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

Jen1 said:

Guys I have said it before, these so called requirements are just for economical benefits for Microsoft and Hardware manufactures.
Windows 11 is exactly the same as Windows 10, just a new theme, no more or less.

Here is WhyNotWin11 result from inside Windows 11, and btw secure boot was disabled in vmware, I am not sure how it found it enabled.
Attachment 338909
Attachment 338914

As far of the current ISO, you can install Windows 11 on any PC regardless and it will work, as long they don't change the core, it is still the same as Windows 10.

Future releases may change things but as of now Windows 11 is the same as Windows 10. I am guessing the only requirement will be x64 compatible CPU as the only Windows 11 out there is so far x64 version.

Lol. Yeah, according to that program some parts are partially not (yellow) or completely (red) compatible when checked within W11 although when checked from W10 everything is green. I personally clean installed W10 but with Secure Boot disabled but both programs said it was enabled.

boombastik said:

What is the point to beta test their windows when they gonna lock us later outside.
Second if they want to exclude old systems the only requirement they need to put is uefi bios. So all the pc after sandybridge will work as intented.

Wrong. It's not just UEFI that they want. As for the point of the betas - uh, what's the point of trial software? What's the point of free samples?

They want you to like it so that you 'll get it. As every corporation in the world - they want you to use their products.

digimonfan12 said:

Do we know if secure boot has to be enabled for windows 11? Or is just having tpm turned on enough?

Technically speaking,m we don't really know. We only have a leaked DEV build, which M$ has stated in clear terms can be installed in unsupported hardware throughout the Insider Preview phase.

IOW, right now, the leak should probably install pretty much on any device that also run Windows 10. Future builds may or may not.

f14tomcat said:

I realize that. Wish MS would be more specific about what they don't like. To just draw an arbitrary line and relegate < 8th gen to the crematorium is a bit harsh.

It does seem arbitrary - but Intel open sourced TPM in 2018. I suspect that has a lot to do with it, because their 2017 launch of 8th gen CPUs was probably already tailored to make use of firmware-based TPM, which is why 7th gen and 8th gen are so closely similar. And why the 2017 releases of AMD Ryzen and TR 1st gen CPUs did not make the cut - because they were developed before AMD had the knowledge that TPM Was about to be open sourced and firmware TPM was about to be usable by anyone.

Zardoc said:

Enabling TPM is another boot slowdown on the board. We are going forward in security and backwards in speed

No offense, but I'll take security over speed. What's the point in driving 150 mph if your brakes don't work?

I live near Atlanta, GA - the Colonial Pipeline shutdown due to a ransomware attack Fd us big time. No gas station within 30 miles of my home had gas - and the prices were $1 more than they were before the pipeline shutdown. People were stockpiling, and violence had already started at pumps as people got irate with stockpilers when they needed gas for the work week.

I'd much rather have better security and a chance to prevent infrastructure attacks (as much as possible - let's face it, they are extremely vulnerable here in the US) than go through that mess again, only for an extended period - no electricity and chaos would ensure within hours.

Cliff S said:

Ummmm???
Going forward!
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...0-boot-process

Nice find.

Jen1 said:

Guys I have said it before, these so called requirements are just for economical benefits for Microsoft and Hardware manufactures.
Windows 11 is exactly the same as Windows 10, just a new theme, no more or less.

Here is WhyNotWin11 result from inside Windows 11, and btw secure boot was disabled in vmware, I am not sure how it found it enabled.
Attachment 338909
Attachment 338914

As far of the current ISO, you can install Windows 11 on any PC regardless and it will work, as long they don't change the core, it is still the same as Windows 10.

Future releases may change things but as of now Windows 11 is the same as Windows 10. I am guessing the only requirement will be x64 compatible CPU as the only Windows 11 out there is so far x64 version.

Keep going on about it. In a sense, you're right - TPM is no magic bullet, and neither is Secure Boot. Neither are both of them together.

But with the whole SolarWinds debacle, plus the much more resent one about a Microsoft issued security certificate for the Netfilter rootkit (see Microsoft admits to signing rootkit malware in supply-chain fiasco ) they need a win for investors. They definitely are a corporation and they definitely answer to said investors.

That being said, though, they do need to do something. And my comments above show that they are at least trying to impress some folks with all of this (the investors).

but the level of security for PCs HAS TO GET BETTER. Period.

Because users ain't gonna do it themselves. Just look above at the forward security and backward speed comment for an example. Too many users complain at the restrictions security measures put on them - and don't bother with using them as they should. Then the Pandemic came, and Work from Home became a thing - and all of a sudden, all that corporate data was much, much more easily accessible PRECISELY BECAUSEthose users who don't care about security at home were access corporate and enterprise networks.

And a bad situation was made that much worse because of it.

exploder said:

I currently have 4 Precision Workstations, 2 T5600's, 1 T3600 and a T3610. They are more than modern enough to run Windows 11 in my opinion. Windows 10 runs perfectly on all of them and they benchmark very well after I upgraded the RAM, added SSD,s, modern graphics cards, etc.

