[sf-lug] Microsoft trying to shut out dual-booting machines with UEFI...

[Dan Murphy]

Central Computer???

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Brian Morris <cymraegish at gmail.com> wrote:
> Computer store on Howard St sells no OS boxes with a credit. Zareason pricy
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 25, 2011, Christian Einfeldt <einfeldt at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> there are several vendors that sell machines without Microsoft software on
>> them, most notably, Zareason, which is right over in Berkeley.  They are a
>> family owned business who derive all (ALL!) of their income from selling
>> Linux machines.  Let's help get the word out for them!
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Alex Kleider <a_kleider at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The question then becomes: Will there be any non sticker-ed boxes to buy?
>>
>> a_kleider at yahoo.com
>> ________________________________
>> From: Wladyslaw Zbikowski <embeddedlinuxguy at gmail.com>
>> To: Jeff Bragg <jackofnotrades at gmail.com>
>> Cc: sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Microsoft trying to shut out dual-booting machines
>> with UEFI...
>>
>> My impression is that this has nothing to do with Windows 8 per se; it
>> has to do with what hardware vendors are required to do to get an
>> official "Windows 8" sticker from Microsoft. In other words, the same
>> kind of trick Microsoft pulled in the 90s when they told OEMs to
>> install (or at least pay for) Windows on every box they made, in order
>> to sell any Windows boxes:
>>
>> Microsoft has induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per
>> processor" contracts for MS-DOS and Windows, even though many would
>> prefer to preserve their freedom to offer PCs with non-Microsoft
>> operating systems.
>>
>> http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm
>>
>> The difference here is, vendors can still sell non-Microsoft boxes;
>> they just can't put a "Windows 8" sticker on them. So just don't buy a
>> box with a "Windows 8" sticker.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jeff Bragg <jackofnotrades at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Good question, to which I have no good answer.  My suspicion is it will
>>> depend on the virtualization software (whether it's implementing
>>> emulation
>>> the the expected firmware).  I can't imagine it would serve MS' interests
>>> to
>>> squash virtualization of Windows as a side-effect of being spiteful to
>>> competing OSes.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, David Rosenstrauch <darose at darose.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/22/2011 03:57 PM, Jeff Bragg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Incentive for me to continue to steer clear of MS Windows entirely (or
>>>>> only
>>>>> virtualized).
>>>>
>>>> Which actually brings up another point:  wouldn't this change make it
>>>> impossible (or very difficult) to run Windows 8 as a VM?
>>>>
>>>> DR
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sf-lug mailing list
>>>> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
>>>> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>>>> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sf-lug mailing list
>>> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
>>> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
>>> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>>>
>>
>> ______________________
>>
>> --
>> Christian Einfeldt,
>> Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
>>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>