Microsoft should stop with this charade and make Windows 11 a paid upgrade

[adrynalyne]

18 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

To answer your comments, in order:

 

1.  TPM - in any form - originated in servers - not desktops.  (It is part of the same set of features that gave us EFI - and later, UEFI.)  Who brought it to desktops first?  It wasn't Microsoft - but Apple.

2.  TPM could be implemented in either hardware, or software.  (As I pointed out above, only servers, and Apple hardware, made it mandatory.)

3.  TPM was, in fact, heavily resisted and protested against - except for servers.  (Even Apple caught flack for insisting on TPM - and not just from the "Hackintosh" community.)  That is why it was not mandatory, and ALSO why it was disabled by default - which remains the case to today - outside of servers and Apple.

 

If you are handy with a screwdriver - and can read - you can swap in a motherboard/CPU combo that is Windows 11-ready - right now (once the parts arrive).  MicroCenter has several such bundles actually in stock at most locations; my own preference is based on a Core i7 and 32 GB of DDR4, and costs $920USD (including tax).  There are two MicroCenter locations near me (Washington, DC area) - both have the items in stock.

So:

ALSO why it was disabled by default - which remains the case to today - outside of servers and Apple.

--This is 100% false as a blanket statement. I've yet to buy a laptop in the last ~8 years that doesn't have TPM enabled.

[PGHammer]

6 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

So:

ALSO why it was disabled by default - which remains the case to today - outside of servers and Apple.

--This is 100% false as a blanket statement. I've yet to buy a laptop in the last ~8 years that doesn't have TPM enabled.

I have four of them - none are even five years old; and none have TPM enabled; only one is an "off brand" - AsusTak Core i3.  The other three are all AMD-powered HP laptops and notebooks - none have TPM as even an option; but none support UEFI, either.  (The Asus laptop DOES support UEFI - it is, in fact, the only laptop or notebook I own that does - but TPM is not an option even there.)  (I will wager that you purchase high-end laptops and notebooks; what brand?  HP does sell laptops and notebooks that support TPM 1.2 and later, but they are aimed at businesses - not the average consumer.)  The Asus has other issues - which is why it is about to have its chop called; it will be replaced with a Microsoft Surface Pro Laptop (which meets the Windows 11 hurdles).

 

What we are seeing is a resistance to spending on what they see is something of low importance - and is NOT new.

[adrynalyne]

3 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

I have four of them - none are even five years old; and none have TPM enabled; only one is an "off brand" - AsusTak Core i3.  The other three are all AMD-powered HP laptops and notebooks - none have TPM as even an option; but none support UEFI, either.  (The Asus laptop DOES support UEFI - it is, in fact, the only laptop or notebook I own that does - but TPM is not an option even there.)  (I will wager that you purchase high-end laptops and notebooks; what brand?  HP does sell laptops and notebooks that support TPM 1.2 and later, but they are aimed at businesses - not the average consumer.)  The Asus has other issues - which is why it is about to have its chop called; it will be replaced with a Microsoft Surface Pro Laptop (which meets the Windows 11 hurdles).

 

What we are seeing is a resistance to spending on what they see is something of low importance - and is NOT new.

HP, ASUS, Lenovo, Apple.

 

Even if I do buy high end machines, it just proves my point.

[PGHammer]

10 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

HP, ASUS, Lenovo, Apple.

 

Even if I do buy high end machines, it just proves my point.

Except one - the resistance is still there.    (I'm not defending it - just acknowledging it.)  You, sir, are refusing to acknowledge it - never mind that all the brands you purchase from - with the exception of Apple - sell LOTS of PCs - including laptops and notebooks - with TPM either disabled by default or not present whatever - to satisfy what customers want.  Sticking your head in the sand does nobody any good - not even you.

 

[adrynalyne]

2 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Except one - the resistance is still there.    (I'm not defending it - just acknowledging it.)  You, sir, are refusing to acknowledge it - never mind that all the brands you purchase from - with the exception of Apple - sell LOTS of PCs - including laptops and notebooks - with TPM either disabled by default or not present whatever - to satisfy what customers want.  Sticking your head in the sand does nobody any good - not even you.

 

I don't live in your non-business world. I am not going to acknowledge what I've not seen. You said there are none turned on by default outside Apple and servers. That was a blatant falsehood.

 

I am not sticking my head in the sand, I am telling you that you are literally wrong.

