It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The true conspiracy about Microsoft, PC Manufacturers and Linux

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:48 AM
The new Microsoft Windows 8 systems that come preinstalled on a new computer have a special feature - a feature no other PC has ever had. By default they are locked down so you cannot dual boot Windows 8 with another operating system such as Linux or even older versions of Windows such as Windows XP and Windows 7.

Dual booting is a popular thing to do for many PC users because it allows them the ability to use the right applications they need to get the job done if those applications are not found on Windows 8 alone. Dual booting is also used in companies that require workers use multiple operating system platforms or home users and students to try out and learn about other operating systems. Many of these operating systems are faster than Windows and have other features Windows does not have, as well as there are things Windows does better than these operating systems like AAA Gaming.

The reason Windows 8 will not dual boot is because Microsoft has insisted that their PC manufacturer partners like HP and Dell ship with a new type of bios called UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) and it's feature called Secure Boot enabled. Secure Boot acts as a protection feature that is supposed to ensure your system doesn't have any malware at the time of shipping. It works by checking keys in the operating system against hard coded keys in the UEFI. As these keys are signed by Microsoft, the system will not allow any other operating system to boot assuring you have a clean copy of Windows 8. This has never been done before in the PC market and for good reason - PC Manufacturers don't have problems with systems getting malware before they ship. It's all lies by Microsoft to control the users choices.

Many people feel Microsoft has done this on purpose to keep people from using other operating systems. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to write material and train employees of places like Best Buy to trash Linux and other operating systems with lies Microsoft clearly feels threatened by users choosing other operating systems. This is silly because Microsoft Windows has 91.89 percent of the market share for desktop users. It can be nothing else than pure greed in my opinion..

UEFI is buggy and causing lots of problems for many users. I ran into many of these problems learning about it and trying to get my system to work. UEFI is clearly not ready for use today. You can learn about the buggy UEFI and the problems it causes here: EFI and Linux: the future is here, and it's awful - Matthew Garrett - YouTube

My personal journey into Hell began when I purchased a new computer and found I could not dual boot with Linux - something that is a normal & common procedure for any PC. This led me to discover this new UEFI and learn about it. I spent weeks trying to get my computer to dual boot properly with UEFI, talking to Microsoft engineers, professional UEFI software developers, HP tech support and latsly, an HP trouble shooting rep that was a specialist higher than the tech support department.

I was surprised the HP documentation for my PC did not even mention UEFI and how to use it. The tech support division had no clue about using UEFI. Talking to the specialist, I learned some interesting things.

PC's that ship with Windows are cheaper because Microsoft buys a portion of the hardware in exchange for HP offering Windows in the computer. The rep told me all the PC manufacturers and Microsoft have this same agreement. I wanted to know why there was no mention of UEFI in the HP documentation or why the tech support could not help me. The HP rep told me many times during our phone conversation that because they are paid by Microsoft, they adhere to Microsoft's wishes and not make it easy on people to learn about disabling Secure Boot so you can dual boot - something that is required by the manufacturers from Microsoft's own documentation called Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems, found here:

According to this, Microsoft requires the user the ability to disable Secure Boot. Microsoft also requires the user be able to add their own Secure Boot keys or even remove Microsoft's own Secure Boot key if they wished. There is no mention of this in HP's documentation nor did the specialist know why even though HP agreed to this, there was not this user option in the UEFI settings. For instance, If I had another operating system I wanted to dual boot, I should be able to create my own Secure Boot Key and use that to make UEFI's Secure Boot work with my operating system so that it can dual boot with Windows 8. Microsoft says I, the user am supposed to have this ability, but no PC manufacturer I have spoken to put this into thier UEFI settings - Why? They are scratching Microsoft's back.. it's no more than a legal bribe in my opinion. Microsoft says one thing on paper, and tells their OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturers) partners to do the opposite.

There is a solution to this madness however. Most PC's that come shipped with Windows 8 today still have a Legacy Bios version installed in the system. Not all, if you buy an ARM based Windows 8 system you will be out of luck such as the Microsoft Surface tablet but this works for all normal x86, x64 PC's. One may simply uninstall Windows, switch to Legacy Bios mode instead of UEFI (through your bios settings) and then reinstall Windows 8 under Legacy Bios mode. This will allow you to dual boot just like you always have been able to do. This is the best solution because UEFI is buggy - just disabling Secure Boot while remaining in UEFI mode wont help you. These are some of the options I tried with the UEFI software designer and it was found the best solution was not to use UEFI at all.

Just make sure you back up your system data and make the OEM's factory restore disk before you uninstall Windows, so you can use that to reinstall in Legacy Bios mode.

I also recommend not buying any computer from a Microsoft partner such as HP. These folks are doing dirty deals behind your backs and you the user is losing out due to the greed of these companies. I have lost all respect I had for Microsoft and HP now even though I used them for years - no longer. From now on, I'm going to buy elsewhere.

This thread is a remake of a thread I had in the Computer sub forum. That post was removed because I used the same work (my work) I have posted on other forums. I wrote this one from scratch.
edit on 18-2-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:53 AM
Just boot Linux from a USB, problem solved.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Well done John. I'm all for technological advancement, and updating the legacy BIOS, but UEFI is NOT the solution. Microsoft has proven themselves to be the antithesis of computer and operating system advancements that benefit the end user. They love innovation, as long as they get to dictate it. S&F.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:24 AM
In my Op I gave you good reasons not to buy an HP. Now here are good reasons not to buy a Dell.

"Microsoft's $2 billion loan to Dell is a sign that the software maker wants to influence hardware designs in a post-PC world while protecting itself from the growing influence of Linux-based operating systems in mobile devices and servers, according to analysts. As the world's third-largest PC maker, Dell is important to the success of Microsoft's server and PC software. Even though Microsoft's loan does not represent a big part of the total value of the transaction, the software maker does not throw around money lightly and its participation in the deal might be an attempt by the software maker to influence hardware designs in the post-PC world of touch laptops, tablets and smartphones, analysts said. It may also be an attempt to secure the partnership and to stop the PC maker from looking toward alternative operating systems like Linux, analysts said. Dell offers Linux servers and in late November introduced a thin and light XPS 13 laptop with a Linux-based Ubuntu OS, also code-named Project Sputnik. Major PC makers in recent months have also introduced laptops with Chrome OS."

That's a 2 billion dollar bribe to make sure Dell toes the Microsoft company line. And according to that, 2 billion is not all Dell will get.

I'm not going to tell you Linux and other desktop operating systems like PC-BSD Isotope are the greatest things ever but do you really want your computer operating system company and the people who make their hardware in bed together in such a way as to stop user choices? If you don't care about that, ask yourself.. whats the next draconian step going to be?

With Linux and PC-BSD you don't have these problems because they are open source operating systems that is free to all - money and therefore greed don't come into the picture.
edit on 18-2-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:01 PM
This is one of the reasons that I have held onto my XP for so long now. As a person who started on on computers before GUI's even existed - and who has suffered through the Win based nightmares, one after the other. I am very hesitant to abandon what I know to be a stable build and one that I can effectively manipulate to my own tastes.

I've been told Win 7 is as stable as XP but still get almost paranoid thinking about making a move.

Currently I have more than two operating systems existing on unique partitions on this machine. Win XP, a Linux based security auditing build, and my Linux flavor the week, Ubuntu. I tend to move back and forth between the Linux builds as new ones become available. That is one of the things I love about Linux - the vast selection of different versions to try out. They are always evolving and there is almost always a new option to check out and test drive.

That, IMO, is what makes Microsoft feel so threatened by Linux and is probably one of the reasons they are quietly seeking to make using Linux too complicated for the average PC user. For a long time they didn't have to worry as Linux was only for power users. But now? Now many smart phone and tablet users could download Ubuntu onto their PC's and realize that they're already familiar with the interface and software.

Microsoft has never been very good at hiding their monopolistic intentions. Just Google "Netscape" to see how brazen they can be when they want to.

Great thread. S&F.

edit on 2/18/13 by Hefficide because: grammar

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:55 PM
I did migration of all services from Win2000 server to Linux. It was pure HELL. M$ really do everything to stop you from such migration. It starts with pure implementation of standards (ask some html coder what he is thinking about M$ Explorer!), continue through non-existent or childish documentation and ends with proprietary "standards". I learned M$ networking from reverse engineered Samba implementation of SMB protocol. Why? Because there is no real documentation from M$.
I worked on Windows for some 15 years. I moved to Linux and was kissed by Freedom. Do not like how some application work? No problem, here is source code and rewrite it. Hard to explain to non power users.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

I've run Windows 7 since its first beta release. It's actually better than XP32 and XP64 both. Coming from me, that's saying a lot. I hated Vista with a passion. I'm not fond of 8 either, for a variety of reasons. Give it a try Heff, it's XP with the best of Vista mixed in. It works.

It's the last Microsoft OS that will have this user interface. And doesn't have that nasty UEFI.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:44 PM
I downloaded win8 developer edition and installed it. I hated it but was stuck because it deleted my win 7. I found a win 7 cd and put it back on my computer and now dual boot. I prefer 7 as it is vastly superior to 8 in about every way. The only thing new it had was the metro interface and I removed that the first day. Metro is great on a phone, but on a pc it is stupid.

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:28 PM
The newest trend in computing is to use windows and claim you hate it. I have also noticed the cool new thing to do is to go on about windows 8 and completely distort facts.
Im booting win 8 and Linux- no problems.

But retailers are pushing customers away from Linux for a few reasons.
1. They can't make money off Linux- there is nothing wrong with that either, who here is going to work at a job that would not make them money?
2. They simply do not want to deal with the support.

I use both windows and Linux and program for both. The fact is Linux is anything but user friendly, there are some distros that are aimed for people new to Linux but its still not comparable to Windows or apple. Your average person that buys a computer from a place like best buy wants something that will let them load their programs for work, surf the web and play games. Linux needs things like WINE to run many of the windows programs and games. And if you want to play games, putting the right video driver on your computer is not as simple as it is with windows and something you don't even really have to deal with if you are on apple.
The average computer user wants to work and play on their computer with ease, with Linux people have to jump through hoops to make their computers do what windows and apple do on their own. And that is what the Linux fanboys don't get.
Plus if you are buying a PC from a place like best buy you are probably not that computer savy to begin with so you probably will not have that great of a time with Linux. So if you are serious about Linux you would not be buying a computer like an HP in the first place.
edit on 18-2-2013 by Superhans because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:30 AM
I don't think it's Linux specifically that worries Microsoft, I think it's the whole concept of open source.
What if open source really gained in popularity, globally?
As the OP mentioned:

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Microsoft Windows has 91.89 percent of the market share for desktop users

open source solutions are not at all popular at this stage, but what if that were to change? What if "Copyleft" was to become pervasively fashionable?
I think Microsoft wouldn't be the only company to become irrelevant.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:40 AM

I was just chatting with Byrd about the old days of computing at least from a late 70's up standpoint. Every time you added a new peripheral like a modem, sound or video card you had to manually configure the IRQ's You had to manually format the hard disks before you could use them with Fdisk You had to set up the drivers as well as deal with things like baud rate you had to set parity bits odd or even set bit rate set full or half duplex - and it all had to jive or your stuff would not work. This was normal fare for PC users. Most people today never heard of that stuff - this was Microsoft/dos and or Windows. If you didn't want to deal with learning these things you took your pc to someone who would set it up for you. People are spoiled today as users and never really learn anything about the computers they have. I choose to learn them because I could not afford paying someone to do these things but once you handled the small learning curve, it was easy and became second place. ( we were kids in Jr high school so if we could do it then there is no excuse for adults not to learn) And that's what most people did. They assumed the responsibility of, if you are going to own and use a home computer, your going to have to learn a little something. Over the years people have made these things easier or so streamlined you never notice them.

Linux is growing up in these areas too. ( You don't have to do the above things with Linux, just the other things Superhans mentions but I used that as an analogy) Microsoft knows it's only a matter of time before Linux catches up and becomes as easy as Windows. They used to think Linux could never be a threat. But they see Linux with staying power, growing, getting easier. Now they dump millions of dollars into making sure people don't use Linux. Think of today's Linux as Windows 95. Just 6 years after that we had Windows XP which 39% of Windows users are still using today. Microsoft knows what can happen in a short 5 or 10 years time and they are scared. People will assume the responsibility again to learn about their PC's if that's what it takes to gain computing freedom. The fast growing Linux user base proves that. There are other good systems like PC-BSD and some to watch like React OS which will be a free XP clone but I pick on Linux because it's the closets to becoming a major desktop competitor in the years ahead.
edit on 19-2-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: addition

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by Recouper

I do think they are worried about Open Source to a degree but they fear the concept of Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman more. ( Microsoft in fact does have some open source software)

Rchard Stallman is responsible for the other half of the Linux operating system. Linux itself is just a computer kernel (written by Linus Torvalds) - in simplest terms it's an interpreter that tells the software and hardware how to play well together. Stallman and his team wrote the rest of the Linux operating system which is really called the GNU/Linux operating system - Stallman's GNU because GNU is a recursive anachronism and stands for GNU is Not Unix - the whole combo of the Linux Kernel and the GNU operating system make up a Unix like clone commonly called simply Linux.

Open Source grew out of Richards Free Software concept. Richard believed all software should be free as in freedom to change it when you have to, and also free as in free beer. Free Software commonly uses one of Stallmans Free Software Licenses called the GPL (GNU General Public License) The problem was, the concept of "Free Software" was not marketable because people didn't understand it. The software developers community created Open Source based on "Free Software" to give Free Software a better image and it became a big hit. People could now understand the concept of Free Software easier. Open Source still uses Stallman's GPL but not always. Open Source is free to choose any type of license they wish so sometimes you have Open Source with restrictions on it that's not as Free as Stallman envisioned. It's the GPL that Microsoft really fears. Software that's both free as in freedom and free as in free beer taking over the planet. Microsoft was so concerned about the GPL's and Free Software pervasiveness, they created a mock term to describe it called the General Public Virus -->

Recouper , I wasn't giving you a history lesson, I just like to fully explain things for others reading the post.
edit on 19-2-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: addition

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:18 AM
Windows is the reason I use Linux. I was a Microsoft programmer for a very long time, I have now switched completely to Linux, over 8 years ago now.. and I haven't looked back. I don't even work in computers now and I am so very happy.

There have been computers in the past that have been hardware fussy about installing the Penguin... requiring you to be a borderline elite hacker to get it to work.

It's obvious Microsoft wants to make their money while Linux versions are free.

I found an article from ZDNet about the issue, they say Secure Boot can be disabled:

First, by far the easiest way to get Linux running on a Windows 8 PC is to disable Secure Boot. That has two problems. First, it leaves you open to rootkits, which are a real security threat. The other difficulty with it is that while most major original equipment manufacturers (OEM)s have not made Secure Boot mandatory on PCs, they also haven't made it at all easy to figure out how to turn it off.

Although the Linux developers are working on a fix, it will take a while.

Windows is a pain in the glass!

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:24 AM
Microsoft will never be irrelevant because they provide all the software that runs all the businesses in the world. Thats never going to change. Companies who run multi million dollar operations need to know all their software works and they can get good solid support from the people who they get their operating systems from.

