would probably harm Microsoft eventually. It would harm whoever gets turned into a legal test case immediately - which is the sort of thing you avoid by not electronically signing randomly selected legal documents.
- pondababa 13y agoIf you agree to the EULA, then you can't get a refund for the Windows license that comes with the computer.
- doktrin 13y agoFair. This is a legitimate concern. I guess I'm a fairly uninformed consumer, as I've never actually sought a refund for a Windows license (nor known this was a possibility).
- mordae 13y agoWith Windows 8 it no longer is.
- fractallyte 13y ago'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system. Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusing an EULA and getting a refund for the unused OS. Many people think this argument applies to Apple, too. But that's a mistake: Apple computers are not marketed as 'PCs'; and their computing system, from hardware to OS, is Apple throughout. Microsoft works with PC manufacturers to pull off this anti-competitive hoodwink on an ignorant computing public. If it were tested properly in court, the whole corrupt practice would be torn to pieces.
- dlitz 13y agoSpeaking of the EULA, couldn't I just lie to my tablet? Assume there's no communication back to Microsoft and no need for a license under copyright law. Couldn't I just click the "I agree" button while not actually accepting the EULA? Surely, the tablet itself can't be a party to a contract, right?
- unhammer 13y agoI do this all the time when I'm signing contracts, I just lie to the paper and sign my name even though I don't agree with it. Right.
- dlitz 13y agoWell, in this case, the signed paper is never actually delivered to the other party, and the other party has no knowledge that you ever signed it in the first place. A signed piece of paper is neither necessary nor sufficient to form a contract. It's prima facie evidence that an agreement took place, but that's not the same thing.
- zurn 13y agoAt least in previous versions of Windows you could click "no" to the EULA and you could use the draconian terms as an argument to get a Windows refund.
- raylu 13y agoWhat are the benefits of Secure Boot?
- sliverstorm 13y ago[to] verify the integrity of the operating system and prevent unauthorized programs such as bootkits from infecting the device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Secure_boot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Secure_boot
- cookiecaper 13y agoSecure Boot is ostensibly a security feature, making it impossible to load kernel-level code that hasn't been signed by an authority recognized by the device's hardware. The idea is that this makes it harder for nefarious actors to do nefarious things to your system, because they'll be blocked from the most basic access to the system hardware and be forced through normal OS security channels. In practice, of course, it's just about solidifying lock-in with a cover story that's obviously weak to those with technical experience but is justifiable to politicians and regulators who would otherwise be all over MS for facilitating this kind of funny business.
- Zr40 13y agoSecure Boot isn't about lock-in, at least not on PCs. To qualify for the Windows Logo program, it must be possible to disable Secure Boot.
- rbanffy 13y agoAs TFA notes, this may involve repeated resets during boot, added hardware and a whole lot of steps my mother wouldn't take. She'd just be coerced to use Windows.
- Ayabashi 13y agoI find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who are tech savvy enough to be able to install, partition disks and configure Linux and bootloader on a Windows 7 machine, but are suddenly unable to turn off one setting in the BIOS setup on a Windows 8 machine. And to enable them, we need to make every Windows PC insecure by default and leave hundreds of millions of people vulnerable to undetectable bootkit viruses?
- Dylan16807 13y agoAnd in practice how many keyboards will this actually apply to?
- bcl 13y agoIt isn't the keyboard that is the problem, it is that the USB bus the keyboard is on won't be initialized.
- Dylan16807 13y agoAre you sure? I understand not waiting for slow hardware to settle, but the entire usb bus is going to get skipped, even the most lightning-quick hardware?
- mjg59 13y agoYes. USB init won't happen until the Windows kernel starts.
- nivla 13y agoI find that very hard to believe atleast based off my experience. How else are you supposed to do USB boot ups? Almost all OS I installed recently has been through USB Drives and not to mention I use a USB keyboard to key into the BIOS.
- mjg59 13y agoIf the system is configured to boot off USB then the firmware will do full USB initialisation. To get into the firmware, you choose the option from the Windows 8 shutdown menu.
- pyre 13y agoHe's saying that the entire USB system won't be initialized, which means no keyboards that use USB.
