[dpark]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is silly FUD. Microsoft isnt stupid enough (or evil enough, despite what some like to believe) to attempt to force PC oems to effectively block all OSes except Windows. They know this wouldn't work, and there'd be no point in trying to force it.

Supporting hardened boot is not the same as requiring it. Microsoft already utilizes this for BitLocker. You can still install Linux on a machine that supports hardened booting and signed images. You just can't enable hardened boot unless you use signed images.

[jonhohle]

> Microsoft isnt stupid enough (or evil enough, despite what some like to believe) to attempt to force PC oems to effectively block all OSes except Windows.

Um, Microsoft used to do exactly this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/08/31/jean_louis_gass_233_... I don't know if they have the muscle or the guts to try something like this again.

edit: fixed typo

[dpark]

There's a rather large difference between contractually forbidding PC OEMs from selling Windows machines bundled with BeOS and technologically blocking non-Windows OSes from executing. It's one thing to say "you can't bundle another OS with mine". It's another thing entirely to say "your hardware can never run any OS except mine".

[beagle3]

There's actually a very small difference.

They both result from signing an agreement between said parties, and basically provide the same benefits to both parties (given that most people won't install an operating system themselves).

Except one leaves a choice to the end user, and the other doesn't.

[rkalla]

+1, hardened boot is something we will address eventually with MBR and BIOS viruses on the rise again. Makes sense for MS to push In this direction and Intel/AMD aren't going to lock down that hardware to anything else.

Your $200 Dell from Best Buy might, but that will be part of the subsidy from MS. Meh.