Windows 11 General Discussion

[lexluthermiester]

With the leak and/or release of the Alpha build, the announcements and release of the Insider builds of Windows 11 there has been a lot of discussions in other threads that seem to be getting very off topic for those threads. It seems like good idea for Windows 11 to have it's own general discussion home. So here we go.

General discussion is the order of the day and this can include, but will not be limited to, development of features and functionality, tweaks and customizations, modding of installations & installation media and so on.

This is NOT the place to promote Linux. Linux has its own forum section and discussions of such should be taken there.

This is also not the place to do any Windows bashing. This topic has the potential to be very emotive, as such complaints about aspects or features are to be expected, especially with the dumbass limitations microsoft is trying to impose, but just coming into the thread to bash the OS, it's users or other forum members is not ok. As per forum rules, making posts that promote piracy is strictly disallowed and this thread is no exception.

Folks most of us are friends here even when we disagree. So let's go forward being friendly & civilized, which sometimes means agreeing to disagree!

To start off, I'd like to post two vid from Brian over at TechYesCity;

These vids share some great info! Everyone is of course welcome and encouraged to post information that will help the community run Windows 11 on systems it might otherwise not run on, tweak it's performance or mod it to add/remove apps or features users may or may not want on their PC's.

Lets have fun!

 

[EzioAs]

I wish someone would do a video showcasing everything (or close to everything) in the new Settings. I could try the Insider builds, but I'd rather not.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I wish someone would do a video showcasing everything (or close to everything) in the new Settings. I could try the Insider builds, but I'd rather not.

There is this.

There will be a lot of Youtube Techtubers doing feature reviews.

 

[EzioAs]

There is this.

There will be a lot of Youtube Techtubers doing feature reviews.

I've seen Zac Bowden's coverage. He did go deeper into Settings than most others, but I still wish I could see more. I understand it makes sense for people not to cover everything in there because things are very likely going to change from build to build.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I've seen Zac Bowden's coverage. He did go deeper into Settings than most others, but I still wish I could see more. I understand it makes sense for people not to cover everything in there because things are very likely going to change from build to build.

Just try it out for yourself if you have a spare drive/system.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Would be interesting to see how the widget window works compare to what is was like in Vista. Didnt like it in Vista at all.

 

[EzioAs]

Would be interesting to see how the widget window works compare to what is was like in Vista. Didnt like it in Vista at all.

It'd be far more interesting if developers can actually implement widgets instead of just stuff relying on MSN/MS Account.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Didnt like it in Vista at all.

Right there with you. I still don't like it, but it does work a lot better than gadgets in Vista.

 

[Chomiq]

Just try it out for yourself if you have a spare drive/system.

Or even better - setup a HyperV VM.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Or even better - setup a HyperV VM.

Nope. VM's do not give a realistic feel for how the OS runs on real hardware. The best way to test is on bare-metal..

EDIT, yes I realize HyperV VM is near bare-metal, but it's not fully so and can not demonstrate full potential.

 

[Chomiq]

Nope. VM's do not give a realistic feel for how the OS runs on real hardware. The best way to test is on bare-metal..

Sure, but if you want to verify some settings or see how the UI works it's good enough.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Depends on how many cores and memory the system has
Any vm would work just fine off 4 cores and 8gb memory
Host like win-10 can work off 2 cores and 4gb memory just fine.
So basically any 6 core and 16gb system can vm just fine.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I'm so tempted to bang a second HDD in my second rig to give this a try. Got a ISO and a method to bypass the TPM requirement(if it works)

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Now using a hard drive instead of an ssd, now that will kill any real os experience lol

 

[Bill_Bright]

@lexluthermiester - You, correctly IMO, ask posters to avoid Linux promoting, instigating emotive issues and Windows bashing. Then, in the very same sentence no less , you bash Microsoft for being "dumbasses" because Windows 11 has certain restrictions, conditions, and minimum requirements (or what you are criticizing as "limitations" ) because it won't do what you want it to. You speak with forked tongue.

