Recommended Posts

Thought Microsoft Security Essentials when released would cut down on Family infecting there PC's with junk, but I find that i'm still helping family remove Trojans and junk off there PC's pretty regularly, gotten to the point only help Mom these days, rest I recommend to local small PC shop, as too much time cleaning there PCs

Most of Family though removed MSE when they saw it failed certification tests...So I guess up to them now what they use.

Maybe it's time that you educate your family instead of blaming MS for your woes....not that this has ANYTHING to do with the topic..of course.

If you turn off secure boot in the EFI Bios then no you have zero issues dual booting into any other OS. Now, if the OEM locks down the EFI bios that is booty. I build my own rigs so I never have these issues. My latest rig the EFI Bios shipped with secure boot turned on and I scratched my head for a few minutes until I hunted down why I was getting a BCD loader non signed certificate error and then turned off secure boot.

I will have to probe some of my clients white boxes and see if they have the ability to turn off secure boot.

UEFI secure boot is fine as long:

- Its allow Hardware Owner (not the hardware vendor) to change the UEFI keys

- hardware owner are allowed to disable the secure boot.

if the UEFI was set to disallow hardware owner to change the key, yes its became a locked system with planned obsolescene in mind.

its interesting that before announcing to build Surface RT themself,

Microsoft insist that users must be disallowed to disable secure boot, when secure boot is used in ARM system.

but user should be allowed to disable it on x86-64 system.

"On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot ..."

...

"On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. ... Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems," Microsoft states.

why the differences?

UEFI secure boot is fine as long:

- Its allow Hardware Owner (not the hardware vendor) to change the UEFI keys

- hardware owner are allowed to disable the secure boot.

if the UEFI was set to disallow hardware owner to change the key, yes its became a locked system with planned obsolescene in mind.

its interesting that before announcing to build Surface RT themself,

Microsoft insist that users must be disallowed to disable secure boot, when secure boot is used in ARM system.

but user should be allowed to disable it on x86-64 system.

why the differences?

Because on ARM, the OS is tailored to the hardware. It's pointless. Tablets are not tinker toys. Don't want Windows 8? Buy another tablet.

  • Like 2

Because on ARM, the OS is tailored to the hardware. It's pointless. Tablets are not tinker toys. Don't want Windows 8? Buy another tablet.

Sure they are. You just need to look at sites like XDA-Developers for proof of that.

  • Like 1

If it weren't for the fact that 90% of PC users are uneducated and unwilling to learn about what they bought/use (but also cannot live without it these days) we wouldn't need "Secure Boot".

I got fed up of helping people with viruses and trojans taking up hours of my time (mostly for free) that I just prefer they go to someone else or even pay for a professional to help them now.

There is also huge numbers of user who uses "FREE" version and refuse to download update.

I wonder how many manufactures allow you to turn off secure boot and how many don't? I have never seen a list of companies that say.

I bought an ASUS laptop back in December (A45A-MX2-H). It had the ability to disable or turn off UEFI Secure Boot. It has seen three or so UEFI/BIOS updates and since then, the option has been hidden or removed.

Because on ARM, the OS is tailored to the hardware. It's pointless. Tablets are not tinker toys. Don't want Windows 8? Buy another tablet.

by your logic, Surface RT (Tegra3 - ARM based) was not a toy,

but

Surface Pro (x86-64 based) is a toy ?

surely that the opposite of what Microsoft have to say in their marketing campaign ...

Okay, you won't be able to disable it on an ARM system. You can disable it on a x86-64 systems. UEFI secure boot can be viewed as both a good and bad thing. For the majority of people using WIN8 on tablets (end user customers) how many really want to use dual boot anyways?

Most of the people in my family and my friends, simply want to turn on their computers go online, play games or do things without the hassle of viruses and their PC's giving them a hard time. People just want easy to use, reliable computers to do what they want to do.

Most tablet PC owners, or those that own portable devices are not tinkering around with things to these levels. I'm pretty certain there will be open alternatives for those which do. If you don't want to deal with UEFI Win8 lockdowns on a ARM tablet. Don't buy one, Buy another tablet. The Market will be responding to this.

An alternative to dual booting, is running Linux in a Virtual system (VMware and etc), does UEFI prevent this from happening on an ARM system? It would seem that if Linux applications were so important to somebody they would explore alternatives besides dual boot.

Hackers/Virus programmers exploit how open a system really is. If lock downs like this mean, I get less phone calls for help from family and friends. GREAT! They ain't so tech savvy to begin with. They buy a new PC, love it for awhile, and then within a couple of months are calling it piece of junk that they'd love to throw out the damn window. If WIN8 ARM tablets prove to be more stable and reliable because of a lock down like this. This should be a great thing. Less headaches for Tablet makers, Microsoft and those of us with family and friends constantly bugging us to help fix their computer issues.

I don't have people bugging me to come over and fix their xBox, their Sony Play Stations, or their iPADs or iPhones (insert list of devices more stable compared to an X86/64 PC running Windows whatever).

I wonder how many manufactures allow you to turn off secure boot and how many don't? I have never seen a list of companies that say.

It is required for Windows 8 certification. If the PC has a Windows 8 sticker, users should be able to disable it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!