- kogir 13y agoIt appears to me that both System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsUSBDevices System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsBootingFromDVDDevice are required for Windows Logo Certification for both Windows 7 and 8: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj128256.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj1... Doesn't that directly contradict the hypothetical scenario presented in the article? Additionally, there's Windows 8 hardware out there already. Can the author provide no examples of this happening in real life?
- mjg59 13y agoFrom System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsUSBDevices: The USB controller and USB devices must be fully enumerated when: * Anything other than the Windows Boot Manager is at the top of the system boot order. * A boot next variable has been set to boot to something other than the Windows Boot Manager. * On a system where the Windows Boot Manager is at the top of the list, an error case has been hit, such that the firmware fails over from the Windows Boot Manager to the next item in the list. * Resuming from hibernate, if the system was hibernated when booted from USB. * Firmware Setup is accessed. ie, it's not required for most normal boots on systems that already have Windows installed. System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsBootingFromDVDDevice merely states that the system must support booting from DVD, not that it must attempt to by default. And yes, I've observed this behaviour on real hardware.
- kogir 13y agoI believe you, but can you please name and shame? I'd hate to accidentally purchase hardware which by design makes entering firmware setup impossible[1]. With online ordering this isn't always something you can check in advance. [1] I'm assuming that if a working OS install is required to access it, should anything go wrong you're screwed.
- mjg59 13y agoThe Microsoft spec says that any fallback to the Windows rescue environment should trigger full USB enumeration. The Samsung Series 5 I tested had this behaviour, but given I had to return it after managing to kill the firmware I can't give you the exact model number…
- znmeb 13y agoWhat a whiner! Maybe it's different for laptops, but for desktops, you can still go almost anywhere and have a custom-built system made without any Windows install at all! Huge hard drive, flaming fast GPU, RAM up tha wazoo, studio-grade sound card and as many cores as Intel or AMD can cram onto a chip these days. Hell, if you want a Linux laptop, buy a Sputnik from Dell!
- venomsnake 13y agoIt is imperative to fight for principles when it first occurs not when your own ass is in the fire. We lost the apple devices as general purpose, android is not much better and the walled gardens are encroaching the PC.
- astrodust 13y agoWhat if, in the interests of appeasing Microsoft, only Windows 8 certified Secure Boot motherboards are made by the big manufacturers? What if the EFI is so locked down, the hardware so Windows-specific, you can't make Linux work on it? That's the future people are trying to avoid.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ars 13y agoWhat happens if you disagree with the EULA? (Does it have a disagree button?) What happens if you crtl-alt-del at the EULA prompt?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- DannyBee 13y agoFWIW, As a lawyer, I have a lot of trouble believing that assent to a contract you can't avoid, done specifically for the purpose of removing the contracted software, would ever be held to bind you to the terms and conditions of that contract. In fact, i'd go so far as to say that if Microsoft ever actually tried to enforce, it would run them into serious regulatory trouble. If push came to shove, i'm sure they would take the position that this was a hardware issue, and not their legal intention. (I completely agree this is a ridiculous situation, and you shouldn't have to agree to anything. But it actually makes for great facts to fight a clickwrap fight on)
- sounds 13y agoThanks for that. That leaves just one legal issue that really needs to be raised: How is it legal to _deny_ me full access (defined by the removal of all Microsoft software, something the European Commission has repeatedly upheld) until I have completed some Microsoft-controlled procedure? I don't want Windows on the machine. Assuming I buy from the 3 largest vendors, excluding Apple, is it not anti-competitive to _lock_ me into it since no other option is offered? Note: I realize that it may seem redundant to beat this dead horse again, but there's a really good reason so many are upset about Secure Boot. Of course, Microsoft mandates that Secure Boot can be disabled for Win8 logo compliance, which is neatly avoided in this case.
- Guvante 13y agoYou seem to be under the impression that this setup was created for the express purpose of denying you access to the hardware until you have agreed to the EULA. However that is a direct contradiction of the person you are responding to, who mentions that this is a vestige of a certain set of configuration options that are common on Windows 8 machines. This is not intended, and will likely be patched if enough complaints are heard. Remember they are just requiring that you accept their EULA to boot their OS, denying you access to the firmware was never their intent.
