My main issue isn't related to the OS itself, it's related to Windows 8 Secure boot.
Secure boot prevents rootkits from launching on boot, for example someone plugging a USB drive in a PC at a workplace. Secure boot hardware will ask for a key, if the OS can provide the right key it's allowed to boot, if it's not the PC will simply not boot.
For Microsoft it's easy to enforce this for PC manufacturers, if someone wants to sell a Windows 8 PC, they will need secure boot for Windows, locking every other OS down (for example, some Windows 8 PC can not boot Windows XP in early tests, it doesn't provide the right key, the hardware won't let it boot, mind you this is on specific Windows 8 certified hardware which isn't commercially available yet).
Now comes the issue, Linux, which has far less hardware contacts and far less money, will have a much harder time getting a signed key than Microsoft, which means running Windows 8 alongside Linux could become a lot trickier, although many distros are working to find solutions around this issue.
making it a closed platform would be illegal, because they dont manufacture the PCs themselves. Apple can do it because its not only their software, but also their hardware. They make their own computers.
If Microsoft pushes a OS on 'MY' computer that doesnt allow me to install and run whatever I want, then they are violating the law. They have been down this road before and it didnt end well for them, so I dont think it will be a closed platform at all.
Originally posted by CaldrinMicrosoft wil not close off their desktop OS LOL.. they know its one of the main reasons they have been top of the pile for many years when it comes to desktop and server OS.. If they did it would be like shooting themselves in the head...
Look up Windows RT. They already did it.
Windows RT is specifically for Tablets running ARM processors.
So much mis information. WinRT is an api for the metro ui.
You should get your facts straight before claiming mis informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RTWindows RT is Windows 8 for ARM.This hoopla is nothing more than knee jerk reactions to partial information, and 'what if' scenarios.
Actually he is right WinRT is one of the trade marketed names for Windows Runtime API, Windows 8 RT is a completely different thing.
There is Windows 8 which one of its versions is called Windows 8 RT which is the ARM only version, it comes with the Metro Interface but cannot run any Windows native code.
Tthere is also Windows Phone 8 which has nothing to do with Windows 8 which Windows 8 RT is based on for mobile phones.
The only reason why Windows 8 RT is "closed" is because it does not support native unmanaged code of normal windows applications due to its support for ARM based devices.
Currently the only device that will use Windows RT is the Microsoft Surface(the Surface Pro will use Windows 8 Pro), i actually highly doubt that we'll see many tables with Windows RT even tho its licenses for OEM's are insanely cheap(around 25$) since Windows 8 RT cannot run any normal windows apps, and even Metro apps have to be specifically coded for Windows 8 RT due to a more limiting API.
Microsoft ATM has created a real mess for developers, Windows 8, Windows 8 RT, Metro Apps for Windows 8, Metro Apps for Window 8 RT(easier to port but still not the same), Windows Phone 8, and Windows Phone 7 all have to be developed for separately..
Microsoft has renamed brands before. Windows 8 RT has changed to just Windows RT for ARM processors.
My main issue isn't related to the OS itself, it's related to Windows 8 Secure boot.
Secure boot prevents rootkits from launching on boot, for example someone plugging a USB drive in a PC at a workplace. Secure boot hardware will ask for a key, if the OS can provide the right key it's allowed to boot, if it's not the PC will simply not boot.
For Microsoft it's easy to enforce this for PC manufacturers, if someone wants to sell a Windows 8 PC, they will need secure boot for Windows, locking every other OS down (for example, some Windows 8 PC can not boot Windows XP in early tests, it doesn't provide the right key, the hardware won't let it boot).
Now comes the issue, Linux, which has far less hardware contacts and far less money, will have a much harder time getting a signed key than Microsoft, which means running Windows 8 alongside Linux could become a lot trickier, although many distros are working to find solutions around this issue.
