Watch what is next for Windows event on June 24, 2021

larc919 said:

I don't believe for one second that Microsoft will require TPM 2.0 on the release build of Windows 11. Just think of all the grief they would get if they did that. Many current Windows users with older computers would have to buy new ones. Even some of us who build our own may need new motherboards, and that could mean new CPUs and memory as well. Since OEM versions of Windows can't be transferred, new keys would be needed by many. What an uproar that would cause.

I installed W11 in Hyper V on my 7 year old Dell laptop which doesn't have TPM support then cloned the .vhdx file to a new disk partition and set it as a full boot option. It booted into W11 fine and installed all the required laptop drivers. I then activated it with the generic W10 key VK7JG-NPHTM-C97JM-9MPGT-3V66T!

ish4d0w said:

No, it's not even in the ballpark. Vista had higher system requirements but that's because it had a much more robust kernel, a brand new driver framework, much higher demanding visuals and just generally, a lot more background processes going on. THAT was demanding but even that was justified with higher CPU and RAM requirements, also graphics if you wanted more than the basic windows retro theme which was still available.
It was not very well optimized, it was painfully slow with 1G of RAM, even with 2G, but with Windows 7 they got it right.

A jump in RAM requirements from Windows 10's 2G (x64) to 4G could be justified in my opinion. I can hardly imagine any system working with less than 4G nowadays. Even 4 is so slow, 8 is barely enough for power users.

I upgraded to 16G and it is a dream. No loading times. I did use SSDs before but the additional RAM makes it way better. SuperFetch at it's finest.

But TPM? Come on, that's not even a required feature. BitLocker and stuff needs it but besides... not so much. Especially not version 2.0. It is obviously a testing requirement for this internal build. It is wrong to make assumptions on that.
And let's not forget that this prerelease leaked edition allegedly runs just fine without a TPM. You just have to deploy the image manually. (like, put it inside a Windows 10 installer to disable the check for TPM)

WHY they have implemented a check for a TPM as a requirement in the installer is quite interesting though. MY idea is that this will not be enforced for existing computers, but only for new OEM prebuilt systems that said the new PCs that will ship with Windows 11 *or whatever it will be called*, will have TPM2.0 by default and the OS will be encrypted by default with BitLocker, or something similar. This would greatly enhance user security but also cause a lot of pain for users who lose their keys, passwords etc... Making Microsoft accounts mandatory to set up a new installation on a Windows 11-certified PC could get around this issue though. The key could easily be saved into the MS account much like it is done today.

It would be, what, just more forced than it is today. That is the main reason I can see why there is a TPM requirement. I can also imagine a next generation password/identity lock feature which could store all your passwords, login credentials locally and the TPM2.0 would help with keeping that vault locked.
Combine that with a strong login password, enforced secure boot, disabled alternative boot options and maybe some next-level OS integrity checking on boot up (perhaps a read-only system partition much like EroFS on android), it would become more difficult to retrieve passwords from a PC unless they are able to log in properly.

My newest theory for TPM and Secure boot requirements.This leaked version is meant for developers and official testers which have to keep tight security and most probably are required to keep everything encoded.
My experience with Vista was very short, by the time I had compatible enough PC, W7 showed up. I was pretty satisfied with XP at that time and at first opportunity installed Vista just because of game Halo that needed Vista to run. Had it only for few months but found not much wrong with it. I think main problem with Vista is that it was different as well as many not being able to optimize their hardware for it. Btw, I had almost same problem with XP, lack of powerful enough hardware. Only after switching to my first AMD Athlon processor and system, XP showed what it can do.

johngalt said:

Nice. But I prefer to be able to verify it in my user account, so I can also clear out old, unneeded licenses when I want to.

Clearing them out doesn't really do anything to the licenses. It un-link's them but nothing happens as far as them being stored on the activation server. At one time I was switching editions so often I just gave up trying to keep what was linked up to date.
Don't get me wrong it's a nice feature. I just never actually had to make use of it. The only reason I went to a Microsoft ID in the first place was it was needed if you were a Microsoft MVP. About I all I use it for these days is OneDrive access. I chuckle to my self some times as all i have stored on it is my Raspberry Pi pictures and code, all Linux stuff, lol.

Windows 11 early versions have already leaked online. . lol

JMedlock83 said:

Windows 11 early versions have already leaked online. . lol

Yeah. And it is Windows version Dev.

Looks like Windows 11 supports a setting for Wake on Touch
Feels very phone-like

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) View on Twitter

Enable or Disable Minimize windows when Monitor is Disconnected in Windows 11 | Windows 11 Forum

Kari said:

Just to stir the pot a bit: I liked Vista, never had any issues with it.

Kari

sgage said:

Me too, Kari. It came installed on an HP that I bought in 2008, and it had all the relevant drivers and plenty of resources to work with. I slapped an nvidia card in there, and Aero Glass was beautiful. But soon Win7 came along...

Melchior said:

yeah, I agree Windows 2000 was a new NT OS and a sweet spot for its time...

magilla said:

Yes, I liked vista and win 8.1 too! So shoot me!

Marcus Vinicus said:

Reading some of the comments about people's favorite old operating systems prompts me to observe that IT geeks tend to be sentimental about operating systems past!

^^^^^ This. We all have our likes and dislikes. I listed mine in detail, and others liked what I did not like. To each his / her own.

I certainly don't hold it against @Kari to like Vista, nor @sgage nor @magilla - that's what makes us human beings - we get to choose to our own liking.

I also don't hold it against Linux users to prefer Linux, or Mac users to prefer Macs, or iPhone users to prefer iPhones when I prefer Android-based mobiles.

But the general public aligns more with my own likes and dislikes of Windows OSs - I can find loads and loads of articles disparaging ME, Vista and 8 easily enough. But, as I mentioned before, I can find many articles disparaging Micro$oft (there's that pesky $$$ sign again) from across the spectrum, from users of M$ software to people who've vowed to never use their software.

At least we can all agree to disagree and move on.

For the record, I had 2 machines that were bought with Vista on them - and when 7 was installed, even when upgrading (as I did to one noted Dell PC, versus cleanly installing it), the performance of ht machine was almost like night and day from Vista to 7 - it was simply a much better OS when it came to resource usage and allocation for the end user. The lack of XP-based driver support was irritating, but it made sense when you saw just how different the kernel and back-end of Vista was compared to XP. And the addition of UAC in Vista was, to me, a not only welcome addition but a completely necessary one. In all of the different security software that I used and even those I βeta tested on XP, my biggest gripe was the need for such a multi-layered approach to security because XP simply did not have, well, anything really, in terms of security when it cam e to default, OOB installations. In this regard , Vista was a game changer - and one I applauded even as I griped on the sluggishness of systems.

But, overall, I still did not like Vista, and that part mostly) reinforced when 7 went live as an OS and I saw just how much good it had in it (all of these things from Vista) and how much better it made use of those game-changing technologies in the OS.