- sounds 13y agoNo, I'm not countering DannyBee. I'm collecting the list of legal arguments that might be used if/when this is litigated. Lovely as it is that Microsoft didn't mean for it to work like this, they're the one who will get the service of process saying "please appear in court and defend your position," if/when this is litigated. That is the kind of complaint they might actually "hear" that would get a response. I don't care about their good intentions. Get out of my hardware, get out of my life, Microsoft.
- shmerl 13y agoSomeone should probably update this article with the above finding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows
- Osiris 13y agoHow can Microsoft prove that you agreed to the EULA? AFAIK, they don't upload your acceptance to a server (accepting works without a network connection). So once you wipe the system and install another OS, you've also eliminated any evidence that you accepted the EULA, so how could Microsoft start a legal action against without evidence that you accepted the EULA?
- dheerosaur 13y agoI paid money (I don't know how much, but will be close to 50-100 dollars) for Windows 8 when I bought my Dell Inspiron Special Edition because it had good hardware, but Dell didn't provide an option to get it without the OS. It was the only affordable laptop available with 1080p screen. After a week of many annoyances, I decided to delete all the Windows partitions. After installing Ubuntu using Legacy boot, I tried to install a pirated Windows, but couldn't because there it couldn't be installed on a GPT partition. Installing an OS used to be easy.
- Zak 13y agoI paid money for Windows 8 when I bought my Dell Dell almost certainly preloaded some software in exchange for compensation that almost certainly exceeded what Dell paid for their Windows license. Even ignoring the testing, support and return issues people usually bring up, Dell probably couldn't sell the computer for a lower price with no OS or a free OS without losing money. In short, third parties effectively paid for Windows 8 when you bought your Dell, not you.
- vog 13y agoDell probably couldn't sell the computer for a lower price with no OS or a free OS without losing money I find this hard to believe, even when considering all the mechanisms you mentioned. Do you have any evidence for this very counter-intuitive hypothesis? IOW: Citation needed
- speeder 13y agoWhen I was shopping for laptops I found several Dell models with Ubuntu, all of them were 100 USD more expensive than with Windows.
- Tarential 13y agoI have a Dell Vostro 2420 I got with Ubuntu for around $50 less than the same machine with Windows ~6 months ago. However, it seems this is no longer possible. I've searched Dell's site and the only Vostro 2420 I see with Ubuntu has different hardware (i3 vs celeron). Very disappointing. I will not pay the MS tax.
- nitrogen 13y agoDoes the Windows 8 OOB setup environment support Shift+F10 to open a command prompt, or one of the keyboard shortcuts to open the task manager? If so, it might be possible to boot into UEFI from there.
- jagermo 13y agoI will try to verify this with the next Win 8 Ultrabook I get for testing. I am not sure, though, at least on my desktop (with EFI Bios), my USB keyboard gets initialized right away - might be different on notebooks.
- qwerta 13y agoThere will always be an option to install Linux on x86 somehow. But I found really disturbing growing number of locked ARM systems. Perhaps we could start 'green' campaign; freely installing Linux on such devices expands their moral life-time and causes less emission.
- zokier 13y agoLocked down ARM systems have far longer history than this fairly recent Win8 debacle. One of the most notable examples is TiVo, which led to the phrase "tivoization". I'd argue that the number of "open" ARM devices is what is growing with RasPi and others like it.
- qwerta 13y agoThe problem is that locked ARM is becoming defacto standard. Soon most main-stream laptops will be ARM based and locked down. Compared to that current issues such as "should I accept EULA?" looks very small.
- vy8vWJlco 13y agoSee: Lenovo K800, Lava XOLO X900, or any of the new-ish X86 phones (Atom SoCs) with locked bootloaders that will only boot the pre-installed Android, or whatever originally came with the phone. You may revise and say "Sure, but I meant on the desktop..." but if current trends continue, tablets and phones will continue to supplant if not replace desktops/laptops for most users. Unless consumers put on the breaks and steer strongly towards open hardware, we're looking at a future with a lot of single-purpose/corporate-owned appliances IMHO. As usual, money talks, so: buy freedom.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago"always". What is this always scenario look like if MS decides to drop the "must allow legacy boot / disabling SB / enrolling key" requirement and only enroll theirs? Not saying that will happen, I honestly don't think Microsoft cares that much (my own opinion, speculation based on Linux's market share despite my own love of it). Just... "always" is a strong word. People used that word when talking about secure bootloaders on devices like Droid2, etc. Things that were ultimately only circumvented by kexec. Something that would be much different in a SecureBoot scenario.