[PGHammer]

34 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

I don't live in your non-business world. I am not going to acknowledge what I've not seen. You said there are none turned on by default outside Apple and servers. That was a blatant falsehood.

 

I am not sticking my head in the sand, I am telling you that you are literally wrong.

Not saying you do; in fact, I am implying the opposite.  It is the non-business users that complained then - and are complaining now.

 

What YOU are doing is basically insisting that because you are an exception, that my citing a rule that does not apply to you makes my rule invalid.  Unfortunately, neither life OR IT works that way; it did not then, and does not now.

 

What is, in fact, happening is that the rest of us are being dragged - with much kickage and screamage - to where YOU are; naturally, folks are not going to like it.  (Am I one of those kicking and screaming?  Surprisingly (and I wager you ARE surprised), I am not one of them.  I fully intend to change out my non-compliant hardware - for other reasons unrelated to TPM.)

 

Do you remember the brouhaha over Windows 8 (and 8.1)?  That is, in fact, how far back the TPM issue goes.

 

I did some exploring in my desktop motherboard's UEFI and found the Windows 8.1 feature, and turned it on - then reran the updated PC Health app.

The fail this time was NOT TPM!  Instead, the fail is the G3258 CPU - a dual-core derivative of the Core i3 that uses the LGA1150 socket.

Are there LGA1150 CPUs that meet the cutoff?  Possible - the i5 and i7 - in the same socket - are candidates.

 

Still, I have other reasons for going with a newer motherboard/CPU/RAM loadout other than TPM - which is no longer the issue.

[adrynalyne]

3 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Not saying you do; in fact, I am implying the opposite.  It is the non-business users that complained then - and are complaining now.

 

What YOU are doing is basically insisting that because you are an exception, that my citing a rule that does not apply to you makes my rule invalid.  Unfortunately, neither life OR IT works that way; it did not then, and does not now.

 

What is, in fact, happening is that the rest of us are being dragged - with much kickage and screamage - to where YOU are; naturally, folks are not going to like it.  (Am I one of those kicking and screaming?  Surprisingly (and I wager you ARE surprised), I am not one of them.  I fully intend to change out my non-compliant hardware - for other reasons unrelated to TPM.)

 

Do you remember the brouhaha over Windows 8 (and 8.1)?  That is, in fact, how far back the TPM issue goes.

 

I did some exploring in my desktop motherboard's UEFI and found the Windows 8.1 feature, and turned it on - then reran the updated PC Health app.

The fail this time was NOT TPM!  Instead, the fail is the G3258 CPU - a dual-core derivative of the Core i3 that uses the LGA1150 socket.

Are there LGA1150 CPUs that meet the cutoff?  Possible - the i5 and i7 - in the same socket - are candidates.

 

Still, I have other reasons for going with a newer motherboard/CPU/RAM loadout other than TPM - which is no longer the issue.

I am doing nothing more than calling you a liar. You made a false claim and I called you out on it. All this deflection doesn't change that.

 

All of the rest of what you are talking about is noise.

 

I hate that I needed to be that blunt.

[goretsky Supervisor]

Hello,

I was always under the impression that the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) came out of Intel's and Hewlett-Packard's efforts to create a replacement firmware for BIOS-based systems in the late 1990s, and that the first computers that shipped with EFI were Itanium-based workstations and servers in 2001.  Apple Mac's would have been the first desktop computers that shipped with it in 2006, though, with the first release of Intel-based Macs.

I seem to recall reading that the initial TPM specification was released in 2000 by the now-defunct Trusted Computing Platform Alliance.  The first computer I can recollect hearing about a TPM chip on was the IBM ThinkPad T23, released in 2001, as part of its embedded security subsystem that was compliant with TCPA's standards.  The T43p, released in 2005, had an actual TPM setting in its BIOS using that name (or abbreviation, at least).  I recall the idea being that the TPM chip could serve as a secure enclave (or whatever the term may have been back then) for things like disk encryption keys and biometric values.  I do not recall Apple being a part of that effort, but this was years ago.

Microsoft did make some announcements about Project Palladium, the code-name for its implementation of Next Generation Secure Computing Base computers, and there was a lot of pushback on it.  This was in 2003, perhaps?

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

3 hours ago, PGHammer said:

To answer your comments, in order:

 

1.  TPM - in any form - originated in servers - not desktops.  (It is part of the same set of features that gave us EFI - and later, UEFI.)  Who brought it to desktops first?  It wasn't Microsoft - but Apple.