I really can't fathom Microsoft leaving the hardware requirements as they currently stand. The poll on the 11 Forums shows more than half the participants systems are not compliant. Now think of this globally, they would have another ME, Vista or Windows 8 on their hands in my opinion.

I can see them not supporting 32 bit, that's realistic and we all know it. Business's are still running older systems that are not compliant, The factory I work at still has mostly older Dell Optiplex systems. As so many have pointed out, Microsoft would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Combine this with global shortages and it gives me serious doubt that the hardware requirements will remain as they now stand. They will likely say that meeting them provides the best experience. Also, think about all the negative press the requirements are going to generate and likely millions of confused user's trying to upgrade.

A leaked developer build is not the final release! The leak was clearly deliberate to build anticipation. I think the hardware requirements as they stand are for the same purpose. They would go from zero to hero instantly by changing them and I think that's exactly what they have in mind.

We have Windows 10 until October 2025 in either case. I have a plan B as do many. KDE's Plasma Desktop gets nicer every release! I am not about to run out and buy new hardware just to run Windows 11 and you shouldn't either!

Well, I've presented plenty of evidence and reasoning as to why they are doing it. But if every user not happy with the security requirements were to move to Linux, that would STILL make their PCs better secured than they currently are, IMO.

Well, all except those who foolishly try to login and run as root 24/7 (a la XP)....

johngalt said:

Wrong. It's not just UEFI that they want. As for the point of the betas - uh, what's the point of trial software? What's the point of free samples?

They want you to like it so that you 'll get it. As every corporation in the world - they want you to use their products.

Technically speaking,m we don't really know. We only have a leaked DEV build, which M$ has stated in clear terms can be installed in unsupported hardware throughout the Insider Preview phase.

IOW, right now, the leak should probably install pretty much on any device that also run Windows 10. Future builds may or may not.

It does seem arbitrary - but Intel open sourced TPM in 2018. I suspect that has a lot to do with it, because their 2017 launch of 8th gen CPUs was probably already tailored to make use of firmware-based TPM, which is why 7th gen and 8th gen are so closely similar. And why the 2017 releases of AMD Ryzen and TR 1st gen CPUs did not make the cut - because they were developed before AMD had the knowledge that TPM Was about to be open sourced and firmware TPM was about to be usable by anyone.

No offense, but I'll take security over speed. What's the point in driving 150 mph if your brakes don't work?

I live near Atlanta, GA - the Colonial Pipeline shutdown due to a ransomware attack Fd us big time. No gas station within 30 miles of my home had gas - and the prices were $1 more than they were before the pipeline shutdown. People were stockpiling, and violence had already started at pumps as people got irate with stockpilers when they needed gas for the work week.

I'd much rather have better security and a chance to prevent infrastructure attacks (as much as possible - let's face it, they are extremely vulnerable here in the US) than go through that mess again, only for an extended period - no electricity and chaos would ensure within hours.

Nice find.

Keep going on about it. In a sense, you're right - TPM is no magic bullet, and neither is Secure Boot. Neither are both of them together.

But with the whole SolarWinds debacle, plus the much more resent one about a Microsoft issued security certificate for the Netfilter rootkit (see Microsoft admits to signing rootkit malware in supply-chain fiasco ) they need a win for investors. They definitely are a corporation and they definitely answer to said investors.

That being said, though, they do need to do something. And my comments above show that they are at least trying to impress some folks with all of this (the investors).

but the level of security for PCs HAS TO GET BETTER. Period.

Because users ain't gonna do it themselves. Just look above at the forward security and backward speed comment for an example. Too many users complain at the restrictions security measures put on them - and don't bother with using them as they should. Then the Pandemic came, and Work from Home became a thing - and all of a sudden, all that corporate data was much, much more easily accessible PRECISELY BECAUSEthose users who don't care about security at home were access corporate and enterprise networks.

And a bad situation was made that much worse because of it.



Well, I've presented plenty of evidence and reasoning as to why they are doing it. But if every user not happy with the security requirements were to move to Linux, that would STILL make their PCs better secured than they currently are, IMO.

Well, all except those who foolishly try to login and run as root 24/7 (a la XP)....

Linux is no magic bullet either, it's only saving grace (security wise) is that it's less interesting to exploit holes. If you are not careful, some distros can be downright dangerous because too many fingers in it, some of distros are made by amateurs and not under scrutiny of anyone. Windows are at least made by serious company with many looking at safety features or holes,not all with nefarious goals which enables fast patching of vulnerabilities.

Exactly. Point is - ther eis no magic bullet.

Why?

There is no magic.

johngalt said:

No offense, but I'll take security over speed. What's the point in driving 150 mph if your brakes don't work?
I live near Atlanta, GA - the Colonial Pipeline shutdown due to a ransomware attack Fd us big time. No gas station within 30 miles of my home had gas - and the prices were $1 more than they were before the pipeline shutdown. People were stockpiling, and violence had already started at pumps as people got irate with stockpilers when they needed gas for the work week.
I'd much rather have better security and a chance to prevent infrastructure attacks (as much as possible - let's face it, they are extremely vulnerable here in the US) than go through that mess again, only for an extended period - no electricity and chaos would ensure within hours.