- zokier 13y agoThe legal implications or the initial setup are not what worry me. But rather the issue when the OS gets hosed, and you have no method of booting into a recovery media.
- bryanlarsen 13y agoCould the boot failure mechanism be exploited? I presume that Microsoft has a boot failure mechanism; after N failures to boot, firmware should turn off fast-boot. Is the display of the EULA screen considered a boot success? IOW, can you just reset the machine when you see the EULA screen a few times to get the ability to stop and adjust the firmware?
- gizmo686 13y agoI suspect the EULA is considered a boot success, as it is bassicly just a program running in userspace. Having said that, you could still power-off during the actuall boot process. Or, if it behaves like BIOS fastboot, making minor changes to hardware configuration should trigger a full boot.
- _pmf_ 13y ago> In fact, i'd go so far as to say that if Microsoft ever actually tried to enforce, it would run them into serious regulatory trouble. The main interest of Microsoft is to keep their OEMs in control. Even if it is legal for the end-user to circumvent the protection, the following will probably still hold true: - Microsoft can still contractually bind their OEMs to implement the protection scheme - Microsoft can still prevent installations on machines without protection So, in the best case regulatory action will allow users with hardware implementing the protection scheme to install custom OS (i.e. free them from prosecution when cracking the protection scheme). There is no way of forcing Microsoft to allow installations or usage on devices not implementing the protection scheme or on devices where the protection scheme has been circumvented and this circumvention can be detected by the affected Microsoft OS.
- Ayabashi 13y agoWindows 8 installs and runs on machines without Secure Boot enabled, so I don't understand what you're talking about.
- Tomdarkness 13y agoMy motherboard is Windows 8 certified and my USB keyboard works perfectly fine during boot. Additionally you can get Windows 8 to give you more boot options if you just keep rebooting while it is trying to start up. Eventually it will give up and attempt to repair your computer before asking what you want to do next. Has anyone experienced the problems described in the article actually in practice or is the article purely theoretical?
- mjg59 13y agoThe requirements only apply to systems that are Windows 8 certified, not individual components. If you built your system then it may support Fast Boot but not have it enabled out of the box. Motherboard manufacturers are unlikely to turn it on by default because it requires you to have a graphics card with a UEFI option ROM rather than a traditional VGA BIOS, and there's something of a chicken and egg problem in turning it off if you're using an older card.
- zimbatm 13y agoMicrosoft is doing the same thing as Apple with their iPhone and geeks get upset. Apple is not allowing arbitrary OS to run on their system unless you find an security hole and manage to work around the protection. I don't hear claims that Apple is having an uncompetitive behavior but obviously the difference is that they didn't take that away, iPhones have been locked down from day one. That said, I'm very much in the geeks' camp. "Secure Boot" doesn't really protect the end-user, viruses and trojan mostly operate in the user-space and exploit kernel security holes anyways. This term is misleading, what it secures is Microsoft's position, letting them dictate whatever they want to manufacturers.
- ElliotH 13y agoMany of us do dislike that Apple lock their hardware down. So I vote with my wallet and buy less locked down devices. The concern is that it will become increasingly difficult to find a computer that does not include this behaviour.
- astrodust 13y agoApple's notebooks and desktops are the opposite of locked down. You want to install another OS on it? They even provide the Boot Camp tool to make it easy for you. Want to scrub the system and start from scratch? Use rEFIt (http://refit.sourceforge.net http://refit.sourceforge.net) and replace the loader.