Your initial claim for starting this thread was admirable. It is sad you decided to bash MS and W10 in the same breath you asked others not to.

FTR everyone, TPM 2.0 (trusted platform module), also known as ISO/IEC 11889, is an international "standard" for a secure cryptoprocessor, a dedicated microcontroller designed to secure hardware through integrated cryptographic keys. This is NOT something Microsoft created to suddenly shove down our throats! It is an industry standard developed by and is being promoted primarily by the hardware industry, along with business organizations and academia as well! As seen by the TPM Membership page, Microsoft is just one company among dozens that include AMD, Cisco, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Micron, Redhat, WD, GE, and many more.

Microsoft is doing their part by ensuring W11 complies with these international hardware security standards put in place to protect us!!!! That's not being dumbasses! That's doing the right thing! For us! If you want to blame some one, blame the bad guys, the hackers, malware developers, state-run cyber-criminals, and the anti-malware industry for failing to do their jobs.

Even Apple uses TPM, but of course, they have their own proprietary version, so Macs will not (at least for now) support W11.

And of course UEFI is a similar international standard for hardware and firmware where again, Microsoft is just one company among many, primarily hardware companies, as seen here.

Contrary to what some just don't seem to get, or want the rest of us to believe, it is the hardware and security industries, not Microsoft, who are the primary driving forces in the advances in computer hardware and IT security. Sure, Microsoft has a say but as you can see, they are just one company out of many in several different industries. It is up the operating system developers to ensure their latest versions support the latest standards. And it is up to the hardware makers to ensure their products also support those standards. It is NOT up to OS developers to support legacy, superseded, obsolete hardware and software.

If W11 did not support the latest industry standards and instead, decided to go their own proprietary way - again - who do you think will be first in line to bash them for not complying with industry standards again? For sure, it would be those same people who are now bashing them for complying with them.

So how about starting over with this thread, and keep the personal biases and hatred for Microsoft and Windows out of this? Okay?

******

I am curious what will happen when W11 becomes more widespread and how that will affect sites and programs that still have some dependence, connection, association (can't find the right word) with Internet Explorer now that IE is completely excised from W11. My spamblocker, MailWasher Pro, for example, uses ".Net WebBroswer" to call up your browser if you click on a link in one of your email messages. Because .Net WebBrowser is IE based, if you don't already have a browser session open with your default browser, it calls up IE. This causes an error with W11.

This is an example where 3rd party developers are going to have catch up with the times.

 

[R-T-B]

hardware security

Is a flawed philosophy. TPMs have already shipped with hardware bugs that enable weak cryptographic keys. What happens when you rely on the hardware for security, but at the same time, cannot trust it?

The reality is you just built your castle in a swamp. It saddens me too to see ms going down the "Hardware Security" road, as no security analyst thinks very positively of it.

If W11 did not support the latest industry standards

There is a difference between supporting something, and requiring it.

Still, I agree we are devolving. Let the bashing end and discussion commence.

 

[Space Lynx]

The company I work for has really good discounts on Apple stuff. never owned Apple before. but I may sell my 8th gen intel work laptop (which can upgrade to win 11) and get me a new macbook next year when the m2 chip replaces the m1 chip (I assume anyway) that will be like prob $799 after my discount and prob last me 10+ years. (as far as work goes)...

I mean if Win 11 is going to try to mimic the aesthetic of Apple, I might as well just go to Apple for my work.

 

[freeagent]

I only played with 11 a little bit. It worked pretty decently for some benches. I did notice that you can turn fTPM off once you are installed and updated.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Is a flawed philosophy. TPMs have already shipped with hardware bugs that enable weak cryptographic keys.

True but then no philosophy is perfect. Even if one were, the implementation will never be perfect - especially when, just with motherboards, there are over a dozen different manufacturers with most offering quite a few different models with multiple chipsets supporting a wide variety of processors from different makers.

It saddens me too to see ms going down the "Hardware Security" road, as no security analyst thinks very positively of it.

What? Says who? I totally disagree all around. Got a link showing "no" security analyst thinks positively about hardware security? Or even "most" don't? Some?

