Technical Discussion
  >> Hardware Issues


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User zyborg47
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Thu 07-Jan-16 19:42:15
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
With secure boot enabled. Secure boot itself is a good thing, and every PC lets you turn it off if you want to run linux distros that are not signed.


At the moment, but that is because MS made it a condition of Windows 8 machines, they are now dropping that condition.
Typical monopoly company, as bad as Sky and Intel.

Adrian

Desktop machine now powered by windows 8 pro 64bit, no dreaded metro and Linux , laptop by Linux

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User TinyMongomery
(experienced) Thu 07-Jan-16 20:41:08
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
A monopoly would be Microsoft telling the hardware manufacturers what to do. You are complaining because they are not telling them what to do!
Standard User TinyMongomery
(experienced) Thu 07-Jan-16 20:46:36
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
I wish you would stop trying to compare a computer with a phone, it is not the same thing.

As for buying a laptop without a OS they are normally more expensive for some silly reason, I suppose that what you get when you have a monopoly.
I think you're a bit out of touch. Phones are computers nowadays.

As for the cost of laptops, you're buying from the wrong place. I get them cheaper without an OS; but I don't buy rubbish from the likes of HP.

It really does seem unfair to blame Microsoft for what the hardware manufacturers choose to do.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User zyborg47
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 09-Jan-16 08:30:05
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: TinyMongomery] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by TinyMongomery:
A monopoly would be Microsoft telling the hardware manufacturers what to do. You are complaining because they are not telling them what to do!


A lot of the time they do, the only way a hardware manufacture can stick the Microsoft name on the box or computer is because they have to follow Ms rules.

Adrian

Desktop machine now powered by windows 8 pro 64bit, no dreaded metro and Linux , laptop by Linux

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 09-Jan-16 08:36:53
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: TinyMongomery] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by TinyMongomery:
I think you're a bit out of touch. Phones are computers nowadays.


Maybe so, but try doing a lot of the stuff on a phone you can do on a laptop and desktop computer.
As for the cost of laptops, you're buying from the wrong place. I get them cheaper without an OS; but I don't buy rubbish from the likes of HP.


My laptop is old, so I have not been buying any laptops for years, my last one is a Asus, that was before all this Secure boot rubbish came out, it have the good old Bios in it, not that I use it that often and it is running Manjaro not windows.

I did see a few places that sell laptop without a Os, but they was more expensive than the equivalent with a OS.
It really does seem unfair to blame Microsoft for what the hardware manufacturers choose to do.


Oh poor Microsoft, how will they cope being blamed for something, they should have got used to it by now, because most problems with computers is caused by Microsoft.

You be surprised how much influence MS have in hardware manufacture.

Adrian

Desktop machine now powered by windows 8 pro 64bit, no dreaded metro and Linux , laptop by Linux

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User TinyMongomery
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 09-Jan-16 08:47:59
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
But your specific complaint here is that Microsoft are leaving hardware manufacturers to decide for themselves whether to allow secure boot to be switched off. If a manufacturer decides not to do so that is their decision, not something forced upon them by Microsoft; you should avoid buying products from such a manufacturer.
Standard User TinyMongomery
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 09-Jan-16 08:50:30
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by zyborg47:
Oh poor Microsoft, how will they cope being blamed for something, they should have got used to it by now
I'm sure that Microsoft are used to the FUD that is aimed against them by now. It doesn't seem to stop them being a very successful company.

I really don't understand why people who are so dissatisfied with them continue to use their products.
Standard User zyborg47
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 09-Jan-16 16:59:14
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: TinyMongomery] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by TinyMongomery:
But your specific complaint here is that Microsoft are leaving hardware manufacturers to decide for themselves whether to allow secure boot to be switched off. If a manufacturer decides not to do so that is their decision, not something forced upon them by Microsoft; you should avoid buying products from such a manufacturer.

A lot of t6he time it is Microsoft that pulls the strings, but some people have got their head so far up Microsofts backside that they can not see it.

Adrian

Desktop machine now powered by windows 8 pro 64bit, no dreaded metro and Linux , laptop by Linux

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User zyborg47
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sat 09-Jan-16 17:13:35
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: TinyMongomery] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by TinyMongomery:
I'm sure that Microsoft are used to the FUD that is aimed against them by now. It doesn't seem to stop them being a very successful company.

I really don't understand why people who are so dissatisfied with them continue to use their products.


Successful maybe, but also one not to be trusted and it is about time the world saw sense and look at what Ms can do. Get companies and governments to use the software and then change the rules an d what can these companies and government do but to follow the rules. It is not as if they can change over night to another Os, because to be honest what else is available?
Linux/unix is there yes, but apart from maybe servers it is not really used elsewhere and the software is not available anyway.
Apple would be no different to Microsoft if they have the monopoly either.
People have very little choice now but to use MS software, myself included.

The reason MS got to where they are is because they was in the right place at the right time and gave people the ease to use computers, not because their software is any good.


We have the same problem in this country with Sky, a monopoly that seems to do what they want and now look at what we got. But Sky having a monopoly is not dangerous, people just can't watch what they like unless they pay for it, that is not going to bring the country or the world to a standstill. But Microsoft can, give it time and we will be paying through the nose for their software, already their office software have gone subscription.

I trust MS as much as I trust Intel, Adobe, our government and U.S government.
One day the world will wake up

Adrian

Desktop machine now powered by windows 8 pro 64bit, no dreaded metro and Linux , laptop by Linux

Plusnet FTTC
Standard User TinyMongomery
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 09-Jan-16 18:33:34
Print Post

Re: Secure boot


[re: zyborg47] [link to this post]
 
I'm talking about your specific complaint here rather than what happens "a lot of the time".
Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to