[recoiledsnake]

>The problem with enforcing secure boot is it is too broad requirement applied to all ARM-based hardware. There would be no problem if microsoft states that scope of secure bootloading is only hardware made specifically to run microsoft code.

The actual requirements are titled Windows 8 hardware certification requirements and are linked below.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188

I see no mention that the manufacturer cannot make other ARM tablets with Android or whatever. The quote given in the article is misleading in that respect.

What you imply doesn't make sense regardless, if ASUS makes a Win 8 ARM device, they would be forced to lock the Transformer Prime's bootloader? How does that even benefit MS and "lock out" Linux? That seems be actually locking Linux in!

[rbanffy]

What would Microsoft do if Google started demanding locked bootloaders from Android manufacturers?

What it says is that the manufacturer will have to make sure that, once you buy a Windows 8 ARM thingie, the only way to change the OS would be selling it on e-Bay and buying another. What would you say if your Dell desktop came with such a silly restriction?

[recoiledsnake]

>What would Microsoft do if Google started demanding locked bootloaders from Android manufacturers?

Why would they even care? They are not planning to sell Windows ARM on Newegg like they do for x86.

>What would you say if your Dell desktop came with such a silly restriction?

iPads already come with such restrictions and MS has made it mandatory on x86 devices to have a open bootloader.

ARM desktops from Dell are way far away and have a steep incline to climb since won't run Win32 x86 apps.

[rbanffy]

> Why would they even care?

I bet they would complain loudly. At least, they would before demanding the same from W8 manufacturers.

> MS has made it mandatory on x86 devices to have a open bootloader.

Unless I misread, they allowed x86 manufacturers to have open-able bootloaders and have the W8 approval seal. IIRC, no non-UEFI boxes will receive the seal.

> ARM desktops from Dell

Who said ARM desktops? I asked how would you feel if your current x86 desktop had a locked bootloader.

[recoiledsnake]

>I bet they would complain loudly. At least, they would before demanding the same from W8 manufacturers.

I totally lost you, why would MS care if Android forces locked bootloaders? How does that affect them in the least?

They aren't going to sell Win8 ARM in the stores, so again why would they complain? It makes zero difference to them.

iPads have locked bootloaders, how does that affect MS?

>Unless I misread, they allowed x86 manufacturers to have open-able bootloaders and have the W8 approval seal. IIRC, no non-UEFI boxes will receive the seal

Not just 'allowed', it's a requirement. How does non-UEFI boxes not getting the seal affect Linux? They aren't doing that because UEFI secure boot is a good defense against many common rootkits that load even before the OS or antivirus can.

>Who said ARM desktops? I asked how would you feel if your current x86 desktop had a locked bootloader.

There was an expectation about openness when I bought it. There will be no such thing with Win8 ARM. In fact, many users are replacing their laptops and desktops with iPads, so they seem to be okay with this.

[ilmare]

That(locking secure boot to be able to load specific software) is not what I meant(merely ability to turn off secure boot). I realize why secure boot is there, my concerns: 1. as a consumer I'm fully locked into business model of sw/hw providers. Think about all those android phones that are throw away now. 2. cannot do anything to device I physically own 3. hardware manufactures won't bother producing unlocked hardware(to cater those people who would like to run whatever they want on it)