How can Microsoft justify locking down the bios settings on Windows 8.1?

[Mystic Muse]

Though I'm pretty sure moving to actively disable the ability for a consumer to make their own decisions runs afoul of certain laws.

Not to mention being a good way to lose customers.

[Porthos]

Though I'm pretty sure moving to actively disable the ability for a consumer to make their own decisions runs afoul of certain laws.

Not really sure I can address this without getting into trouble with either Real World Politics or Legal Advice Is Not Allowed on GITP, but I think a general comment about how contracts can indeed put limits on parties involved should suffice. Noting, of course, the whole concept of unenforceable contracts and the like.

But I suspect discussing that too much wouldn't be a great idea.

[tyckspoon]

And for the same good reasons, MicroSoft's operating system is not intended to provide access to competing operating systems.

Analogy fails where the relevant pieces of the computer aren't Microsoft's hardware. The BIOS/UEFI are even lower level than the OS, and Microsoft doesn't put them on there. They're installed by the hardware manufacturer (so are most of the OS restrictions, incidentally. A self built computer with a retail copy of Windows is a dramatically different thing to an HP/Dell/whatever badged computer. They do a lot more to those machines than just assemble the parts.)

[Don Julio Anejo]

Analogy fails where the relevant pieces of the computer aren't Microsoft's hardware. The BIOS/UEFI are even lower level than the OS, and Microsoft doesn't put them on there. They're installed by the hardware manufacturer (so are most of the OS restrictions, incidentally. A self built computer with a retail copy of Windows is a dramatically different thing to an HP/Dell/whatever badged computer. They do a lot more to those machines than just assemble the parts.)

Yeah, it's not an issue with a self-built desktop computer. But the problem is, many laptops are completely locked out. Even Apple eventually relented and allowed you to install Windows/Linux in an ass-backwards way, while Microsoft is moving in the other direction.

[gomipile]

Analogy fails where the relevant pieces of the computer aren't Microsoft's hardware. The BIOS/UEFI are even lower level than the OS, and Microsoft doesn't put them on there. They're installed by the hardware manufacturer (so are most of the OS restrictions, incidentally. A self built computer with a retail copy of Windows is a dramatically different thing to an HP/Dell/whatever badged computer. They do a lot more to those machines than just assemble the parts.)

I think a lot of people blame Microsoft for what the hardware manufacturers do with UEFI, because the perception is that Microsoft bullied them into it. I'm referring to the certification requirements Microsoft changed in 2012.

[Jay R]

Though I'm pretty sure moving to actively disable the ability for a consumer to make their own decisions runs afoul of certain laws.

But since they aren't doing that, it doesn't matter. You are completely free to have a computer with Linux, or a computer with Windows. You can have a computer that runs Linux and Windows only if the manufacturers of both are willing to design them that way.

MicroSoft is under no legal or moral obligation to design their operating system to work with other operating systems.

[Max™]

Well, I brought it up as that is the sort of stuff they've had trouble with before, antitrust issues and such. It's specifically an issue for MS, given their history.

[Jay R]

Well, I brought it up as that is the sort of stuff they've had trouble with before, antitrust issues and such. It's specifically an issue for MS, given their history.

Only if you define "the sort of stuff they've had trouble with before" so broadly as to be meaningless.

They got in trouble for using their dominance of the operating system market to make it harder for other web browsers to compete with their web browser. That's illegal. But there is nothing wrong with using your operating system to compete against other operating systems.

Look, I don't particularly like MicroSoft, and I'm kind of annoyed at being put in the position of defending them. But what they're being accused of here is just not fair. They are allowed to design an operating system that locks down the BIOS settings, even if it helps them to compete against other operating systems. Operating systems are allowed to compete with each other.

[Also, as others have pointed out, MicroSoft does not in fact lock down the BIOS setting. So they are being accused of something that they don't do, and which would be all right if they did. Even those of us who dislike MicroSoft should recognize that such a complaint is unjust.]

[Whoracle]

MicroSoft is under no legal or moral obligation to design their operating system to work with other operating systems.