2.  TPM could be implemented in either hardware, or software.  (As I pointed out above, only servers, and Apple hardware, made it mandatory.)

3.  TPM was, in fact, heavily resisted and protested against - except for servers.  (Even Apple caught flack for insisting on TPM - and not just from the "Hackintosh" community.)  That is why it was not mandatory, and ALSO why it was disabled by default - which remains the case to today - outside of servers and Apple.

 

If you are handy with a screwdriver - and can read - you can swap in a motherboard/CPU combo that is Windows 11-ready - right now (once the parts arrive).  MicroCenter has several such bundles actually in stock at most locations; my own preference is based on a Core i7 and 32 GB of DDR4, and costs $920USD (including tax).  There are two MicroCenter locations near me (Washington, DC area) - both have the items in stock.

 

[olavinto]

On 26/06/2021 at 18:25, Mockingbird said:

I get it, Microsoft wants to make money.

 

This new system requirements to get people to buy new PCs is ridiculous.

 

Microsoft should drop this charade and make Windows 11 a paid upgrade.

No one is forcing you to upgrade to Windows 11 - feel free to keep using Windows 10 (it is even supported for several years still). If you have an even older pc, then feel free to keep using Windows 7 or whatever os you have there (at you own risk, obviosly). No one has said that you absolutely must use the latest version, just that the older ones are not supported after a certain date. As unfortunate as it may be for some people, it is not possible for anyone to keep supporting their products forever, especially when no one ever manufactures the hardware you would be developing for an testing on. Or perhaps you think that all other applications and games should also be made to work on 10 year old platforms (at least if the updates are free)? I also do not understand how making this a paid upgrade would affect the system requirements in any way? By this logic you would arque that your cars manufacturer should make you pay for their latest model which they have offered to you as a free upgrade just because your old tires and rims do not fit into the new model (or that your old one has a CD player but the new one does not and does not support adding one)?

[northwind95]

Microsoft calling us poor in every language possible 😆 and apparently our existing PCs are worth it.

[PGHammer]

On 30/06/2021 at 18:11, adrynalyne said:

I am doing nothing more than calling you a liar. You made a false claim and I called you out on it. All this deflection doesn't change that.

 

All of the rest of what you are talking about is noise.

 

I hate that I needed to be that blunt.

It is noise to you because it does not apply to you - nor am I implying otherwise.

 

It is NOT noise to non-corporate users - such as home users - or small-business users, either - and those are the very users that are out there screaming.

 

You have not had to deal with them - which is why you do not care.  (I get that much - and I would not expect you to give two figs about a group of users you do not normally face.)

 

I, on the other hand, DO have to face this class of users in my day-to-day life - and it is anything but a picnic.  Most of them simply want to not care about security - despite that not caring almost always comes back to bite them in the butt.

 

So who winds up dealing with the problem?  Computer manufacturers - including those that make motherboards, for those of us that build for ourselves and other home and home-office users - and companies like (and especially) Microsoft.

 

Even Microsoft could not goal-kick the problem forever.

 

 

[adrynalyne]

2 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

It is noise to you because it does not apply to you - nor am I implying otherwise.

 

It is NOT noise to non-corporate users - such as home users - or small-business users, either - and those are the very users that are out there screaming.

 

You have not had to deal with them - which is why you do not care.  (I get that much - and I would not expect you to give two figs about a group of users you do not normally face.)

 

I, on the other hand, DO have to face this class of users in my day-to-day life - and it is anything but a picnic.  Most of them simply want to not care about security - despite that not caring almost always comes back to bite them in the butt.

 

So who winds up dealing with the problem?  Computer manufacturers - including those that make motherboards, for those of us that build for ourselves and other home and home-office users - and companies like (and especially) Microsoft.

 

Even Microsoft could not goal-kick the problem forever.

 

 

I didn't even bother to read, because you didn't bother to read.

Carry on preaching to ch....oh, nobody.

[PGHammer]

On 02/07/2021 at 16:36, adrynalyne said:

I didn't even bother to read, because you didn't bother to read.

Carry on preaching to ch....oh, nobody.

They can't say they weren't warned - even if nobody wants to listen.

 

[adrynalyne]

2 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

They can't say they weren't warned - even if nobody wants to listen.

 

Can't teach them when they are wrong, when they don't read.