Nonsense, Secureboot has nothing to do with Microsoft, its a feature of UEFI not windows, Windows 8 is just the first OS that supports it. It is very simmilar to how bootloaders are locked for CellPhones, you can only boot an OS which was signed by a recognized certificate. It is only enforced on Windows 8 RT to bot to increase security of tablets, and in order to avoid companies releasing Tablets for Windows 8 RT that will end up running pirated copies since Windows 8 RT does not need to be activated by the end user. Microsoft cannot force you as a PC owner in any way to user Secure Boot, you have control over the BIOS of your motherboard and can enable or disable both UEFI boot in general and Secure Boot option in the bios.
Secure Boot in general is great, and i have it on all of my linux machines at work
Allot of enterpises are using this feature for several years now the only difference is that they had to use 3rd party bootloaders(those that usually came witht their FDE solution) and either buy completly managed workstations, management addon cards, or additional 3rd party sofware to manage their UEFI firmware settings.
Now they can do it all in house, in a single intergraded product with no extra costs.
My main issue isn't related to the OS itself, it's related to Windows 8 Secure boot.
Secure boot prevents rootkits from launching on boot, for example someone plugging a USB drive in a PC at a workplace. Secure boot hardware will ask for a key, if the OS can provide the right key it's allowed to boot, if it's not the PC will simply not boot.
For Microsoft it's easy to enforce this for PC manufacturers, if someone wants to sell a Windows 8 PC, they will need secure boot for Windows, locking every other OS down (for example, some Windows 8 PC can not boot Windows XP in early tests, it doesn't provide the right key, the hardware won't let it boot).
Now comes the issue, Linux, which has far less hardware contacts and far less money, will have a much harder time getting a signed key than Microsoft, which means running Windows 8 alongside Linux could become a lot trickier, although many distros are working to find solutions around this issue.
Nonsense, Secureboot has nothing to do with Microsoft, its a feature of UEFI not windows, Windows 8 is just the first OS that supports it.
Not nonsense, Windows 8 hardware that wants to be certified will need to support secure boot and enable it, it is very much a Windows 8 thing and it is enforced by no one else than Microsoft.
UEFI is on most hardware but secure boot is disabled, UEFI is more than just secure boot, and no one else but Microsoft is responsible for enforcing secure boot on Windows 8 hardware and tablets.
To say this has nothing to do with Microsoft is very dishonest of you, Microsoft decided to use Secure Boot for Windows 8, not Intel.
Microsoft has also decided not to reach out to the Linux community and offers no support whatsoever on how to go around secure boot if one wants to install a different operating system, hiding behind the cloud of security while conveniently allowing no one to install another OS unless they jump through hoops.
It is also not just a tablet thing as you make it out to be, every PC that wants to be Windows 8 certified will need to support and enable secure boot. There are already certified windows 8 PC out there that can not dual boot XP and Windows 8, and the reason is that the hardware enables secure boot.
My main issue isn't related to the OS itself, it's related to Windows 8 Secure boot.
Secure boot prevents rootkits from launching on boot, for example someone plugging a USB drive in a PC at a workplace. Secure boot hardware will ask for a key, if the OS can provide the right key it's allowed to boot, if it's not the PC will simply not boot.
For Microsoft it's easy to enforce this for PC manufacturers, if someone wants to sell a Windows 8 PC, they will need secure boot for Windows, locking every other OS down (for example, some Windows 8 PC can not boot Windows XP in early tests, it doesn't provide the right key, the hardware won't let it boot).
Now comes the issue, Linux, which has far less hardware contacts and far less money, will have a much harder time getting a signed key than Microsoft, which means running Windows 8 alongside Linux could become a lot trickier, although many distros are working to find solutions around this issue.
Nonsense, Secureboot has nothing to do with Microsoft, its a feature of UEFI not windows, Windows 8 is just the first OS that supports it.
Not nonsense, Windows 8 hardware that wants to be certified will need to support secure boot, it is very much a Windows 8 thing and it is enforced by no one else than Microsoft.
UEFI is on most hardware but secure boot is disabled, UEFI is more than just secure boot, and no one else but Microsoft is responsible for enforcing secure boot on Windows 8 hardware and tablets.
To say this has nothing to do with Microsoft is very dishonest of you, Microsoft decided to use Secure Boot for Windows 8, not Intel.
