Boot from your Windows DVD and select Repair your computer.What I am worried about though is that Windows 7 will install its own boot loader overwriting the Mac OS one. First, theres something about SLIC LOADER v 1.4.6, followed by a. Unfortunately I cant go back to macOS because the macOS partition is not selectable as a boot source in bootcamp and boot into X boots into windows again. The machine boots into windows just fine.
![]() When Bootcamping A , What Slic Do I Pick For Windows Mac OS One“The two alternatives here are for Windows to be signed with a Microsoft key and for the public part of that key to be included with all systems, or alternatively for each OEM to include their own key and sign the pre-installed versions of Windows,” Garrett states, “The second approach would make it impossible to run boxed copies of Windows on Windows logo hardware, and also impossible to install new versions of Windows unless your OEM provided a new signed copy. According to Garrett, there are two ways for Microsoft to handle this. If you install a new graphics card that either has unsigned drivers, or drivers that are signed with a key that’s not in your system firmware, you’ll get no graphics support in the firmware.”Microsoft requires OEMs that want to be part of the logo program for Windows 8 to have secure boot enabled. A hardware vendor cannot run their hardware inside the EFI environment unless their drivers are signed with a key that’s included in the system firmware. Will I need to flash the bios again to slic 2.1 so that my Windows 7 will stay genuine“This impacts both software and hardware vendors,” Garrett explains, “An OS vendor cannot boot their software on a system unless it’s signed with a key that’s included in the system firmware. I want to do a clean install of Windows 7 again. Building and engineering contracts by b s patil pdf freeSelf-signing would still require each key to be included by all OEMs.For now, it’s hard to tell if this secure boot thing will be an option we can turn off, or if OEMs will – like they do with BIOS features all the damn time – disable the option of turning it off. This means kernels will have to be signed, making it virtually impossible to compile your own kernel. Second, Garrett indicates that the Linux world is moving towards using the Linux kernel itself as a bootloader. First, we’d need a non-GPL bootloader (Lilo perhaps?). There are several problems here when it comes to Linux. The fact that he had the foresight to think about hypothetical issues like this decades ago is pretty remarkable.For now, I am worried, although not yet freaking out. I mean, someone has to think of the children.I have a hard time believing the combined power of Apple and Microsoft – both strong supporters of these kinds of anti-user features – will not be able to convince and buy governments the world over into not doing anything about this.It would appear that despite his extremist views over the years, Richard Stallman is more and more starting to look like a true visionary. This means more control, something the, for instance, entertainment industry will love to death. If your laptop gets stolen, then maybe nobody will be able to access your data without your password even if they attempt to replace the OS). The end-user) has full control over which keys are installed, then it’s a “pro-user” feature as it allows them to run any OS they like while also making it hard for things like boot-time rootkits and viruses and may possibly even help to prevent theft (e.g. It actually costs Microsoft more to produce such a version which has the express aim to give users less functionality.Whether or not it’s anti-user depends on who has the keys.If the owner of the computer (e.g. This did absolutely nothing for users except lock some of them out and require some people to purchase new copies of software they had already bought.Here is another example of a different flavour:Microsoft’s “Windows 7 Starter” is a similar (although not as drastic) example where Microsoft take a reasonable OS and then go out of their way to cripple it. For all it’s worth, though, be sure to check the UEFI implementations of the motherboards and laptops you buy for an option to turn secure boot off.“I have a hard time believing the combined power of Apple and Microsoft – both strong supporters of these kinds of anti-user features” Can’t tell if trolling… Anti-user? That doesn’t even compute.“Anti-user” is any feature that is part of a product that is there only because it benefits the vendor, not the user.“In economics, a damaged good (sometimes termed “crippleware” or product with “anti-features”) is a good that has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility, typically for marketing reasons as part of a strategy of product differentiation.”Microsoft’s “Geuniune Advantage” euphamism is an absolute classic example. If the owner of the computer (e.g. To avoid the need for a layer of “DeepSAFE” McAfee bloat) and not in a bad way.Whether or not it’s anti-user depends on who has the keys. I’m hoping it will be used in a good way (e.g. The end-user) doesn’t have any control over which OSs are allowed and which aren’t, then it’s anti-user (and I’ll be boycotting and recommending everyone else does too).It’s worth pointing out that “UEFI Secure Boot” could be used either way – to benefit the owner/user, or in spite of the owner/user. ![]() It is not a term that “does not compute”.FWIW, I think the original article was actually a pretty decent clue as to what was meant by the term, and what was wrong (from a user’s perspective) with UEFI secure boot, but there you go.BTW, the whole concept of UEFI secure boot is defeated if ordinary users have keys. The fact that he had the foresight to think about hypothetical issues like this decades ago is pretty remarkable.”My post was intended only to explain what was meant by the term “anti-user”. In any case, I must say that I’m very, very worried that the horrible, anti-user situation of smartphones will permeate into the world of desktop and laptop computers.It would appear that despite his extremist views over the years, Richard Stallman is more and more starting to look like a true visionary. – BrendanMy post made no claim if UEFI Secure Boot was or was not an “anti-user” feature.The author of the lead article, kragil, introduced the term “anti-user” with these paragraphs:“For now, it’s hard to tell if this secure boot thing will be an option we can turn off, or if OEMs will – like they do with BIOS features all the damn time – disable the option of turning it off.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAmy ArchivesCategories |