In <2808713.RZr1XZqQqa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Vista scoots to new boot, but it?s still kinda rooted
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| While Microsoft would like the world to believe that anyone running
>| Windows has no need of any other operating system, that attitude
>| doesn?t cut much mustard with many of its users. Why settle for one
>| OS when your PC is easily capable of running two or more?
[...]
>| One of the more questionable tactics that Microsoft has implemented
>| in Vista is to automatically overwrite any existing MBR during the
>| installation process without asking if you mind or giving you an
>| option to back up. Microsoft says that the Windows installation
>| system can't intelligently interrogate an existing non-MS MBR,
>| although such features are quite common in the install routine for
>| other OSes. It also argues that an "official" Vista MBR is required
>| for security features -- such as measured boot, which works with
>| Trusted Platform Module (TPM)-enabled chips to check that the OS
>| hasn't been hacked or altered each time it boots -- to work correctly.
> `----
>
> http://www.apcstart.com/site/akidman/2006/09/1656/vista-scoots-to-new-
> boot-but-its-still-kinda-rooted
>
> This is anti-competitive and Kroes ought to be notified. Her
> commission is currently investigating Office, but nothing at boot
> level has yet been considered.
This is becoming a problem in various spheres of law. We need judges,
juries and legislators that understand the issues they're determining on.
At the moment, idiot statements like "Microsoft says that the Windows
installation system can't intelligently interrogate an existing non-MS
MBR" pull the wool over the eyes of most people and the judiciery aren't
immune.
--
Peter
|
|
