"Why I pirate" - Extreme Tech Article

[Kiyoshi Aman]

Tip: learn to read.

...You're telling me to learn to read...when UEFI is a. a BIOS b. a replacement of the traditional PC BIOS c. you're stating that Win8 will push UEFI to the masses.

All I did was point out that UEFI was already available to the masses. Here's what you may have missed: Windows 7 already supports UEFI. So does Linux, for that matter.

All Windows 8 does that 7 does not is mandate secure boot. That's it. That's all. It's a pretty huge deal, mind you, because Microsoft is doing some pretty nasty shit in their specifications to vendors (primarily the 'no user-editable secure boot on ARM' bullshit), but Microsoft is also mandating that the UEFI implementations shipped by vendors intended to comply with Win8 requirements will be decent UEFI implementations.

I'm sorry, did I blow your mind just now?

[Panzer88]

No you didnt. What percentage of PCs do retailers ship with UEFI right with now (WalMart, best buy)

a very low percentage.

In the next year or two that is going to change dramatically.

As I already said, its not about the availability of UEFI, its that BIOS is finally on its way out. availability of win8 and win8 hardware will accelerate this.

The win8 arm lockout is no news to me. I'm sure the community will promptly jailbreak these devices.

[Kiyoshi Aman]

Jailbreaking isn't going to make it possible to install your own OS on Win8 tablets, no matter how much you try.

[Deathlike2]

No you didnt. What percentage of PCs do retailers ship with UEFI right with now (WalMart, best buy)

a very low percentage.

More than you think.

In the next year or two that is going to change dramatically.

You're a little behind the 8-ball here.  I suggest you look up when UEFI mobos started to be the norm. Hint: Even before Win7, it existed.

What you have noticed is that mobo BIOSes suck a lot less recently. That doesn't mean the fundamental backend didn't exist prior to that.

As I already said, its not about the availability of UEFI, its that BIOS is finally on its way out. availability of win8 and win8 hardware will accelerate this.

I don't think that'll stop people from holding on to Win7 for dear life, like XP. I'm pretty confident in this statement.

[Corsair]

The sexual tension in this thread is -tremendous-.

an idiot when his bias turns on.

I think that describes -most- people, actually.

[Panzer88]

More than you think.

I work in retail, where I work there isn't a single system that uses UEFI. I'm speaking from experience. Sure you can buy them on newegg, but for the average consumer it's a very small niche.

You're a little behind the 8-ball here. 

as I said above, it's virtually non existent in average pc retail, in a year or two, it will be the standard. It's like USB 3, USB 3 was released in 2008, but you didn't see a lot of USB 3 products hit retail until last year.

PCIe 3.0 was made available in 2010, but it wasn't until January 9, 2012 that the first PCIe 3.0 video card was released.

[Deathlike2]

I work in retail, where I work there isn't a single system that uses UEFI. I'm speaking from experience. Sure you can buy them on newegg, but for the average consumer it's a very small niche.

I believe you are making the mistake thinking that it isn't in use. I'm not a fan of wikipedia, but the basic stuff that is required for compatibility is already there (within a limited subset). Every modern machine has it. You are actually citing the GUI aspect of a modern UEFI BIOS which is becoming more prevalent. That is the mistake you are making. I'm not saying UEFI has been around for a long time, but it's more of a slow systematic progress.

Although, I'm probably citing more EFI than UEFI, but the point stands that there have been movement on that front for a while. Just because it's not obvious to you doesn't mean it's not happening. Then again Macs had this before PCs, so to say this concept hasn't been slowly progressing is not due diligence.

as I said above, it's virtually non existent in average pc retail, in a year or two, it will be the standard. It's like USB 3, USB 3 was released in 2008, but you didn't see a lot of USB 3 products hit retail until last year.

PCIe 3.0 was made available in 2010, but it wasn't until January 9, 2012 that the first PCIe 3.0 video card was released.

I'm fully aware that any actual advances in technology (in the form of official news) is always implemented waaaaay later than the original proposal date. Some of us still wonder why some standards are already behind when new developments have been announced (like the new SATA specs).

[Panzer88]

there is no question that the tech has been around for awhile, and of course used exclusively in Macs for a long time. I was just trying to draw the distinction between what is out there, and what is coming to windows PCs in the future, this includes the new GUI aspects, as well as a slew of other new features, like even quicker booting, etc.