Yes and no. Microsoft isn't obligated to support other OSes, true. BUT Microsoft shouldn't be in any position to hinder other OSes either, which they are, since the keys needed to sign other bootloaders in UEFI are in turn signed by MS, and can be (and have been a few weeks back) revoked from inside of Windows. Now, while I consider this a design flaw in the whole SecureBoot/UEFI concept*, it was Microsoft who put pressure on the manufacturers to put that into the standard, and it was Microsoft who used their power to release a new set of keys which rendered the previously issued keys void.

Nothing tech-savy people can't work around, true, but there's a difference between HELPING other OSes, HINDERING them and simply leaving them alone.

That the manufacturers tend to lock down their SecureBoot settings as to not allow new keys to be uploaded in other ways than via Windows, thus actually breaking UEFI spec, that's a whole different problem, true, but even if they didn't, the fact stays that MS is actively hindering non-tech-savvy people booting other OSes as long as SecureBoot is enabled, by virtue of them controlling the only key that comes with the hardware.

They are allowed to design an operating system that locks down the BIOS settings, even if it helps them to compete against other operating systems. Operating systems are allowed to compete with each other.

Sorry, but no. Apple is allowed** to do that, because they manufacture the hardware. Microsoft is allowed** to do that on the XboxN or on their surface or on windows phone, because they manufacture the hardware. But on the PC platform, I buy the hardware. It's mine to do with as I please. No OS manufacturer has the right to screw with what's mine. I might only lease their product (see: license agreements et al.) but I buy the hardware, and they aren't allowed to do squat with that. They also don't have to help me, but they have no right to interfere with the BIOS/UEFI/TPM or anything hardware related.

Also, "competing" isn't the same as "hindering your competitions access to the market". The latter is considered illegally building a monopoly. The browser choice was BS. MS never hindered people from installing Firefox. They just shipped IE. With the UEFI lockdown/key fiasco they are actively hindering the competition.

*Allowing an OS to change the BIOS/UEFI is madness. Allowing the OS that's the prime target for malware (not talking about inherent security of any OS here, solely by virtue of Windows' market share) and has both the worst relative track record for their update infrastructure and the second worst patching schedule of all the major OSes out there is madness². I wouldn't trust a compiled-from-source-that-I-read-beforehand LFS with my UEFI keys, let alone Windows.

**Actually, there's ongoing legislation in Europe at least arguing that while a consumer might license the software and thus not being allowed to change the software, he still retains the right to complete control over the hardware, no matter what the manufacturer says. With warranty void, of course. This has been argued with smartphones and their locked bootloaders as well as certain vendor-locked tablets, IIRC. Don't knopw what the current status of those lawsuits are, but at least it's being argued.

[gomipile]

Look, I don't particularly like MicroSoft, and I'm kind of annoyed at being put in the position of defending them. But what they're being accused of here is just not fair. They are allowed to design an operating system that locks down the BIOS settings, even if it helps them to compete against other operating systems. Operating systems are allowed to compete with each other.

That's like saying that it would be okay for a car manufacturer to build in features that make it difficult for you to have their cars in the same garage as cars from another manufacturer. Or that it would be okay for Adobe Photoshop to have a feature that would hinder you from having the GIMP on the same computer.

They're the same type of competing product, so it's all fair, right? Wrong.

[Don Julio Anejo]

That's like saying that it would be okay for a car manufacturer to build in features that make it difficult for you to have their cars in the same garage as cars from another manufacturer. Or that it would be okay for Adobe Photoshop to have a feature that would hinder you from having the GIMP on the same computer.

They're the same type of competing product, so it's all fair, right? Wrong.

Not really. More like Toyota making a deal with Esso that you can only refuel your car at Esso gas stations, enforcing the rule by RFID chips. Perfectly legal and a fairly standard business practice (re: photography lenses, for example). With the slight difference that Toyota doesn't control 80-90% of the car market. Even though all gas is still the same, no matter which car you put it in.

[factotum]

That analogy doesn't work. If Toyota did control 80-90% of the car market, and they made such a deal, it would actually make their cars *less* attractive in the marketplace because it would make things harder for a bunch of people who don't have a nearby Esso filling station. There isn't any similar pressure on a computer--most people don't give a rat's cuss what OS their PC is running so long as it can Facebook or whatever, so any sort of BIOS lockdown wouldn't make any difference to them.

In any case, as I said earlier (and as far as I can tell, no-one has yet disproved), part of the Windows 8 specification says that it must be possible to disable Secure Boot in the BIOS. You can't actually claim your machine is Windows 8 compliant unless it has this facility!

[Whoracle]

In any case, as I said earlier (and as far as I can tell, no-one has yet disproved), part of the Windows 8 specification says that it must be possible to disable Secure Boot in the BIOS. You can't actually claim your machine is Windows 8 compliant unless it has this facility!

True. /10char

[Killer Angel]

"They believe they will make more money that way".

Really, that is all the justification they need.

also "because they can".
At least, they actually can... the problem is their (large) monopoly of the market.

[Jay R]

That's like saying that it would be okay for a car manufacturer to build in features that make it difficult for you to have their cars in the same garage as cars from another manufacturer. Or that it would be okay for Adobe Photoshop to have a feature that would hinder you from having the GIMP on the same computer.

They're the same type of competing product, so it's all fair, right? Wrong.

Unless you believe that the only purpose a car has is to run a garage, and that Adobe Photoshop operates the computer, these analogies are nonsense.

It's more like designing a carburetor so the car can only use one carburetor. And the car owner can use mine, or throw mine out entirely and use a different carburetor.

In any event, MicroSoft doesn't lock down the BIOS settings. The accusation is false.

[gomipile]

In any event, MicroSoft doesn't lock down the BIOS settings. The accusation is false.

Their standards change forced their hardware partners to do so. You are splitting a very thin, possibly non-existent, hair. "The hammer didn't break that rock, the chisel did."

[factotum]

Their standards change forced their hardware partners to do so.

"Their" standards change? Go and look at the list of companies who provide input to the UEFI specification. It includes names like IBM and Apple--neither of whom have any vested interest in just rolling over and letting Microsoft dictate the standard. Plus, as has been said several times now, Microsoft force their hardware partners to *allow* the changes to the BIOS that the OP complained he couldn't make!

I don't know why I'm bothering to post this because clearly Microsoft are Te Evulz and anything that happens in the PC arena which people don't like *must* be their fault somehow...at least, as far as half the people responding to this thread are concerned.

[Metahuman1]

It heavily depends on the manufacturer. I'm 99% sure Lenovo doesn't lock anything down on their ThinkPad line.

A lot of it might be specifically the hardware maker. With secure boot enabled, well.. you now can't swap in a shiny new SSD you picked up on sale at Newegg for $100. You have to shell out for the SSD upgrade when you buy the PC, with a worse model for $300 instead of the $100 you could have paid for it yourself.

Still better than what Apple is doing. I have a Mac Mini that's an expensive paperweight because my old company expensed it for a project and I haven't had a use for it since. More like, I can't find a use for it because I can't stick in a clean SSD and install Windows on it without all the OS X crap taking up ~25 gigs.

Seriously? It's been awhile since I looked at Boot Camp, but I know when you set it up you get to pick how much harddrive space your giving to OS X and how much to Windows. And I sure as hell don't remember Bootcamp being expensive or hard to set up if your willing to do a google search and read a few instructions or make a costumer service call and talk to someone for all of a few minutes at most.

And I'm so bad with tech it's been known to explode just cause I stepped into the same room as the device from time to time.

[gomipile]

"Their" standards change? Go and look at the list of companies who provide input to the UEFI specification. It includes names like IBM and Apple--neither of whom have any vested interest in just rolling over and letting Microsoft dictate the standard. Plus, as has been said several times now, Microsoft force their hardware partners to *allow* the changes to the BIOS that the OP complained he couldn't make!

I don't know why I'm bothering to post this because clearly Microsoft are Te Evulz and anything that happens in the PC arena which people don't like *must* be their fault somehow...at least, as far as half the people responding to this thread are concerned.

I am referring to the change that Microsoft made to the standards of their own certification requirements. I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but I'll post a Wikipedia quote of what I'm talking about. Please refute it if you know that some element of it renders it largely false.

With the release of Windows 8 in October 2012, Microsoft's certification requirements now require that computers include firmware that implements the UEFI specification. Furthermore, if the computer supports the "Connected Standby" feature of Windows 8 (which allows devices to have power management comparable to smartphones, with an almost instantaneous return from standby mode), then the firmware is not permitted to contain a Compatibility Support Module (CSM). As such, systems that support Connected Standby are incapable of booting Legacy BIOS operating systems.

[factotum]

As far as I can see, that article just says that a Windows 8 PC must have a UEFI BIOS rather than the old BIOS? Why is that a problem? I've already explained that Microsoft are not the sole arbiters of what the UEFI standard is.

[gomipile]

As far as I can see, that article just says that a Windows 8 PC must have a UEFI BIOS rather than the old BIOS? Why is that a problem? I've already explained that Microsoft are not the sole arbiters of what the UEFI standard is.

The problem is that Connected Standby is incompatible with Legacy Boot. A manufacturer cannot simultaneously support Legacy Boot and meet Microsoft's certification requirements.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Seriously? It's been awhile since I looked at Boot Camp, but I know when you set it up you get to pick how much harddrive space your giving to OS X and how much to Windows. And I sure as hell don't remember Bootcamp being expensive or hard to set up if your willing to do a google search and read a few instructions or make a costumer service call and talk to someone for all of a few minutes at most.

You still need to set aside an OS X partition, and it physically won't let you install on something less than around 25 gigs (don't quote me on the exact number).

It's possible to install OS X on a flash drive and remove it afterward, but you still need a 32+ GB flash drive and it becomes a major hassle to do even with reading a million instructions.

And I'm so bad with tech it's been known to explode just cause I stepped into the same room as the device from time to time.

Harry Dresden, is that you?

[Razanir]

In any event, MicroSoft doesn't lock down the BIOS settings. The accusation is false.

ThinkPad L540. Kubuntu-Windows 8 dual boot. (Although I haven't used the Windows partition since I got the laptop)

It was not locked down. Although it still had quick boot, or whatever it's called, that it would boot straight to Windows. So I had to turn that off through Windows to get to BIOS and boot settings.

Once there, I had to change a few BIOS settings to be able to boot off an external drive to install Linux. And once I installed it, there were still boot issues. Now Linux boots fine, although Windows throws a hissy fit and refuses to boot unless I treat the partition as a separate device.

[Jay R]

ThinkPad L540. Kubuntu-Windows 8 dual boot. (Although I haven't used the Windows partition since I got the laptop)

It was not locked down. Although it still had quick boot, or whatever it's called, that it would boot straight to Windows. So I had to turn that off through Windows to get to BIOS and boot settings.

Once there, I had to change a few BIOS settings to be able to boot off an external drive to install Linux. And once I installed it, there were still boot issues. Now Linux boots fine, although Windows throws a hissy fit and refuses to boot unless I treat the partition as a separate device.

You have documented that Windows doesn't play well with its competitors. Why should it? they are its competitors.

Of course, you have also documented that its competitors don't play well with Windows. It is, after all, the same thing.

And finally, you have documented the potential tactical problems in setting it up that way. You now have a device that isn't running Windows.

In any case, the original question was, "How can Microsoft justify locking down the bios settings on Windows 8.1?" The clear answer, based on this thread, is that not everyone agrees that they shouldn't do it. Therefore, there is nothing that needs to be justified, even if you don't like it.

If you want to run another OS, run it - and screw up Windows. That should please you, shouldn't it?

[factotum]

In any case, the original question was, "How can Microsoft justify locking down the bios settings on Windows 8.1?" The clear answer, based on this thread, is that not everyone agrees that they shouldn't do it.

I don't think that's the clear answer at all? My clear answer to the original question is that they DON'T do it, not that they should or shouldn't.

[Razanir]

You have documented that Windows doesn't play well with its competitors. Why should it? they are its competitors.

Yes, but the parts were built by non-Microsoft companies, and the laptop was assembled by non-Microsoft companies. And yet, Windows is acting like a temperamental 2-year-old who was just told he couldn't have a room all to himself.

Of course, you have also documented that its competitors don't play well with Windows. It is, after all, the same thing.

Actually, no. I've experienced no problems with Linux. I'm sure if I knew more about computers, I could get GRUB to work in Secure Boot. But Windows is the one refusing to boot, just because I switched to Legacy Boot.

If you want to run another OS, run it - and screw up Windows. That should please you, shouldn't it?

I really don't like that tone. I'm not trying to screw up Windows. I only wanted an option, and Windows is refusing to boot normally without Secure Boot.

(Well... I *do* have issues with Windows 8, but they mainly stem from the fact that it doesn't know how to manage partitions, and deleted the backup of my old laptop as a result)