No offense taken John. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
Now why was the pipeline hacked? Bad security ? we weren't there and news outlets don't tell the full story all the time.
Intel has been letting security flaws pass buy for many years. What happened with meltdown is a classic example. A fix was found and then my high end Asus laptop lost 20%-30% efficiency. If a fix would have been put in place in a timely manner it probably would not have cost in efficiency and speed.

It's always about the$$. If companies (and some do) develop with quality as much as $$ in mind it would be a win win for them. Some companies are gouging customers in ridiculous ways because there aren't other options for customers.

But when you spit in the air, .... you know the rest. I'm all for security but not at the expense of efficiency and speed. What can be coded, can be de coded. (of course the more complex the code...)

Sure, Intel can make their processors more secure but they don't have to be slower and you don't have to have the fort Knox model for the home user.

Having more secure machines is excellent, besides I'm just venting here. I'm sure they will keep in mind that users and especially companies don't want to sacrifice speed. ��

Zardoc said:

No offense taken John. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
Now why was the pipeline hacked? Bad security ? we weren't there and news outlets don't tell the full story all the time.
Intel has been letting security flaws pass buy for many years. What happened with meltdown is a classic example. A fix was found and then my high end Asus laptop lost 20%-30% efficiency. If a fix would have been put in place in a timely manner it probably would not have cost in efficiency and speed.

It's always about the$$. If companies (and some do) develop with quality as much as $$ in mind it would be a win win for them. Some companies are gouging customers in ridiculous ways because there aren't other options for customers.

But when you spit in the air, .... you know the rest. I'm all for security but not at the expense of efficiency and speed. What can be coded, can be de coded. (of course the more complex the code...)

Sure, Intel can make their processors more secure but they don't have to be slower and you don't have to have the fort Knox model for the home user.

Having more secure machines is excellent, besides I'm just venting here. I'm sure they will keep in mind that users and especially companies don't want to sacrifice speed. ��

A reader after my own heart.

Thing is, if Intel keeps ignoring CPU vulnerabilities, then isn't it a good thing that M$ turns around and says no to older Intel CPUs that have extended vulnerabilities that Intel refuses to fix?

I was one of the Bloomfield users that was left in the dirt after Intel finally started releasing CPUCODE patches for BIOSes for their CPUs. I was incensed (you can probably find more than a few rants of mine in these forums alone). SO I understand that full well.

As for making money -well, that is the only purpose left to large corporations and enterprises. Microsoft gave Win 10 away more so than they sold it, and yet they made it into the 2 Trillion USD club. They did something right. And their investors (aka shareholders) are the ones they answer to, not us.

I get that.

However, I also get just what a pathetic job Intel has done in supporting their own hardware in the first place - it's why, when I finally, after 9+ years running my Bloomfield rig, built a new machine, I went AMD. In fact, my signature was, until just a couple of hours ago, a link to the pics of my build - which I wryly call my "I Hate Intel Build". So, yeah, I'm totally off Intel.

As for the pipeline - taken solely, no, we don't really know. But if you look at the larger scheme of things, corporate and enterprise and municipal and infrastructure attacks took a massive rise almost perfectly aligned with the Work from Home timeframe. There were a lot of stories about how WfH was a great thing, about how businesses and corporations didn't see a massive drop in productivity that they were expecting. And yet those businesses who allow WfH are getting more and more antsy about getting their workers back in-house.

Because the average homeowner working for a corp doesn't know jack about home network security and how to ensure their kids can play on hte network and their IoT devices can access the network as they want and they can access their corporate resources - all without knowing about each other.

"Oh, I live in {XYZ large Metropolitan area} and I have {XXXX} high speed internet, so I can work from home just as easy as I can from the office!

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Not that simple. And malicious actors took major advantage of this.

Now, I realize, as I mentioned above - corps gotta make the shareholders happy. And all of these so-called restrictions that M$ has given us thus far are mostly smoke and mirrors meant to appease the shareholders. I get that too.

But something sure needs to be done. We put people through a lengthy testing process to get a drivers license. And yet people promptly forget to verify their lights work, check their tires, keep their mirrors and windshields clean and watch traffic in all mirrors, etc. And anyone with $$$ can buy a computer, no tests, no security verification, almost nothing.

Why did M$ start including an antivirus program in with the OS?
Why did M$ develop UAC?
Why have they continually tried to bring better computing practices to the masses?

Because the masses don't care. They just want their Facebook, or WhatsApp, or their games, or Their work apps, or whatever they do, to work. They don't want to take the time to learn how to protect themselves.

Sad, but true.

If these restrictions turn out to be smoke and mirrors as they appear right now, so be it. But if they really do enforce a higher level of security than ever before?

I'm all for it.