I was wrong in implying that it didn't exist before. What I was trying to emphasize is that something new is coming that is doing away with the old pre-OS experience, and it's going to be something that is showcased, where it wasn't showcased much before. Much like USB 3.0 devices, even once the first devices started to trickle out, it's still barely being publicized, and ironically enough, even though it CERTAINLY has been mainstream for awhile, the Win8 blog is touting improved USB 3.0 handling like it's some brand new thing.

but yes, I know when I've miss misstepped, good points Deathlike2.

[Deathlike2]

All Windows 8 does that 7 does not is mandate secure boot. That's it. That's all. It's a pretty huge deal, mind you, because Microsoft is doing some pretty nasty shit in their specifications to vendors (primarily the 'no user-editable secure boot on ARM' bullshit), but Microsoft is also mandating that the UEFI implementations shipped by vendors intended to comply with Win8 requirements will be decent UEFI implementations.

The stuff in italic bold is not entirely correct. It's limited to ARM based systems... which simply means at the moment that you can't change the OS in a smartphone. This has traditionally been the case with these things in the first place. I don't think it is something to lose sleep over (although I'm sure people want to mess with that), but Secure Boot as an overall concept is actually very important when it comes to blocking malware from injecting itself into the OS. When it comes to jailbreaking phones or creating your own "Hackintosh", the primary method has been to mess with the boot loader. It kinda depends on how you feel on the matter.

The problem is that the UEFI codebase sounds very much like ACPI... it is a big huge mess...

Edit: I see that ARM will be used in some tablets... I guess that would be annoying. I'm not sure what the cost difference that would exist between an ARM and a corresponding x86 tablet, but possibly losing out on the energy savings on an ARM based system would suck... but I don't think it is the end of the world if you are stuck with an x86 tablet (especially when there doesn't seem to be a Secure Boot restriction on that).

[Kiyoshi Aman]

Windows 8 will mandate secure boot; on x86 machines, however, it can be booted into a non-secure mode so that new boot loaders may be installed. Conversely, the spec mandates that ARM devices cannot be booted into a non-secure mode. (You don't have to take my word for it, either; it's in the spec Microsoft published for hardware vendors.)

As for UEFI... UEFI intentionally leaves a lot of room for the implementer to do whatever they want, which includes the ability to act like a legacy PC BIOS (including no restrictions on presentation, hence the mostly stealthy transition away from legacy PC BIOSes). This is in large part the reason why Microsoft published a specification for what they want out of UEFI BIOSes: they want a consistent interface across all UEFI implementations intended to be compatible with Windows 8. With that consistent interface also comes the ability for Linux to more effectively target UEFI.

This is also why the no-configurable-secure-boot-on-ARM clause is such a bitch.

[Deathlike2]

I believe Win8 will mandate secure boot to "just work" for newer machines (as a requirement for them, it'll be enabled by default, so it has to work obviously), but it's not a mandate to be available on current machines. The requirements seem to be similar to Win7, so machines that don't have it aren't required.

I don't think there will be a major problem with regards to UEFI implementations unless the firmware in use is operating on the older libraries. As I understand it, they are basically tweaking the original Intel implementation.. so it is kinda hard to mess this up (outside of the bugs within the UEFI implementation that Intel wrote themselves).

Is it that dramatic that we need Linux on ARM, despite that fact that x86 tablets can still run w/o Secure Boot? (Outside of the fact that people want to run a different OS, there needs to be a more compelling reason than just that.)

[ded302]

I still use Windows XP to this day and it does everything I need it to do. If they want to get more conservative, I will find a good Linux Distro and run Windows XP on some kind of free virtual machine. I'll have to do it with a lot of ram though.

[Kiyoshi Aman]

Is it that dramatic that we need Linux on ARM, despite that fact that x86 tablets can still run w/o Secure Boot? (Outside of the fact that people want to run a different OS, there needs to be a more compelling reason than just that.)

Yes, actually; to my knowledge, no existent tablet (outside of the iPads) cannot load and run arbitrary OSes; for instance, HP TouchPads run Android just fine. The ability to load your own OS to hardware you bought is, IMO, essential to maintain a competitive environment.

[Deathlike2]

Yes, actually; to my knowledge, no existent tablet (outside of the iPads) cannot load and run arbitrary OSes; for instance, HP TouchPads run Android just fine. The ability to load your own OS to hardware you bought is, IMO, essential to maintain a competitive environment.

I suspect that Apple will eventually join the Secure Boot movement (if they haven't declared that already) just to avoid people jailbreaking their devices.

