News Focus
News Focus
icon url

dig space

10/06/05 1:34 PM

#96844 RE: orda #96842

orda, in your content re:AAPL/INTC and TPMs

"Shortly after Apple announced it would be porting it's OS X operating system to Intel-based personal computers, sources told me that the selection was based on Intel's implementation of the TPM and how it could play a role in assuring Apple that bootlegged copies of its operating system would be prevented from running on just any Intel system.

This implies that TPMs will necessarily be on in this implementation. This would require some rewording of the TCG spec, or that it is TPM-bearing but not TCG compliant ...

so much for "opt-in".

icon url

zen 88

10/06/05 1:40 PM

#96846 RE: orda #96842

orda, micro- This plays in to exactly what

I was posting about yesterday, ie. that until Vista shows up, adoption will be slow. Slog on.

Version 1.2 does exist, but the correction still does not address one key problem which is that there are almost no conforming systems on the market today (this again, according to Microsoft during the conference call) and there's no way to upgrade existing systems to get them ready for Vista. In other words, new systems will have to be purchased in order to take advantage of TPM-supported features like full volume encryption (see why my colleague George Ou thinks Vista's TPM strategy is questionable). In fact, in response to a separate e-mail inquiry, Microsoft has confirmed that full-volume encryption is the only feature that requires the TPM (and a feature that won't necessarily be available in all editions of Vista).




icon url

brant_point

10/06/05 2:35 PM

#96855 RE: orda #96842

Didn't SKS respond to someone


in the same words? TPM 1.2b does not exist. I agree those words are pretty common, but I want to believe that SKS alerted Microsoft to the long and convoluted discussion here that resulted eventually in a posting quoting SKS that 1.2b
was no-existant.

I think this board is so far ahead of everybody, including Microsoft and its spokespeople that what we consider de facto, is to them still on the drawing board.