- ElliotH 13y agoVery fair point. A Mac will probably be my next laptop at this point. I was more talking about iPhone/iPad style locked down devices though :)
- astrodust 13y agoThe probable reason the iOS devices are locked down is because that's where Apple's money is now. If Apple encouraged jail-breaking that would dramatically alter the nature of their product line-up. If the jail-broken phones developed a reputation for crashing, for apps not working properly, or for being a vehicle for rampant piracy, that would taint their brand. It's a tough position they're put in. As an enthusiast I'd really like to see the iOS hardware sold without locks, specifically for hacking, but Apple isn't interested in that market. The good news is that whatever Apple pushes hard, be it iPads or iPhones or iPods, puts enormous pressure on the supply channel to deliver parts at scale. Where touch-screen panels used to be stupidly expensive, you can buy them for under $50 from many vendors. Like an ice-breaker, Apple's enormous volume causes the price of components to plunge across the board. Everything they touch becomes commoditized in time. This is good for consumers, they get better products from third parties, and amazing for hardware hackers that want to build or customize their own gear. Want a quad-core ARM CPU? It's a couple of bucks. Think about that. You can get an OEM tablet from some random vendor in China that's as good as an iPad 2 hardware-wise, and you can get them cheap. For a little extra, you can get them customized. This is not a bad thing. Apple will keep their hardware locked down, it's their call, but it opens up enormous opportunities in the open-hardware arena.
- pyxy 13y agoRequesting for the linked page I get a message telling this resource is restricted by Russian Government because it "contains information restricted for propagation in Russian Federation". That's Rostelecom ISP. I could get the page using another ISP and don't see any "restricted information". Hm.
- pyxy 13y agoJFYI the whole dreamwidth.org is restricted, http://www.zapret-info.gov.ru http://www.zapret-info.gov.ru should contain info what web resources are restricted in Russian Federation but it's taking too much time to load and times out.
- pyxy 13y agoFinally I managed to reach zapret-info.gov.ru and found that IP 69.174.244.50 has been banned on 2013/04/18.
- anonymfus 13y agohttp://antizapret.info/site.php?id=763 http://antizapret.info/site.php?id=763 It because http://stervozzinka.dreamwidth.org/15580.html http://stervozzinka.dreamwidth.org/15580.html contains information that it is possible to kill itself by shooting into head.
- bliker 13y agoThis is a big problem, I have a lenovo u310 and I have not been able to boot from usb. And I don't have a cd drive.
- drivebyacct2 13y agoThat really should not be an issue at all on that device... (although once you are booted, you'll need to do some work in dmraid on account of the HDD situation)
- canthonytucci 13y agoSaw title and was expecting to see something about the miserable state of touch support.
- kabdib 13y agoIt shouldn't take all that long to set up USB. Getting the host controller running is probably a few hundred microseconds of initialization. After that, it's all about enumerating hubs and finding devices; there isn't much there that requires delays. You're probably gated by the firmware on the keyboard. I imagine the USB stacks are full of paranoid "let things settle for 200ms" sleeps that make more crappy devices work, or that give external HDDs time to spin up. I'll bet you could remove those if all you care about is a keyboard.
- zanny 13y agoI've always been very annoyed by the firmware initialize -> kernel reinitialize delay. If only we had open source standardized firmware on x86 there could be a common data structure to pass through validated firmware and its associated memory ranges to the payload. Maybe even an OS could write its device initialization library to ROM so the firmware could do diagnostic checks on all the present hardware before trying to do dangerous disk reads (hey coreboot).
- bitcracker 13y agoI don't understand why Linux users want Win8- or WinRT Pads. Not only are they pretty expensive but there already are many cheap good Android Pads running a Linux kernel. There are also plain Linux pads on the market, and even Ubuntu plans to sell a Ubuntu pad soon. So, what's the gain?
- mjg59 13y agoIt's not limited to tablets. This applies to all Windows 8-certified client hardware.
- bitcracker 13y agoI still don't get it. Microsoft is not that important anymore today as it had been for decades. There are extremely cheap ARM boards (Raspberry, Beagle Bone, etc.) that are almost suitable for Internet and Office applications right now. And I think soon we will have the next generation of Raspberry and Beagle Bones with 1.5 GHz dualcore or quadcore, and we can even built our own cluster of these boards for servers -- for instance, this one with 32 nodes: http://t3n.de/news/raspberry-pi-cluster-467237/ http://t3n.de/news/raspberry-pi-cluster-467237/
- mjg59 13y agoWhat use is a Pi when I'm sitting on a plane?
- bitcracker 13y agoThat's your reason to buy a WinRT pad and put Linux on it?
- mjg59 13y agoIt's my reason for owning a laptop that came with Windows 8. This particular one isn't affected by the problem discussed here, but many other laptops are.