Yes nonsense, if you do not enable secure boot in your firmware, and it is not enforuced by the software policy of the OS which is USER CONFIGURABLE(via thelocal/group policy security settings) you do not have secure boot for your system.
And BTW the Windows Logo program for hardware for Windows 8 Desktop does not require you to have a secure boot supported firmware, just like it does not require you to have TPM for bitlocker on windows 7. Only Windows 8 RT devices are required to have secure boot enabled, but those are ARM based tablets not PC's.
Microsoft desided to support Secure Boot , and did a great job of implementing it if you have a mobile device(phone, tablet, laptop) with out secure boot and full disk encryption, especially at your workplace you are clueless about what security practices are like these days.
Yes nonsense, if you do not enable secure boot in your firmware, and it is not enforuced by the software policy of the OS which is USER CONFIGURABLE(via thelocal/group policy security settings) you do not have secure boot for your system.
Windows 8 certified hardware (which will be the hardware the everyday person buys, your standard Dell / HP / Alienware stuff), are required to have Secure Boot enabled by default or they are not allowed to be certified and can not ship Windows 8 OEM PC.
It is not a user choice at all at that point, and you will need to jump through a lot of hoops to get another OS on there as it's not as simple as flipping a button, you need a signed EFI key to launch unsiged operating systems like Linux.
Yes nonsense, if you do not enable secure boot in your firmware, and it is not enforuced by the software policy of the OS which is USER CONFIGURABLE(via thelocal/group policy security settings) you do not have secure boot for your system.
Windows 8 certified hardware (which will be the hardware the everyday person buys, your standard Dell / HP / Alienware stuff), are required to have Secure Boot enabled by default or they are not allowed to be certified and can not ship Windows 8 OEM PC.
It is not a user choice at all at that point, and you will need to jump through a lot of hoops to get another OS on there as it's not as simple as flipping a button, you need a signed EFI key to launch unsiged operating systems like Linux.
It can be disabled, im dual booting Windows 8 with Sabayon Linux as we speak, i have windows 8 Installed(MSDN Final) on 4 devices which do not have UEFI.
Find somthing else to grind your axe about, Secure Boot is a great feature that enchances the security of your system greatly.
I wonder how much witch hunting you went on when canonical desided to switch to EFIlinux for Secure boot support , as did many sonsored linux distros such as Red Hat, and SUSE... Oh and GRUB2 will soon have Seucre Boot support too.
Secure Boot does not prevent you from running other OS's it prevents you from running unsigned OS and bootloaders, microsoft does not control the digital signatures, and the FSF has it's own private key hirarcy as specified in the UEFI standards.
The PC is an open platform and should remain an open platform, Also Microsoft have stipulated that they will not give certification to any game that has an 18 rating. Its not about whether the OS is good or not, its the direction its going and how its going to impact on the industry, and more importantly how its going to impact on us as PC gamers.
Here is an interesting news item from the UK's BBC news site.
lol it only increase security if you leave you pc sitting outside
really dont even see how it can even be considered a security feature
and in reality its well pretty useless
more stuff that serves really no point.
dont fix whats not broken..
it mitigates all kernel space rootkits on the OS.
It's a great feature that implemented on linux distros way before Microsofr got in the picture, and by 3rd party security products.
It's not designed to restrict what OS you can run on your computer, not any more than say a secure bootloader like you have with your full disk encryption suite does, the big difference is that it cannot be bypassed and will actualy prevent attacks that are aimed at emulating the secure boot sequence you use for your enctyption and then writing your password into an unprotected part of your harddrive, removable storage, your BIOS/G.Card BIOS NAND flash ROM or even transmitting it trough bluetooth. I actrually do demonstration of those things as part of my job to new clients pretty much on a daily basis.
Your PC as you know it is dying, if you think that box we all have atm will stay there in 3-4 years you are misstaken, the PC sales for descrete desktop hardware are been droping exponentatily over the last 5 years while Mobile Computing sales sky rocketed.
There is no point of releasing a new OS with out these security feature these days, sorry.