I've worked computer and network security since the early 70s and I know of no security analysts who doesn't think security must start at the hardware level, and be robust doing it. Security must start at the hardware level simply because the OS and our software based anti-malware solutions do not really factor in until well after the hardware boots and the boot drive is touched. Even network threats hit hardware first.

Data Security & Breaches – Why Hardware Security Is More Important Than Ever

Understanding the Increased Importance of Hardware Security in IoT Technologies

Hardware Security – An Easily Missed but Crucial Piece of the Cyber Security Puzzle

Cybersecurity must begin with hardware. Here's why | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

I could go on and on but its not necessary.

 

[Rock N Roll Rebel]

windows insider dev channel already covers windows 11
(2) windows insider program dev channel | TechPowerUp Forums

 

[R-T-B]

I've worked computer and network security since the early 70s and I know of no security analysts

You just met one. Those links you provided furthermore are press, sales sites, a forum, and a... recycing center? not actual people who work in security.

There are a few I am aware of that do both, though. DEFCon pdfs usually mock hardware security pretty openly. PufSecurity, a group that does security, actually writes this about it too:

Private Site

blog.pufsecurity.com

True but then no philosophy is perfect. Even if one were, the implementation will never be perfect

But this is why it's bad. You can update software. You can't update hardware running above-admin level code. Ever seen a firmware TPM update? There isn't firmware updates for TPM chips for a reason.

Security must start at the hardware level simply because the OS and our software based anti-malware solutions do not really factor in until well after the hardware boots and the boot drive is touched

You're confusing terminology. Of course we have to rely on hardware to boot, but we needn't trust the hardware beyond the general purpose code running. Zero-trust is the new thing we want, not TPM, which relies on code on a chip running above admin-level privileges (the whole thing that defines "hardware security").

This is completely OT though. Please PM me if you want to discuss further.

 

[TheOne]

Now that they have made the latest alpha builds available through the insider program I'm going to be dragging out my old X58 system sometime this week and use the registry modification to try and install it so I can play with it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

There is a difference between criticizing microsoft for yet another boneheaded set of moves and bashing Windows(effectively trolling the thread). Context is important here.

UEFI and TPM by themselves are not a serious problem for users, but when combined with SecureBoot a very large set of problems emerge. For example Dual/Multi boot becomes severely difficult or impossible, third party full disk encryption also becomes difficult or impossible but it also provides little ability for user level drive content servicing. These limitations are unacceptable for many reasons.

If microsoft had made those "requirements" strong recommendations and enabled them by default instead and allowed those who need to do so the option to run without those features, we wouldn't have a problem. Instead, they are imposing these "features" upon us without any consideration to the needs of the potion of public that needs them disabled for various reasons. My problem isn't so much that they are there, it's them being forced.

windows insider dev channel already covers windows 11
(2) windows insider program dev channel | TechPowerUp Forums

That thread covers the Insider program, which not everyone is or wants to be a part of. This thread is intended to be an ongoing Windows 11 discussion, even after official release, which everyone is welcome to participate in..

Sure, but if you want to verify some settings or see how the UI works it's good enough.

Fair enough.

 

[Bill_Bright]

You just met one.

"One"? And yet you pretended to speak for all! And did you read your own link? Apparently not. It clearly says, while "ugly",

hardware security solutions have been recognized by most security experts as more dependable and trustworthy than their software equivalents

And did you read the conclusion? Again, apparently not.

we are positive that hardware based security is indeed safer/more secure, faster, and better assured than its software equivalent.
a hardware security based solution is not only a “must” but also a “preferred” choice

So thank you for providing even more evidence why hardware based security, and security analyst not only are positive hardware based security is safer, more secure, and preferred.

 

[R-T-B]

Dude, fine. Believe what you want. All I know is people who actually work on the "hardware security" (like me, when I helped disect and understand the Intel ME) are pretty terrified people trust this stuff. They are more full of holes than swiss cheese, and yes, I can provide plenty of examples. But by all means. Build your castle in that swamp, because the industry wanted you to.