All this means to me is that Windows get’s demoted on my primary computer to a virtual machine and Linux becomes the hyper-visor.

But seriously, I suspect it’s all noise and us dual-booting admins will have to set a flag in the bios to allow the mixed environment to continue.

Considering that when I want new system, I usually build my own from a bare-bones I buy specifically for that purpose; and the older systems I upgrade for family are old enough this is not an issue. I mean, if you want a good system, why pay the exorbitant price for Mr. Gate’s OS and then upgrade it to Linux? Get a KVM switch and keep an older Win2K system for the things you just have to use it for. Besides – the more you cram on one computer, the more you are looking for compatibility issues.

+1 for virtualizing Windows 8 to get around any (real or perceived) secure boot issues.

I currently use a virtualized XP (using VirtualBox) to run any software that absolutely demands Windows on my Linux laptop. I started with a dual-boot setup so I could boot into a real XP installation if I ever needed to. But, having it available as a virtual machine was so much more convenient that I just use that instead.

The point? If I do install Windows 8, it’ll be using VirtualBox in the same manner as I currently use XP. Dual-boot was cool for me back ‘in the day’, but with the advancements in virtualization now I really don’t see me ever needing to do it again *for my needs*.

To me, Linux is irrelevant. When I’m not programming on the AS/400 I am programming in VB. And when I’m relaxing at home I’m usually playing games. If all I wanted to do was surf the internet, read e-mail, and watch youtube videos then I might consider Linux.

I bought my first computer (Tandy 1000SX) and I have built every one from scratch since then. I have never had any problems with buying Windows rather than using Linux because Windows suits my needs and Linux doesn’t.

I never bother with any new MS operating system until it is widely used within the local business comunity.

Linux is becoming more and more used by local small business clients, as the more MS upgrade their OS’ the more expensive the newer hardware becomes to buy. Legacy equipment isn’t an option on most MS software. Linux can become a more common OS if MS continue to price themselves out of the SMB market. They already give a big discount the mega companies. I’ve noticed Server farms are moving further away from MS, and ftp and http connections do not care if it is linux or microsoft at the other end.

In this economic climate, businesses are already counting the cost of “must have”updates. Some only seem to cause compatibility issues with the hardware necessitating a costly system update before the budgeted/planned change.

Basically, it is a case of “horses for courses”. Does a company want to keep upgrading at a cost to maintenance staffing levels, or do they want a cost effective backbone for their business.

Businesses will always try to sell on the FUD factor. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) Stand back and watch the lemmings, is my principle.

The type of people who are affected by this problem are rare. Not only rare but probably are going build a custom setup for thier systems anyway. So probably won’t be limited by the OEM manufacturers building thes systems.

Systems like Secure boot are designed for the majority of users in the office place who will be running strictly Windows 8 systems and know little to nothing about the OS. Linux users who run dual boot are sophisticated enough to work through this problem and probably enjoy grouching about Microsoft. I can’t imagine a real Linux user being stopped by something so simple as this.

To me – Windows is irrelevant, I’m in molecular modelling where windows versions of the software most often run on cygwin ) and at home I like Gnome games and Quake Arena…

Anyway, I vote that this “issue” can’t be an issue for a serious user of whatever primary OS, who builds own hw configurations “from scratch” and if, unfortunately, newly purchased MB appeared to have no BIOS option to switch-off secure boot, is not afraid to jump from dual-boot to virtual-boot.

Just an observation…a lot of people here are pointing out they will simply make the Win OS run in a Vbox as a solution.
Maybe the Linux problem is just a by product of Microsoft’s real purpose: push everyone toward virtual environments?
One easy goal: get enough critical mass and then “secure out” VMware!
Now that could be a money maker for Microsoft.

It does effect me Linux is much better that Microsoft firstly open source is free and is more secure and reliable than windows dual boot will be an issue but can be solved with windows in Virtual environment or a little tweaking with the bios (we will find about that in about 2 months or so ) and secondly it might be a conspiracy because Linux administrators get much more pay that windows administrators but than fact is Linux administrator manages much more systems.

@DoneThat

If pushing virtualization were Microsoft’s goal, then they’d deserve a pat on the back and props for sure. Virtualization provides excellent DR when done right, for home and work systems. But, such a plot wouldn’t really bury Linux at all since it makes such a great, (and resource-friendly) VM host system, IMO.

Thanks for sharing such a vital information, actually I am looking for information regarding Does the Windows 8 secure boot . Now this blog post written by you definitely help me a lot.
<a href=”http://www.azypages.com”> Find Business </a>