when it says it won't boot..

what does that mean? it won't boot another os from the hdd? or it won't boot from anything like different hdd, usb or cd/dvd?

because there are things like linux based antivirus cd/dvd... does that mean they won't work?

mind you.. first read this like a month or 2 ago..

As I understand it, it won't boot another OS period when it goes OEM UEFI.

Right now, you can boot W8 from a USB or other HDD because all systems are BIOS and not UEFI.

So my question is will folks who build there own computers be able to find a motherboard that will still use BIOS and have a dual boot system?

UEFI is not the issue. Signing is just a part of the specification, and MS is requiring that it be turned on by default on OEM machines if they want to be able to put the "Windows 8 Certified" sicker on the box. It is not required in any circumstance other than that, and I don't expect you're going to see off-the-shelf boards (such as you'd build your own machine with) selling with it enabled since that would make them fairly useless.

EFI (of which UEFI is just the latest revision) has been supported by Linux for years and by Windows since Vista SP1 (and some older Itanium-specific versions). You do not need to purchase a BIOS board or even significantly concern yourself with the matter if you're building your own machine.

There's really no need for scaremongering here. If you're not an enthusiast, you're not going to care about dual booting, so it won't really matter. If you are an enthusiast, you're probably going to build your own machine, buy from a builder who builds them from off-the-shelf parts, or at a bare minimum research before buying; in the first two cases it won't matter, and in the latter you'll at least know what you're getting.

Absolutely, Philly. Those who build their own can install W8 + any others without problems based on a BIOS system. Only the UEFI machines will be limited to W8 single boot.

so, basically antivirus rescue disks are toast? don't need to be an enthusiast to use those surely?

I am already getting annoyed with Windows 7 anyways. DeVry University, my college, just upgraded to W7 this school year, and trying to open Citrix applications on lab.devry.edu in Firefox doesn't agree with W7, then there is the fact that older games like Star Wars: Empire at War perform better on XP than W7, and I like such older games. Windows 7 and other modern OS don't seem to be a good fit for me, unless I build the machine myself.

I don't know that for a fact. Perhaps W8 makes it's own Rescue disk or system clone? If you're curious, ask MS re the OEM...

From Windows 8 Forum (about the preview w8):  http://www.forumswindows8.com/system-security/windows-8-recovery-disc-374.htm

Listen to Kryo [#29] ...;)

I think this is a case of the way it was presented conditioned repliers to a certain response.  Based on what kryo is said, it doesn't sound too bad *provided* it isn't too difficult to make a dual-boot system without jumping through too many hoops (and that doesn't change in future).  For the moment I think I'll wait and see, but unless W8 gets absolutely fantastic reviews in all sorts of areas, I think I'll still stick to W7, especially since it has only been a couple of years it has been out.

Best regards,
Steven.

How about Microsoft® Bob II?

Ah, but what if you purchase an OEM builders copy?  Wouldn't the same thing apply, that no other OS will boot from the machine?

In any event, this is an attempt by Microsoft to impose greater controls over the consumer, for mine, and while non-enthusiasts may not care or even notice, discerning users with a mind of their own will reject this outright. In fact, it's this kind of shit that made Apple so unpopular with the majority of the computing world.

Agreed. It's hard to get older versions of Command & Conquer working on W7. However I will say W7 works better than XP in the WiFi connections department.

this is a pretty sensationalist title.

It's not Windows 8 OEM that is enforcing this, it's just the UEFI. Finally, UEFI is based on the motherboard manufacturers: not Microsoft.

The big-name OEMs to whom Windows 8 certification will apply don't sell boards to consumers on their own. You might come by salvaged second-hand parts intended for repairs, but if you're insane enough to try building a new machine with such parts you deserve whatever you get.

Back in Windows 98 and early XP days I had some issues on older machines with upgrades regarding Microsoft's Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL...LOL--how ironic).  It was the first thing I ever ran into that really worked like a covert rootkit.

At the time I did some research and one of the little tidbits of the day--quiet and out of the news--was that Microsoft and Intel had actually collaborated on HAL as one of the long term goals for it was to facilitate OS to CPU private communication.  Basically, BIOS would boot your board and the first thing that would happen at start up is that your CPU and Microsoft OS would verify that they were legally purchased and installed. 

Essentially, Intel reserved a small cache on the chip that at one time was intended to "imprint" a unique signature from your particular OS installation to make sure you didn't bootleg one at a later time--or try to start your PC with one it didn't see as "official".

The cache was never utilized but both companies had already signed an agreement to this and the cache was designed.

But I'm sure we can trust them now...really.  I mean, that was years ago.

The only thing that has kept draconian measurs like this from being implemented in the past was technology limitations.  Now we have the technology.

