Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Provides Fix for Windows 8.1 Secure Boot Issue

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 23, 2013 6:19:29 PM

Had to roll a laptop back to 8 today due to 8.1. Boy how I wish 7 on my laptops..
Score
2
October 23, 2013 6:23:41 PM

Secure boot sucks
Score
1
Related resources
October 23, 2013 6:44:23 PM

"However, as Softpedia points out, many computers do not have a Secure Boot option in their BIOS menus, so Microsoft's fix won't make much sense. Luckily, Intel has the correct solution: simply reboot the device, enter into the BIOS mode, and access the secure boot options menu."

The paragraph above doesn't make any sense. Proof-reading is needed.


People who wish to have secure boot disabled in the BIOS have to endure being bullied by Microsoft with a watermark they can't remove unless they completely turn off the UAC. It's not like the software is not legitimate to warrant a watermark being displayed at all times, just make it an Action Center message that the user can turn off, just like Anti-virus related messages. This is just Microsoft flexing it's monopolistic muscles to bully consumers into doing what they want instead of providing flexibility and freedom of choice.
Score
17
October 23, 2013 6:48:26 PM

just one more reason why I have no intentions of upgrading to windows 8.x from windows 7.
Score
5
October 23, 2013 6:57:24 PM

I deliberately disabled Secure Boot (as in "Security chip is hidden and is not functional") in my ThinkPad to avoid the possibility of some OS (specifically, Windows 8.x) bricking my (primarily Windows 7) laptop. You're telling me if I want to update my rarely-used 8 partition to 8.1, I'm gonna have to deal with the OS nagging me about a lack of Secure Boot option?

What...I don't even...
Score
3
October 23, 2013 7:28:38 PM

smeezekitty said:
Secure boot sucks


SO a feature of an OS that keep viruses from wreaking havoc on the MBR and OS is a bad thing?
Score
-1
October 23, 2013 7:33:16 PM

tpi2007 said:
"However, as Softpedia points out, many computers do not have a Secure Boot option in their BIOS menus, so Microsoft's fix won't make much sense. Luckily, Intel has the correct solution: simply reboot the device, enter into the BIOS mode, and access the secure boot options menu."

The paragraph above doesn't make any sense. Proof-reading is needed.


People who wish to have secure boot disabled in the BIOS have to endure being bullied by Microsoft with a watermark they can't remove unless they completely turn off the UAC. It's not like the software is not legitimate to warrant a watermark being displayed at all times.


I was just about to quote it and you beat me.

"Microsoft said go into bios and and go to secure boot, but if you don't have that option Intel says the exact same thing: go into bios and secure boot. But since Intel said it not Microsoft it will magically appear!"

Seriously though... Then you go off on UAC? And over a watermark not an annoying message? Come on. Anyone who knows or cares what a watermark is would IMMEDIATELY turn off UAC after the install. UAC.is just idiot proofing and the idiots don't read the messages anyway.
Score
2
October 23, 2013 7:35:36 PM

tpi2007 said:
"However, as Softpedia points out, many computers do not have a Secure Boot option in their BIOS menus, so Microsoft's fix won't make much sense. Luckily, Intel has the correct solution: simply reboot the device, enter into the BIOS mode, and access the secure boot options menu."

The paragraph above doesn't make any sense. Proof-reading is needed.


People who wish to have secure boot disabled in the BIOS have to endure being bullied by Microsoft with a watermark they can't remove unless they completely turn off the UAC. It's not like the software is not legitimate to warrant a watermark being displayed at all times, just make it an Action Center message that the user can turn off, just like Anti-virus related messages. This is just Microsoft flexing it's monopolistic muscles to bully consumers into doing what they want instead of providing flexibility and freedom of choice.


That's only if you have secure boot enabled when installing. If you install it without it on you wont have that.

As well, who would not want to have secure boot enabled? Its a great feature and as long as you know how to use it properly it keeps a lot of threats away.
Score
-3
October 23, 2013 7:41:34 PM

otacon said:
I thought THG hired proof readers and fact checkers a long time ago... might be time to hire some more.


I HAVE to assume you are trolling. Where have you been? The rampant spelling and grammar errors that are never fixed are a fundamental part of Toms hardware news.

More unforgivable is the hysteria they stir up by providing false info in their attempts to plagiarize other sites, their disingenuous titles, and them just not understanding what they read.

You really need to get used to going to their "source" to see what was really said. If you rely on Toms "reporters" you'll get constant incorrect info.
Score
2
October 23, 2013 8:06:02 PM

jimmysmitty said:
smeezekitty said:
Secure boot sucks


SO a feature of an OS that keep viruses from wreaking havoc on the MBR and OS is a bad thing?

Not allowing people to install the OS of their choice is a bad thing.
This is clearly to tighten the grip of their monopoly. And malware developers are always one step ahead anyway.

Not being able to boot any code of choice is a disturbing premise.
Score
1
October 23, 2013 8:32:19 PM

smeezekitty said:
jimmysmitty said:
smeezekitty said:
Secure boot sucks


SO a feature of an OS that keep viruses drink wreaking havoc on the MBR and OS is a bad thing?


But allowing people to install the OS of their choice it's a bad thing.
This is clearly to tighten the grip of their monopoly. And malware developers are always one step ahead anyway

Not being able to boot any code of choice is a disturbing premise.


Look I like a illiterate moron as much as the guy. But seriously? A MICROSOFT water mark that COULD accept windows but no other OS. SERIOUSLY
Score
-3
October 23, 2013 8:39:43 PM

unksol said:
smeezekitty said:
jimmysmitty said:
smeezekitty said:
Secure boot sucks


SO a feature of an OS that keep viruses drink wreaking havoc on the MBR and OS is a bad thing?


But allowing people to install the OS of their choice it's a bad thing.
This is clearly to tighten the grip of their monopoly. And malware developers are always one step ahead anyway

Not being able to boot any code of choice is a disturbing premise.


Look I like a illiterate moron as much as the guy. But seriously? A MICROSOFT water mark that COULD accept windows but no other OS. SERIOUSLY

Your post literally makes absolutely not sense. And you somehow royally screwed up the quotes to boot.
Score
2
October 23, 2013 8:57:25 PM

"Your post literally makes absolutely not sense."

I don't think he will get it, but nice ;-)
Score
1
October 23, 2013 9:30:20 PM

I don't get all the hate over secureboot. Are you booting windows? Turn it on. Are you booting something else? Turn it off. ??????????????
Score
-3
October 23, 2013 9:32:33 PM

Well if Windows 8.1 already has a permanent nag about it, I am concerned the next version (Win 9?) will not be able to boot without it at all.

That would break compatibility with lots of older systems + make dual booting a pain.
Score
3
October 24, 2013 12:04:06 AM

IT seniors learn me to never purchase a new version release or to be the first that make an major update on Microsoft products. Few days ago Surface users brick devices when updating to 8.1 and now this.
Score
1
Anonymous
October 24, 2013 5:02:44 AM

I like my solution better. I just traded my lousy Windows 8 machine in for some cash and went back to using my Windows 7 PC. Problem solved.
Score
0
October 24, 2013 5:22:08 AM

Octacon "I thought THG hired proof readers and fact checkers a long time ago"

Really? If they hired proof-readers ever they have paid too much and as far as fact checkers does blatant copy/paste articles from "The Onion" count?
Score
0
October 24, 2013 5:29:17 AM

Grammar trolls on a rampage preying on Indians I'm guessing ^_^
Score
0
October 24, 2013 5:45:33 AM

Grammar trolls on a rampage preying on Indians I'm guessing ^_^
Score
0
October 24, 2013 8:45:11 AM

Just enable secureboot in UEFI and it will be gone. No big deal. Windows 8 haters should get out
Score
-2
October 24, 2013 11:20:56 AM

@smeezekitty
I share the same concern with you.
If UEFI Secure Boot becomes mainstream and widely accepted in the future, Microsoft might want to use that to their advantage and lock in the Secure Boot to the PC hardware and software/OS.

From MS technet Secure Boot FAQ...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh824987.asp...
MS has already lock in all the ARM-based PC to Windows RT. So the users have no choice to re-install other OS. So people who love to tweak their PC are locked into x86 systems; ARM based is out of the question.
Score
1
October 24, 2013 2:13:05 PM

It looks like Intel read the UEFI Secure Boot tutorial in Tom's How-to forums. That's good. I'm glad to see that Tom's is a valuable resource for all.
Score
0
October 24, 2013 5:23:22 PM

I didn't have this problem when I tried Windows 8.1 on a computer that did not have secure boot in the BIOS, I did however have a lot of driver problems with drivers that did work with Windows 8.0.
As for the operation of Windows 8.1 it is worse than windows 8.0 with many minor changes that only serve to annoy.
Score
0
October 29, 2013 6:49:17 AM

Bleh, all the useless Microsoft bashing. Secure boot is an uefi feature, not a Windows feature, and Microsoft chose to implement it. There is no monopoly conspiracy going on.

Other than that I feel quite fucked too, because I don't have a secure boot option in my BIOS but still get the watermark. Tom's Hardware, thanks for the false hope.
Score
0
October 29, 2013 12:03:23 PM

Dropdisk said:
Bleh, all the useless Microsoft bashing. Secure boot is an uefi feature, not a Windows feature, and Microsoft chose to implement it. There is no monopoly conspiracy going on.

You do know that microsoft pressured hardware manufacturers to include secureboot, right?

I don't have a secure boot option in my BIOS but still get the watermark. said:

I don't have a secure boot option in my BIOS but still get the watermark.

Obviously defective by design. Maybe its time to bring out resource hacker and modify your DLL resources.

Score
0
October 30, 2013 5:03:43 AM

smeezekitty said:
Dropdisk said:
Bleh, all the useless Microsoft bashing. Secure boot is an uefi feature, not a Windows feature, and Microsoft chose to implement it. There is no monopoly conspiracy going on.

You do know that microsoft pressured hardware manufacturers to include secureboot, right?

I don't have a secure boot option in my BIOS but still get the watermark. said:

I don't have a secure boot option in my BIOS but still get the watermark.

Obviously defective by design. Maybe its time to bring out resource hacker and modify your DLL resources.


That sheds a new light on the issue. But the feature was already there, part of the uefi specification? Then it's just a matter of speeding up the process (just in time for W8 no doubt).

About resource hacker, you have any idea what DLL contains the watermark data? Problem for Windows is probably that I have a SecureBoot capable bios, running on non-capable hardware (as far as I know).
Score
0
!