Miniaturization is for the small-minded.
Posted on 01/15/2012 7:20:38 AM PST by ShadowAce
At the beginning of December, we warned the Copyright Office that operating system vendors would use UEFI
secure boot anticompetitively, by colluding with hardware partners to exclude alternative operating systems. As Glyn Moody points out, Microsoft has wasted no time in revising its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.
The Certification Requirements define (on page 116) a "custom" secure boot mode, in which a physically present user can add signatures for alternative operating systems to the system's signature database, allowing the system to boot those operating systems. But for ARM devices, Custom Mode is prohibited: "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable." [sic] Nor will users have the choice to simply disable secure boot, as they will on non-ARM systems: "Disabling Secure [Boot] MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems." [sic] Between these two requirements, any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot.
While UEFI secure boot is ostensibly about protecting user security, these non-standard restrictions have nothing to do with security. For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled—a perverse demand if Custom Mode is a security threat. But the ARM market is different for Microsoft in three important respects:
The new policy betrays the cynicism of Microsoft's initial response to concerns over Windows 8's secure boot requirement. When kernel hacker Matthew Garrett expressed his concern that PCs shipped with Windows 8 might prevent the installation of GNU/Linux and other free operating systems, Microsoft's Tony Mangefeste replied, "Microsoft’s philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves." It is clear now that opportunism, not philosophy, is guiding Microsoft's secure boot policy.
Before this week, this policy might have concerned only Windows Phone customers. But just yesterday, Qualcomm announced plans to produce Windows 8 tablets and ultrabook-style laptops built around its ARM-based Snapdragon processors. Unless Microsoft changes its policy, these may be the first PCs ever produced that can never run anything but Windows, no matter how Qualcomm feels about limiting its customers' choices. SFLC predicted in our comments to the Copyright Office that misuse of UEFI secure boot would bring such restrictions, already common on smartphones, to PCs. Between Microsoft's new ARM secure boot policy and Qualcomm's announcement, this worst-case scenario is beginning to look inevitable.
You guys are stuck in the 90s. The Home PC is very soon going to be the size of an average hardback dictionary. The ATX form factor is toast.
There’s no need for miniaturization in PCs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Miniaturization is what created the PC in the first place. Its not going to stop there.
I’m not stuck in the 90s, I’m understanding reality. The specific ATX form factor might go away, but it’ll be supplanted by something basically the same size, much like how it replaced the AT. It’s cheap, it’s a convenient size and it has lots of room for stuff. There’s no reason to shrink to the size of a dictionary, and 1 really big reason to avoid shrinking dramatically: cost. Larger is cheaper than smaller. Just compare the cost of PC hardware vs the equivalent powered laptop hardware. To make the same power smaller costs more. And there’s always going to be that market for buck bang vs size bang. Tower computers go under the desk, nobody really cares what size they are, they’re already small enough to be out of the way.
Miniaturization “created” the PC by getting it down from a room size to a desk size. But since hitting desk size PC computers have remained basically the same size. Once it shrunk down to a size that was convenient there’s no reason to shrink further.
Well - there is ONE BIG DIFFERENCE between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft is a convicted Monopolist... Apple isn’t...yet. Microsoft was found guilty of using it’s market power to kill other companies. It’s happened multiple times. They also cheat. Ever heard of “Stacker” versus Doubledos. How about DR DOS. Yes this goes back a long way, but here we go again.
They are behaving in exactly the same old way. Instead of competing they are using under-handed manipulation behind the scenes to avoid having to compete. They talk about “innovation” but instead prefer underhanded deals like this.
If you want more info - try groklaw.net and look at the articles there covering the Barnes and Noble vs Nokia/Microsoft litigation.
Miniaturization is for the small-minded.
Riiiight.
That’s why they never bothered to improve on the CRT style television. That’s why radios never got smaller than a set of encyclopedias. That’s why we still use 5-1/4” floppy disks. That’s why we still use full height hard drives that fill a whole drive bay.
And by the way, the ATX form factor is already obsolete. We’ve been using the micro and mini ATX for years now and that will soon be obsolete too. The mini ITX will probably be the next standard size.
1. People HAVE complained about it.
2. Apple is much more of a "brand" than Windows is, and users tend to lean more toward what you'd call a "devotee" or a "disciple" than general OS users, most of whom are running MS products. Those people don't complain because their choices have been limited to the only choice most of them would make anyway.
3. That having been said, you're right. We can just view Windows phones as walled gardens (as confining as an iPhone but without the quality) and vote with our feet and dollars. That's what I did when buying my last phone, for example.
If miniaturization is such an important thing for PCs then why is it the standard sized tower that’s under my desk is actually bigger than the Apple II+ I owned many moons ago?
The answer is: miniaturization ISN’T an important thing for PCs. Once things got small enough for there to PCs that was as small as we needed it.
Saying its toast doesn’t make it so. Famous last words and all. Back it up with a reasoned analysis. You can make the case for a good reduction but not over all replacement. Reminds me of when they said computers will do away with paper.
That’s an all in gamble by Microsoft.
If the Linux and Android OS for ARM Snapdragon devices is both cheaper and quicker than Win 8 Mobile, it will force Microsoft to give the OS away for free to compete.
On top of that, the manufacturers have little reason to sign up to be captive to the MS universe.
These new netbooks are aiming at down market solutions, I don’t see manufacturers paying even US$10/unit for Win8 when trying to sell tablets/netbooks for US$180 in India/China/Brasil.
The few programs that are Windows specific, like Offise Suite, are above the price point for the intended audience of these ARM netbooks.
This change is an admission of defeat by MS, they lost to Meego/StarOffice/Lenovo.
The lockdown on ARm processors started with the ill fated Zune HD.
MS is tripling down on the failed policies of the Zune line.
This is bogus. Microsoft created the huge PC market, and they were punished for success. Other companies used the courts to try to get a competitive advantage they couldn't get in the marketplace.
Well, sort of.
It was Microsoft that "innovated" the idea of using vendor contracts to lock out competitors, and build its quasi-monopoly.
Then, many years later, a few competitors tried to use the legal system for revenge.
Buggy whips, ice boxes, the Edsel, Gimbel's, AMC.
Markets change. Companies fail.
Many years ago, the plasterers accepted the plaster gun in order to compete with drywall. Too late.
Change is the only constant.
There is such a thing as a 'natural monopoly' and it is not bad. Utilities are the best example. Public monopolies are considered OK, but private monopolies are considered bad. Microsoft created a new industry. There are many alternatives to what they provide. I think it is sad that so many 'free market' people want to use government to destroy a company that created a uniquely innovative industry.
UEFI has a hardware TPM that 'measures' (cryptographically checksums) the BIOS. If the measurement fails it won't execute the BIOS.
Part of the measurement is a secret key known only to Microsoft.
Let's say that after years of research and significant investment, you discovered a way to use dilithium crystals to turn water into gasoline. Should you be forced to share the technology?
Why do only two people know the formula for Coke?
Don’t let yourself get confused with facts. I mentioned several different places where Microsoft used it’s Monopoly power to screw other companies. Microsoft avoided competition by employing it’s monopoly. Pure and simple.
I’ve been in the computer industry for over 30 years. I’ve been a PC owner, and had at least one of every Micrsoft OS since Dos 1.0. They closed out competition unfairly - they got spanked for cheating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.