The title is accurate. Microsoft is in fact doing precisely what I have written. Read the reference articles.

That will affect a huge number of buyers... in fact, almost all.

UEFI is indeed part of the issue, as I explained. MS's not enabling Pkek keys is the other part.

No one's scare mongering. This happens to be the truth. Being cavalier about the issue does not equate to being correct about it, kryo.

Everything I have written is accurate, and referenced.

Can those who wish a dual boot use a UEFI board? No. They must use a BIOS board because MS and the OEM's as well as Intel are the problem.

Does the public even begin to suspect this? No.

Because of mass production, the Bios boards will eventually disappear. Will that eliminate OS's? It very well might.

To me, this is elimination of the competition by unfair means, and MS, Intel and the OEM's have a part of it.

So Apple locks in the OS with the hardware and no one cares. MS tries to do the same thing and everyone is up in arms?

We're talking numbers here, as well as elimination of other OS's. Apple's market share won't do that. MS's, Intel's and the OEM's will.

Yes, it does seem to be the foot in the door.

Best regards,
Steven.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that UEFI boards can only run Windows 8 and nothing else, but it's completely incorrect.

The only issue is if you get a board with OEM-customized firmware that doesn't allow signing to be disabled; the concern in the industry is simply that some OEMs will not provide that option to users. There is no such issue with off-the-shelf boards, since the manufacturers have no way to know what they'll be used with.

EFI is and has been supported widely for several years, and there's no reason you can't install Win7, Vista SP1, Linux, or whatever on a standard EFI board. Macs have used EFI since the switch to Intel as well, though they use BootCamp to emulate BIOS for the benefit of WinXP and such since it didn't have EFI support.

Secure boot is an option in the UEFI system, not an absolute requirement.

In most implementations, it can be turned off, allowing any OS (or combination of OSs) to be installed and booted from.

There *is* some concern that some of the OEM providers may hide or remove that option, whether to curry favor with MS or just out of laziness or stupidity.

I would avoid those.

Though there is some cause for concern with the OEM boards, even MS does not *require* that the option be unavailable, merely that it be enabled by default for certificaton (and it is likely that some OEMs will disable it, again, avoid them).

There is a virtually *zero* chance that most of the aftermarket motherboard manufacturers would hide or disable the option to turn off secure boot. They'd be giving up business to whatever company didn't do it.

As long as the option to disable exists (and it will, for the most part), there is no impediment to using and booting other operating systems (or dual or triple booting, as desired).

not sure how windows making rescue disk helps any..

because the disks i talked about are from the likes of kaspersky, bitdefender, avg, etc. they boot into linux (on the cd/dvd) and scan your hdd for virus/etc crap.

---

aren't you supposed to use be able to use virtual pc or some such for running xp stuff in win7?

1. To get MS Certified (a selling point whose true meaning consumers don't understand), UEFI secure boot (NO other OS besides MS's may boot) must be enabled. MS owns greater than 90% of the OS market. Apple (even with its resurgence has at best 7%), the others way less.

That needs explaining. Computer sales are down, and the profit margin is slim:

"Competition in that market is tough, and vendors will take every break they can get. That includes the Windows logo program, in which Microsoft give incentives to vendors to sell hardware that meets their certification requirements. Vendors who choose not to follow the certification requirements will be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. So while it's up to vendors to choose whether or not to follow the certification requirements, Microsoft's dominant position means that they'd be losing sales by doing so." - Matt Garret (bottom OP blog ref.)

2. The consumer COULD be given the option to disable that, but some hardware vendors have ALREADY informed Matt Garrett (of Red Hat) they will not have this option.

Why? You have to be asking yourself that question. Why wouldn't they include that option? What other options did they already decide for you?

That means (for whatever reason they made that poor choice - you may speculate as well as I) the real consumer (the little guy at the counter) will not be able to have the choice which OS they may boot to on the machine he bought. To me, that is clearly a deprivation of choice. To me, that's like going to the restaurant, ordering vanilla ice cream with hot fudge, and chopped nuts and hearing from the waitress, "You may have vanilla, no fudge, no nuts." You'd put up with that? Who the heck is she to deprive you of the right to choice?

That is counter free-market and may result in the elimination of other OS's, and frankly reminds me of the stuff MS has pulled in the past. Now they're doing it "to make you more secure".

3. A UEFI board isn't by itself the problem. Forget that: Remember this - The OEM doesn't have to enable any other keys but MS's, but can "white list" or "black list" any devices they wish.

That means if they can make better deals (for advantage, profit, whatever) they are free to "black list" any device they wish. That will hurt the market and drive up prices for some devices while eliminating others.