Microsoft wil not close off their desktop OS LOL.. they know its one of the main reasons they have been top of the pile for many years when it comes to desktop and server OS.. If they did it would be like shooting themselves in the head...
Look up Windows RT. They already did it.
windows RT is a tablet/phone based operating system, it cannot be used on a PC, I'm using windows 8 and it runs games better than windows 7. MS might close off their metro app secion but I highly doubt it will close of standard windows.
Microsoft wil not close off their desktop OS LOL.. they know its one of the main reasons they have been top of the pile for many years when it comes to desktop and server OS.. If they did it would be like shooting themselves in the head...
Look up Windows RT. They already did it.
windows RT is a tablet/phone based operating system, it cannot be used on a PC, I'm using windows 8 and it runs games better than windows 7. MS might close off their metro app secion but I highly doubt it will close of standard windows.
An outright zealous lie. I've compared both win7 & win8, and neither does better than the other. That is because win8 is win7 but with a LOT more closed-endedness to it. Imagine Windows7 on an iPad, that is Windows8 but forced onto PC users as the next iteration for PC platform.
Go look up the benchmarks already done for Windows7 vs 8 in terms of gaming.
I have done game benches in both W8 and W7, they're mostly the same, any differences are in the 1-2%, from what I understand the W7 kernel is the W8 kernel with very minor tweaks.
Originally posted by CalmOceans I have done game benches in both W8 and W7, they're mostly the same, any differences are in the 1-2%, from what I understand the W7 kernel is the W8 kernel with very minor tweaks.
Actually it's not, Vista and Windows 7 on the other hand are pretty much identical, Windows 7 is Windows Mojave done on a full scale.
There is quite little difference in perfromance and usability between Windows Vista SP2, and Windows 7, Vista caused the hardware specs of an average PC to sky rockets, when it came out there were still selling computers with 1024, and even 512MB of ram, when SP2 came out and Windows 7 shortly after it was hard to find a computer with less than 2GB of RAM, and mos of them were sold with 4. Add to that the unlocking of the UI refresh rate from 30FPS to 60, and Microsoft writing writing generic drivers for over 150,000 devices them selves to prevent any hardware compatibilty issues and you get windows 7.
Originally posted by CalmOceans I have done game benches in both W8 and W7, they're mostly the same, any differences are in the 1-2%, from what I understand the W7 kernel is the W8 kernel with very minor tweaks.
Actually it's not
You going to tell me what my own gaming performance is like now? I did the benchmarks and the previous poster and me are right.
i was not talking about gaming performance and frankly i dont care about your FPS in games was was talking about the nonsense you were saying in regards that Windows 7 and 8 being identical.
i was not talking about gaming performance and frankly i dont care about your FPS in games was was talking about the nonsense you were saying in regards that Windows 7 and 8 being identical.
you responded to this from me in response to gaming benches:
"I have done game benches in both W8 and W7, they're mostly the same,"
The whole "getting certified" deal for gaming companies and the direction of leading it to having games NEED certifications to be ran on a system. Anything of speccs or any of those detail are trivial, the main issue comes from essencially making it so independant games in particular are tethered and over-all having yet another way should it go all the way through for microsoft to net cash off game developers.
I have played a few games on win 8 but my cousin has been using it exclusivly for a while now and every game he plays has worked fine.. GW2, WoW blah blah blah, so I'm guessing most games made in tha last 10 years or so would work fine.. People are just bugging out
Comments
My main issue isn't related to the OS itself, it's related to Windows 8 Secure boot.
Secure boot prevents rootkits from launching on boot, for example someone plugging a USB drive in a PC at a workplace. Secure boot hardware will ask for a key, if the OS can provide the right key it's allowed to boot, if it's not the PC will simply not boot.
For Microsoft it's easy to enforce this for PC manufacturers, if someone wants to sell a Windows 8 PC, they will need secure boot for Windows, locking every other OS down (for example, some Windows 8 PC can not boot Windows XP in early tests, it doesn't provide the right key, the hardware won't let it boot, mind you this is on specific Windows 8 certified hardware which isn't commercially available yet).
Now comes the issue, Linux, which has far less hardware contacts and far less money, will have a much harder time getting a signed key than Microsoft, which means running Windows 8 alongside Linux could become a lot trickier, although many distros are working to find solutions around this issue.
making it a closed platform would be illegal, because they dont manufacture the PCs themselves. Apple can do it because its not only their software, but also their hardware. They make their own computers.
If Microsoft pushes a OS on 'MY' computer that doesnt allow me to install and run whatever I want, then they are violating the law. They have been down this road before and it didnt end well for them, so I dont think it will be a closed platform at all.
Microsoft has renamed brands before. Windows 8 RT has changed to just Windows RT for ARM processors.
http://www.microsoft.com/global/surface/en/us/renderingassets/surfacespecsheet.pdf
Cheers.
Nonsense, Secureboot has nothing to do with Microsoft, its a feature of UEFI not windows, Windows 8 is just the first OS that supports it. It is very simmilar to how bootloaders are locked for CellPhones, you can only boot an OS which was signed by a recognized certificate. It is only enforced on Windows 8 RT to bot to increase security of tablets, and in order to avoid companies releasing Tablets for Windows 8 RT that will end up running pirated copies since Windows 8 RT does not need to be activated by the end user. Microsoft cannot force you as a PC owner in any way to user Secure Boot, you have control over the BIOS of your motherboard and can enable or disable both UEFI boot in general and Secure Boot option in the bios.
Secure Boot in general is great, and i have it on all of my linux machines at work
Allot of enterpises are using this feature for several years now the only difference is that they had to use 3rd party bootloaders(those that usually came witht their FDE solution) and either buy completly managed workstations, management addon cards, or additional 3rd party sofware to manage their UEFI firmware settings.
Now they can do it all in house, in a single intergraded product with no extra costs.
Not nonsense, Windows 8 hardware that wants to be certified will need to support secure boot and enable it, it is very much a Windows 8 thing and it is enforced by no one else than Microsoft.
UEFI is on most hardware but secure boot is disabled, UEFI is more than just secure boot, and no one else but Microsoft is responsible for enforcing secure boot on Windows 8 hardware and tablets.
To say this has nothing to do with Microsoft is very dishonest of you, Microsoft decided to use Secure Boot for Windows 8, not Intel.
Microsoft has also decided not to reach out to the Linux community and offers no support whatsoever on how to go around secure boot if one wants to install a different operating system, hiding behind the cloud of security while conveniently allowing no one to install another OS unless they jump through hoops.
It is also not just a tablet thing as you make it out to be, every PC that wants to be Windows 8 certified will need to support and enable secure boot. There are already certified windows 8 PC out there that can not dual boot XP and Windows 8, and the reason is that the hardware enables secure boot.
Yes nonsense, if you do not enable secure boot in your firmware, and it is not enforuced by the software policy of the OS which is USER CONFIGURABLE(via thelocal/group policy security settings) you do not have secure boot for your system.
And BTW the Windows Logo program for hardware for Windows 8 Desktop does not require you to have a secure boot supported firmware, just like it does not require you to have TPM for bitlocker on windows 7. Only Windows 8 RT devices are required to have secure boot enabled, but those are ARM based tablets not PC's.
Microsoft desided to support Secure Boot , and did a great job of implementing it if you have a mobile device(phone, tablet, laptop) with out secure boot and full disk encryption, especially at your workplace you are clueless about what security practices are like these days.
Windows 8 certified hardware (which will be the hardware the everyday person buys, your standard Dell / HP / Alienware stuff), are required to have Secure Boot enabled by default or they are not allowed to be certified and can not ship Windows 8 OEM PC.
It is not a user choice at all at that point, and you will need to jump through a lot of hoops to get another OS on there as it's not as simple as flipping a button, you need a signed EFI key to launch unsiged operating systems like Linux.
its not just bad for gaming its bad for computer industry
can list details but most have already been pointed out
microsoft is now apple and apple well
likes to think they made everything
including wheels right.
notice how there no crap going on between microsoft and apple
wonder why that is..
gonna be nice having a bunch of locked down boxes. that to change anything you gotta jump through hoops.