You are in your own little world or something, its bizarre.

[Mockingbird]

On 30/06/2021 at 08:46, devHead said:

I think you don't entirely understand the meaning of the word 'charade'.  In this context, it doesn't make sense.  Having higher system requirements isn't a charade, it's just more stringent requirements for security purposes. Plus, why would those requirements change if the OS was sold instead of being offered as a free upgrade? You have some real logic issues with your argument.

Think about it.

 

If Microsoft can make money from people who would otherwise not be able to upgrade Windows 11, would Microsoft prevent them from upgrading?

 

Of cause not.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 minute ago, Mockingbird said:

Think about it.

 

If Microsoft can make money from people who would otherwise not be able to upgrade Windows 11, would Microsoft prevent them from upgrading?

 

Of cause not.

Your conspiracy theory still doesn't make a lick of sense.....

[adrynalyne]

2 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

Think about it.

 

If Microsoft can make money from people who would otherwise not be able to upgrade Windows 11, would Microsoft prevent them from upgrading?

 

Of cause not.

Your entire argument is built on a faulty logic and it’s been pointed out. Why are you continuing this?

[Mockingbird]

Just now, adrynalyne said:

Your entire argument is built on a faulty logic and it’s been pointed out. Why are you continuing this?

Point out this "faulty logic".

[adrynalyne]

1 minute ago, Mockingbird said:

Point out this "faulty logic".

I already have and so have several others. May I recommend you review your own thread?

[Mockingbird]

1 minute ago, Jim K said:

Your conspiracy theory still doesn't make a lick of sense.....

You just have to use your head to see why it's not a conspiracy theory.

 

Windows 11 is free so Microsoft doesn't get much money from people upgrading.

 

On the other hand, Microsoft gets to sell new Windows licenses with new PCs

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

I already have and so have several others. May I recommend you review your own thread?

Do you want to point it out?

[adrynalyne]

Just now, Mockingbird said:

 

Do you want to point it out?

Not when it’s quite literally here in this thread for you to review. It’s not like you need to go out and Google why your argument is flawed to the core. Why would anyone want to repeat themselves for your edification when you can go read?

[Mockingbird]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Not when it’s quite literally here in this thread for you to review. It’s not like you need to go out and Google why your argument is flawed to the core. Why would anyone want to repeat themselves for your edification when you can go read?

I already read through this thread.

 

What exactly do you want to point out?

[fusi0n]

I'm actually pleased that Microsoft has introduces such high requirements for it's next OS. This allows them to build an OS strictly around newer frameworks that may not be possible with older hardware. Yes, they can turn on features a and b and leave them off if hardware requirements aren't met, but it looses focus on actually building a true next gen OS. There are so many underlying features that CPUs and Motherboards have and may not be used to their full potential due to the underlying OS for combability and/or having to focus on "getting it to work for everyone". We can already tell something is very correct with this new focus due to the improvement on gaming. 

 

If you don't like Windows 11, then just don't use it. You have four years to find something new. I actually don't like Windows that much myself and with the way Proton/DXVK is progressing.. people (gamers) will soon have a legit option switching to Linux. I can play JUST about anything I want on Linux at this point, the ones that don't work isn't due to graphics not working, it's to due the amazing anti-cheat software /s 

 

Microsoft isn't doing some "get rich quick" scheme with this, they are finally forcing evolution of the PC. It's about damn time. 

[adrynalyne]

16 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

I already read through this thread.

 

What exactly do you want to point out?

I don’t want to point out anything because if you had truly read the responses here, you wouldn’t be asking that. So clearly it’s a lost cause. 

[Mockingbird]

13 hours ago, fusi0n said:

I'm actually pleased that Microsoft has introduces such high requirements for it's next OS. This allows them to build an OS strictly around newer frameworks that may not be possible with older hardware. Yes, they can turn on features a and b and leave them off if hardware requirements aren't met, but it looses focus on actually building a true next gen OS. There are so many underlying features that CPUs and Motherboards have and may not be used to their full potential due to the underlying OS for combability and/or having to focus on "getting it to work for everyone". We can already tell something is very correct with this new focus due to the improvement on gaming. 

Can you really say with a straight face that Windows 11 would run better on the Coffee Lake 2C/2T Celeron G4900T (which Windows 11 supports) than on the Kaby Lake 4C/8T Core i7-7700K (which Windows 11 doesn't support)?