Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

dailytech.com

1–10 of 137 posts

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#3
Along with their apparent restriction of the 'desktop' on arm, this is the reason I lost interest in windows8 on arm. So far a linux + android solution (like ubuntu have demonstrated) seems more powerful and very will also have more apps to start (way to go throw away windows' advantage #1).

It seems quite short-sighted, too, as I see ARM as being a viable laptop platform in the life of windows 8, but MS are restricting it to 'device' status.

Also, we've known this for a long time now.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#4
Unlike on x86 where windows dominates on ARM there is a different story and linux dominates on ARM, they can lose some market share because of this policy but it seems that microsoft only cares to keep their old strategies no matter what times they live in.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#6
I assume Microsoft will want to have secure booting devices that ship with Windows, because Hollywood and other content producers require a secure OS so their DRM is safer. If they would allow non-secure boot, it might be difficult or impossible to get video and music content licensed from the major producers on the platform.

Re: Microsoft Bans Linux/Android Dual-Booting on Windows 8 ARM Devices

#9
We've yet to see any mobile device where running another OS than the bundled one have been anything but a nightmare. This is done everywhere, android manufacturers constantly try to lock users in their own android shell, not to mention apple.

These devices are not multipurpose devices, they are built for a specific purpose and tailormade for that and nothing else. It is not in any sense equivalent to desktop/laptop-computers. Which is kind of apparent considering the limitations that Windows Phone, Android and iOS amount to.

Since Microsoft have expressed that secure boot must be optional on x86 it is quite easy to justify this rationally without resorting to the popular "typical evil Microsoft tactics" argument.

Post reply on HN