It can be disabled, im dual booting Windows 8 with Sabayon Linux as we speak, i have windows 8 Installed(MSDN Final) on 4 devices which do not have UEFI.
Find somthing else to grind your axe about, Secure Boot is a great feature that enchances the security of your system greatly.
I wonder how much witch hunting you went on when canonical desided to switch to EFIlinux for Secure boot support , as did many sonsored linux distros such as Red Hat, and SUSE... Oh and GRUB2 will soon have Seucre Boot support too.
Secure Boot does not prevent you from running other OS's it prevents you from running unsigned OS and bootloaders, microsoft does not control the digital signatures, and the FSF has it's own private key hirarcy as specified in the UEFI standards.
lol it only increase security if you leave you pc sitting outside
really dont even see how it can even be considered a security feature
and in reality its well pretty useless
more stuff that serves really no point.
dont fix whats not broken..
This^
Windows8 will not be adapted for this very reason.
it mitigates all kernel space rootkits on the OS.
It's a great feature that implemented on linux distros way before Microsofr got in the picture, and by 3rd party security products.
It's not designed to restrict what OS you can run on your computer, not any more than say a secure bootloader like you have with your full disk encryption suite does, the big difference is that it cannot be bypassed and will actualy prevent attacks that are aimed at emulating the secure boot sequence you use for your enctyption and then writing your password into an unprotected part of your harddrive, removable storage, your BIOS/G.Card BIOS NAND flash ROM or even transmitting it trough bluetooth. I actrually do demonstration of those things as part of my job to new clients pretty much on a daily basis.
Your PC as you know it is dying, if you think that box we all have atm will stay there in 3-4 years you are misstaken, the PC sales for descrete desktop hardware are been droping exponentatily over the last 5 years while Mobile Computing sales sky rocketed.
There is no point of releasing a new OS with out these security feature these days, sorry.
windows RT is a tablet/phone based operating system, it cannot be used on a PC, I'm using windows 8 and it runs games better than windows 7. MS might close off their metro app secion but I highly doubt it will close of standard windows.
An outright zealous lie. I've compared both win7 & win8, and neither does better than the other. That is because win8 is win7 but with a LOT more closed-endedness to it. Imagine Windows7 on an iPad, that is Windows8 but forced onto PC users as the next iteration for PC platform.
Go look up the benchmarks already done for Windows7 vs 8 in terms of gaming.
Actually it's not, Vista and Windows 7 on the other hand are pretty much identical, Windows 7 is Windows Mojave done on a full scale.
There is quite little difference in perfromance and usability between Windows Vista SP2, and Windows 7, Vista caused the hardware specs of an average PC to sky rockets, when it came out there were still selling computers with 1024, and even 512MB of ram, when SP2 came out and Windows 7 shortly after it was hard to find a computer with less than 2GB of RAM, and mos of them were sold with 4. Add to that the unlocking of the UI refresh rate from 30FPS to 60, and Microsoft writing writing generic drivers for over 150,000 devices them selves to prevent any hardware compatibilty issues and you get windows 7.
You going to tell me what my own gaming performance is like now? I did the benchmarks and the previous poster and me are right.
Here check for yourself from zdnet:
techspot:
i was not talking about gaming performance and frankly i dont care about your FPS in games was was talking about the nonsense you were saying in regards that Windows 7 and 8 being identical.
you responded to this from me in response to gaming benches:
"I have done game benches in both W8 and W7, they're mostly the same,"
Don't put words in my mouth please.
It is yes.
k, why do i argue with trolls
The whole "getting certified" deal for gaming companies and the direction of leading it to having games NEED certifications to be ran on a system. Anything of speccs or any of those detail are trivial, the main issue comes from essencially making it so independant games in particular are tethered and over-all having yet another way should it go all the way through for microsoft to net cash off game developers.
I have played a few games on win 8 but my cousin has been using it exclusivly for a while now and every game he plays has worked fine.. GW2, WoW blah blah blah, so I'm guessing most games made in tha last 10 years or so would work fine.. People are just bugging out