 nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Freddy
Re: Win 8 back to Win 7 said by Freddy:So, perhaps the problem you're identifying lies with those manufacturers who don't implement the UEFI standard in the manner specified by Microsoft.
Perhaps you misread my post. I did not say anything at all that relates to manufacturer implementation of UEFI. My post was entirely about problems caused by the Microsoft implementation of Windows 8.
--
AT&T Uverse; Buffalo WHR-300HP router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 12.3; firefox 20.0 |
|
 FreddyPremium
join:2005-05-17
Arlington, VA
1 edit | Yeah, I know you didn't say anything about Manufacturer implementation of UEFI. My point is trying to open debate on the possibility that authors of UEFI have caused the problem you talk about, rather than just Microsoft causing it.
I agree with you that one should have an option to select what operating system to boot. But just who is responsible for providing this option? How does one know who to blame?
Also, developers of (other) operating systems have some responsibility for implementing compliance with standards for booting in UEFI in dual use systems. I guess I don't know why (only) Microsoft should provide this option.
It seems to me that resolving this issue is not just the responsibility of Microsoft. I don't know the answer, but maybe some can provide insight. Let's hear it.
Freddy
Edit: In parentheses to clarify |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·WestNet Broadband
|
To me, outside of the Win 7 driver certification; we now have bios certification (UEFI). How this came about, and at the hardware layer is anyone's guess. Why it is certified and will not allow dual boot to work at the user request highlights this "legal requirement" of Windows.
If I read this wrong, please correct me, but it is simply like a speeding fine, once you choose to do it, any protection is void.
It is after all a user selection, thus avoiding O/S requirements and protection.
I understand that, how do you turn this into a conglomerate issue to cover those users who have no idea at all?
Simply so their funds on a new system is covered under support/warranty etc?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
|
|
Reviews:
·WestNet Broadband
| reply to nwrickert
said by nwrickert:We're a bit off-topic. However, this is not entirely true.
If I want to install linux to dual-boot with Windows, then here are two problems (I would call them impediments):
Maybe a little off topic, but it is relative to some degree on what Microsoft has put in place for their needs with UEFI, and you highlight a different issue that is still relative to the same juncture that is being put in place by an O/S over the hardware.
I'm not quite sure why an O/S should be allowed to control the hardware to that level, at least a level, while trying to add security, it is messing with the hardware enough it will create problems for users, and as you point out, it forces the bootloader to change it's behavior - in a security/malware sense that is dangerous?
Which is why I mentioned the certification process.
I don't have answers, but still certifications have been broken/spoofed, and been big in the headlines of late, so why the push to utilize this method.
Bit off topic possibly too, but maybe this method was in development before all the recent cert issues came about.
This could always move to the hardware forum, if the mods here consider we are getting off topic for this forum and the subject. There is a lot affected since the Windows partition table changed it's properties.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
|
|
