Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bridgemanusa
bridgemanusa wrote:
So.. if you don’t want Windows 8, just don’t buy it. Right? I don’t see anything wrong here.

It's not that simple. After Microsoft releases Windows 8, most new computers will be produced with it preinstalled and most hardware manufacturers don't sell a naked laptop. So, if you want to buy a new computer you'll almost certainly have to get one with Windows 8 preinstalled. Thus, with this new mechanism, Microsoft accomplishes two things.

First, it makes it hard for "grandma" to install an alternative operating system. Additionally, when "grandma" tries to install an alternative OS, all "grandma" will know is that it "doesn't work". Since "grandma" doesn't know or understand the technical reason why, "grandma" will associate the alternative OS not working as being a deficiency in the OS itself which will more firmly entrench Windows in "grandma's" mind as the OS that works.

The second accomplishment is that if Microsoft "convinces" hardware manufacturers to disable the ability for the user to disable this "protection" they essentially guarantee their continued monopoly in the OS space and can continue to leverage that monopoly into other software spaces. With Microsoft's difficulties in the OS space and the continued move toward applications being web-based and OS-neutral, you can be certain that Microsoft will apply substantial pressure on hardware makers to "convince" them to lock the user out from being able to load his or her own OS onto the new hardware. Thus, we could see Microsoft return to the questionable practices from the '80s and '90s which enabled it to gain its monopoly in the OS space to begin with.

Regardless, it prevents users from enjoying the control over the hardware that they bought. For example, say a user wants to stay with Microsoft OSes and wants to buy and install Windows 9 when it comes out. If the user is locked out from installing new OSes with this new "protection", he won't be able to do so. Rather, he will have to buy a new machine with Windows 9 preinstalled.

19 posted on 09/23/2011 12:03:20 PM PDT by Channeling Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Channeling Locke
Regardless, it prevents users from enjoying the control over the hardware that they bought. For example, say a user wants to stay with Microsoft OSes and wants to buy and install Windows 9 when it comes out. If the user is locked out from installing new OSes with this new "protection", he won't be able to do so. Rather, he will have to buy a new machine with Windows 9 preinstalled.

I doubt that MS would not include a mechanism in Win8 to allow future releases to be installed. What WOULD happen, however, is if you decided that Win8 sucked and wanted to go back to Win7 or XP, you are screwed.

21 posted on 09/23/2011 12:17:03 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (When you've only heard lies your entire life, the truth sounds insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Channeling Locke

Well then.. couldn’t “grandma” just “roll her own”?

:-)


24 posted on 09/23/2011 12:32:10 PM PDT by bridgemanusa (loan MA Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Channeling Locke
But Bill is just looking to make sure you have a wonderful "Microsoft Experience".

He doesn't want your perfect experience to be threatened by viruses and worms such as Linux. /sarc

26 posted on 09/23/2011 3:38:09 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson