[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Not just Linux: Windows can 'brick' Samsung laptops too here

[FishamanP]

Every will hear about how Linux damaged their computers, but no will see this and know the truth.

[RichardM]

ishamanP

English please! Write intelligent sentences please?

[ronin7752]

Sounds to me like a problem with Samsung laptops. (I own one, but don't use UEFI and have no need to change...)

[waldojim]

And yet people won't blame Samsung, they will continue to blame Microsoft over secure boot. Though most of them won't even know to blame secure boot... so it will end up; "No, it's Microsofts fault that UEFI is being used on there!"

Of course, the truth is, UEFI has been used for years. And I am quite curious what Samsung did to break compatibility.

[MLStrand56]

Quote

ishamanP English please! Write intelligent sentences please?

You never learned Patience in kindergarden, did ya? You sound like one of "THOSE" who believe that there is No LIFE outside of USA. Take off your Blinders boy, there's a whole big world Outside the borders of USA.

MLStrand56

[WinTard]

This is clearly a Samsung UEFI firmware bug. Why bring Linux or Windows into this mess?

My Dell Latitude E6520 workstation is only about twelve-months old, and I'm already on version A16 of the BIOS/UEFI. Which means sixteen updates in twelve months or so. Don't you think it is better they fix things rather than not?


And yes, this Dell BIOS supports UEFI.


BIOS updates (UEFI is but a merely glorified 64-bit BIOS, update-able in the exact same way as any 32-bit BIOS). Didn't people know Microsoft supports UEFI booting on all their 64-bit OS, starting with Windows 2000 Enterprise Server x64 back in 2002? While Apple only started support of a full-64 bit UEFI in 2010 with the release of OS X Lion?

What's the big deal with UEFI?

Bottom line is if any unit is 'bricked', then simply seek technical support from Samsung? It's obviously under warranty!

People please give credit to where credit is due! If Samsung has a bug in their BIOS/UEFI then just update their BIOS/UEFI, it's probably already on their website.

Personally, before installing any OS, I first take care of the firmware on the intended system platform, FIRST. Who am I to argue, when a manufacturer introduces firmware updates to their hardware? Manufacturers know best!

~~~~~~~~~~
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.
~ Albert Einstein

If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
~ Abraham Maslow

A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.
~ Albert Einstein

[waldojim]

I was pointing out the same thing... Just sitting here waiting for the ANTI-MS group to come blustering in with their BLAME MICROSOFT mantra...

[rgeiken]

Sometimes the best plans of mice and men often go awry.

[horusfalcon]

Quote

ishamanP English please! Write intelligent sentences please?

Firstly, he is writing in English. Secondly, a little tolerance might take you a long way. Thirdly, have you stopped to consider that FishmanP's native language may be other than English, and that he is making a good-faith effort to use English because this is an English language forum?

Chill, man. Get the meaning and intent and don't focus so narrowly on the style and things will go a lot better for you and everyone else.

[horusfalcon]

Quote

I was pointing out the same thing... Just sitting here waiting for the ANTI-MS group to come blustering in with their BLAME MICROSOFT mantra...

Forgive me if I'm not impressed with your pre-disposing language here. Microsoft is not directly to blame here, and seems to even be playing nice with the Linux Foundation to issue keys for a boot loader that will enable most any LInux distribution to run in a UEFI-dependent environment.

The only blame that can be placed for UEFI on Microsoft is that it would not have been needed in the first place had Windows been more secure than it is. It is born out a necessity to be able to secure the machine at a lower level since the OS cannot secure itself.

What I'd hate to see happen, personally, is for UEFI to be blamed in any way for slow adoption of Windows 8. The blame for that needs to be placed squarely on Microsoft.

[waldojim]

horusfalcon, on 23 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

The only blame that can be placed for UEFI on Microsoft is that it would not have been needed in the first place had Windows been more secure than it is. It is born out a necessity to be able to secure the machine at a lower level since the OS cannot secure itself.

What I'd hate to see happen, personally, is for UEFI to be blamed in any way for slow adoption of Windows 8. The blame for that needs to be placed squarely on Microsoft.

And other person who doesn't understand what UEFI is, or how long it has been around...

Sad.

[devnull73]

I just bricked my Samsung NP350V5C-S02AU with ubuntu 12.10.

Sigh.