101–110 of 133 posts
And that's how Microsoft killed ARM based netbooks, ultrabooks, tablets, etc that could potentially run Linux because most OEMs will want to have them licensed for use with Windows 8. Can we rehash all the dozen posts about this from months ago when people swore up on down that Microsoft wasn't going to do... well, what the rest of us expect at this point?
Kidding aside, there will always be IPhones/Playstations, which need to be jail broken and there will be proper computers. If anything, this UEFI lockdown will make it easier to find appropriate hardware for your Linux box/server, since all that Windows-centric gaming stuff will be sold locked down only.
iPad has or had a monopoly in the tablet market, but where are/were the cries for an open bootloader? Where were the complaints to governments? Motorola and HTC phones/tablets ship with locked bootloaders while leveraging the hard work of F/OSS developers for free. Not to mention the Nook tablet/Kindle Fire which ship with a locked bootloader who get a free pass. Note that this will be the same set of people who will…
People have hacked iPads and iPhones to run Android. And nobody actually uses it because there is no hardware back button, etc. When hardware and software are a cohesive unit it's hard to run something generic on the hardware, or run the software on some other hardware. That is not the case for Windows, Linux, and Android, which is why people feel differently about that ecosystem.
That must explain the lack of penetration of Android tablets! (They have no back button either)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't expect manufacturers to lock down the devices. Their flagship devices, which are supposed to set the bar for other Android phones, are deliberately not locked down to set an example.
"They don't expect manufacturers to lock down the devices." He's not saying they do. No one is saying they do. That is the very definition of a straw man argument. Dan Grossman is saying Google has a host of other compliance requirements. Why does Microsoft compliance requirement X cross some terrible line that Google and Apple requirements W, Y and Z don't?
First, tihs document is about HW Certification. You can ship an ARM-based system that doesn't follow these rules, just won't be certified by MS -- much like many Android devices aren't Google certified. Furthermore, MS actually bent over backwards on x86 and required for certification that the option to disable secure boot be provided (they could have been silent on this issue): "Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-AR…
Agreed on rest of the points, but Windows 8 on ARM is more like Windows Phone in the sense that you can't ship an ARM based system like you can with x86. You need a special license, there will be no OEM or user installable versions of Windows 8 ARM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…
It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? I'm not European, so I'm not very well informed on their approach to antitrust issues, but my guess would be that either they just haven't gotten enough complaints about/gotten around to prosecuting Apple, or Apple's la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader? Because there is a large market for non-iOS based phones. The market for non-Windows based laptops is much, much smaller (basically OS X).
>Because there is a large market for non-iOS based phones What about tablets? >The market for non-Windows based laptops is much, much smaller (basically OS X). ARM laptops are way different. For starters, they wont run any programs that run on other laptops.
http://blogs.arm.com/smart-connected-devices/60-firefox-35-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have hacked iPads and iPhones to run Android. And nobody actually uses it because there is no hardware back button, etc. When hardware and software are a cohesive unit it's hard to run something generic on the hardware, or run the software on some other hardware. That is not the case for Windows, Linux, and Android, which is why people feel differently about that ecosystem.
People have hacked iPads and iPhones to run Android. And nobody actually uses it because there is no hardware back button, etc. That must explain the lack of penetration of Android tablets! (They have no back button either)
AFAIK Android was basically unusable on iOS hardware, using the sleep/wake button in an odd way and other things that do not work well.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in the tablet or phone markets. Heck, it's barely a market participant. If Apple doesn't have to let people install Windows on an iPad, then the same should apply to Microsoft. This time, there's no "but there's a monopoly and the rules are different for monopolies" excuse.
But we're not talking about just phones and tablets... "[...] yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors" Those will be locked out as well. This is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking about in his article the other day about "the war on general purpose computing" - ( http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant. Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the mark…
>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…