Anyways, the stuff highlighted in bold is not ever really true when it comes down to traditionally locked down platforms. The competitive environment has always been between different phones and tablets, not as much the operating system on it (it is a still a factor obviously). If the argument was more to add/improve the condition of the OS for a tablet (like DD-WRT is an improvement for crappy router firmware), that I can't complain about. Mind you, I'm not a fan of locked down platforms, but it is traditional preference by the manufacturer for these platforms to be locked down (what other option do you have really?). Obviously this shouldn't be dictated by MS. If you really wanted option of OSes, one would have to make a compelling argument to the manufacturers that would make it profitable to them. Outside of that, it's not a good argument.

Edit: I like options, but to say that we must have this feature when x86 tablets are not restricted by this is kinda silly. Understandably this would be useful for tablets that won't be upgradeable to the latest version of the default OS... but this argument when it comes to $$$ doesn't hold much water. It is very like saying you want to buy a PS3 to run Linux on it. Admittedly this is not a good analogy, but the primary selling point of a tablet is its features (screen, controls, battery power) in combination with the OS. Allowing one to put Linux on it doesn't necessarily increase sales by much unless... it is compellingly profitable. I almost feel like this is becoming a discussion of the Mac vs PCs back in the old days....

[Kiyoshi Aman]

Apple doesn't use UEFI on their tablets and media players, actually; like other ARM devices, they use secure boot ROMs. Thusly, they already use 'secure boot'—just not in the UEFI sense, since they don't use UEFI.

Regardless, Win8 opens up the possibility for there to be a standard stack for tablets. I feel it's anticompetitive for Microsoft to expressly forbid disabling secure boot—Apple's stack is also anticompetitive, frankly, but nobody cares cos iPads are awesome. Sure, Android tablets exist, but they've mostly been lackluster and, in any case, with Microsoft entering the arena people are going to want to buy Microsoft-approved tablets instead, which will eventually make Win8 dominant among non-Apple tablets.

[Deathlike2]

Regardless, Win8 opens up the possibility for there to be a standard stack for tablets. I feel it's anticompetitive for Microsoft to expressly forbid disabling secure boot—Apple's stack is also anticompetitive, frankly, but nobody cares cos iPads are awesome.

You can't just make an exception to just MS, especially when there has virtually been no exception for others, including Apple and Google. It's not good to pick and choose these things, especially when it comes to biases.

Sure, Android tablets exist, but they've mostly been lackluster and, in any case, with Microsoft entering the arena people are going to want to buy Microsoft-approved tablets instead, which will eventually make Win8 dominant among non-Apple tablets.

Well, considering Android tablets has an important chunk of the market (go figure on the actual comparisons), it's hard to ignore them in the conversation... even if you do feel they are meh.

My hunch says that Win8 will have some issues, whether it be on the PC side or for their version on the phone (and people are already complaining about the Win8 interface). It doesn't follow in the gradual progression of these things, like Apple had done with their OS and mobile devices. There's still a pretty damn good chance that Win8 will be more like Win98 or Vista... the second version will be far better at integrating this stuff. Subsequently, that might change their stance on the secure boot restriction... when their products aren't selling well. Dominance? Instead, I smell fail.

[Kiyoshi Aman]

You can't just make an exception to just MS, especially when there has virtually been no exception for others, including Apple and Google. It's not good to pick and choose these things, especially when it comes to biases.

The exception was not mine to make, so don't go pinning it on me.

Well, considering Android tablets has an important chunk of the market (go figure on the actual comparisons), it's hard to ignore them in the conversation... even if you do feel they are meh.

The problem with non-Apple tablets is that they all keep trying to compete with Apple on the things Apple does best, rather than trying to differentiate themselves. Consequently, nobody sane would buy an Android tablet unless they have a serious kink on for Android or think the pricetag's worth it.

My hunch says that Win8 will have some issues, whether it be on the PC side or for their version on the phone (and people are already complaining about the Win8 interface). It doesn't follow in the gradual progression of these things, like Apple had done with their OS and mobile devices. There's still a pretty damn good chance that Win8 will be more like Win98 or Vista... the second version will be far better at integrating this stuff. Subsequently, that might change their stance on the secure boot restriction... when their products aren't selling well. Dominance? Instead, I smell fail.

Metro is mostly okay, at least from a tablet standpoint. I'm not going to make a serious judgement call 'til the Consumer Preview comes out next Wednesday, though.