I know some people think its 'cool' to hate windows but they have have a superior product. There is so much more to windows than 99% of the people using it ever seen but this is what you would expect from the worlds leading software company.

I remember reading a post in this forum a few weeks back from someone who said "they have changed the way windows works in version 8 so i am going to use Linux from now on'. There is absolutely no logic to that statement.

So is Microsoft really worried about an operating system like linux that doesn't work as good as their own , if difficult to setup , doesnt work with as much hardware and has minimal support for the end user? Doubtful..

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:42 PM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
This has never been done before in the PC market and for good reason - PC Manufacturers don't have problems with systems getting malware before they ship. It's all lies by Microsoft to control the users choices.

If you say so...

Asus admits Eee Box mini PC shipped with virus
Michelangelo (computer virus)
Small Number of Video iPods Shipped With Windows Virus
CIH (computer virus)

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Hefficide
I've been told Win 7 is as stable as XP but still get almost paranoid thinking about making a move.

It is, if not better.

From what I have seen, good hardware is the best way of having a stable computer. The first computer I built from scratch ran Windows 2000 for several years and only once it had a BSOD.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
They used to think Linux could never be a threat.

I guess you didn't get those Microsoft Action Pack Solution Provider documents.

Some years ago I decided to take a look at those documents (the company where I work was had a Solution Provider Action Pack) and they explained how people should approach the possible clients that presented Linux as a solution, so they were aware of the danger. In fact, I think that the danger is less today than it was some 5 or 6 years ago, as things are slightly different now.

PS: I have to see if we still have those documents.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Microsoft will never be irrelevant because they provide all the software that runs all the businesses in the world.

That's another thing many people ignore, we are talking about the whole world, not just one country or two.

The company where I was working before moving to the one I work in now had a Unix System V system (on an old 386 from Olivetti) that died some two months after I went to work there (it was not a computer related work).

While looking for an alternative, my boss asked about the new things that were available at the time (1992/1993), and one possibility was Apple computers. They had many good points, but they had a very bad point that made it impossible to use: there wasn't any software in Portuguese.

Microsoft had a Brazilian Portuguese version of Works (for DOS, obviously), so they decided to use DOS and Works (we had many Word files from the Unix version of Word, those files still exist, they have been passed from server to server) on a Novel network.

Today, most Portuguese versions of Linux distros or Linux software are just bad translations of the originals, as they are done by people that give their time to it instead of being made by professional translators.

The most famous Portuguese distro is Caixa Mágica, but I don't know a place that uses it.

PS: I heard some rumours one or two months ago about ministries and other government related agencies moving to Linux to avoid the high prices they pay for Microsoft licences, but I don't know if that is going to happen or not, as Microsoft has huge investments (and they give special conditions) with the Portuguese government and other state organizations. One of the special conditions I know is that the workers on one of those state organizations have a license to use at home the software they use at work, so anyone working with Windows and Office can have them at home with no cost.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:31 PM
Really the best solution is running both.
Each OS does things well that the other cant.
Anyone that says "only run windows" or "only run linux" is just fanboy for that OS.
As much as the Linux people hate to admit it Windows is the heart of the modern business world. Conversely as much as Microsoft people hate to admit it Linux is a viable alternative in some cases.

At work we are a Microsoft shop at home my gaming machine is a Windows platform that I also happen to run a few virtualized instances of Mint and other distros of Linux on.

Until their is an OS that brings the best of both platforms under one umbrella use both and get the maximum experience.

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by Invariance

Secure Boot Can be disabled yes, but it's just one feature of UEFI. In many firmware installations the implementation of UEFI is buggy depending on your hardware and options the developers choose to use on the system. They can implement a small UEFI or a full blown UEFI or anything in between.. UEFI has over 200 user options alone that can be activated. You never see that many in the UEFI settings.The folks over at BiosMods have been unlocking and trying out features that are locked down in most systems.

The Fix you speak of is a preloader from the Linux Foundation and it's been released but it still has some bugs to get worked out.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in