The problem with secure boot is that the implementation is entirely self serving to the vendors. It is not really intended to make the computer more reliable, it is intended to throw obstructions in the way of competition. In particular, Linux and Google/Android.
Android in on a path that can eventually take the common desktop away from Microsoft. That would not be a bad thing. I have long wondered why the government and industry have tolerated a sole source dictating the computer environment that their bread and butter is based on. Android can be forked if Google does something undesireable. We have the source code. Android may not be the best but it is established and has broad support. Which is why Microsoft needs Secure Boot.
Secure Boot will not stop malware or virus or any of the other common Microsoft Windows maladies. These things will be blessed by Secure Boot and continue on their merry way. Just watch. The problem is the shear volume of software on any modern computer. It is so complex and so interconnected that it is impossible for you to make an intelligent decision on what to allow to run or not. Trust me on this, not even Microsoft or Apple can figure that out. The standard way of operating has been to throw something out then disable it if it causes a problem. You couldn't to a proper impact study before installing something now even if you spent your entire life assessing one application. Millions or lines or code mean an unbelievable and nearly unmanageable level of complexity. How is Secure Boot supposed to secure your system when cross dependencies make you install something when you don't even know what it does?
It won't stop you because you will go right ahead and install the same old crap anyway. Just what problem is Secure Boot trying to solve? It sure isn't security. It won't work.