Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft announces Windows 11

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 706 posts

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#691

Post by mard »

sixothree wrote: post #675
michaelbrave wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * TPM 2.0 and UEFI are hardware requirements. No legacy BIOS compatibility at all? This is a dealbreaker for me, guess I won't be upgrading and will use linux most of the time instead of half of the time going forward

Full disk encryption is an important feature. TPM helps enable that. I can't imagine travelling with a work laptop without FDE.

You can still use BitLocker completely without TPM, but it needs an explicit change in Group Policy. If opted in, BitLocker setup will behave much like well known TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt, offering encryption options with a password or a keyfile.

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#692

Post by jandrese »

BoorishBears wrote: post #549
jandrese wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you verify this using the verification tool? Reports on the internet say the tool reports machines with earlier generation processors are being flagged as not compatible. I don't have any i8 or later CPUs to test with, but thus far all of my machines with TPMs have reported as not compatible from Microsoft's tool. https://aka.ms/GetPCHealthCheckApp

Here's the actual compatibility doc. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/windo... TPM 1.2 is the bare minimum required, TPM 2.0 for some security features That's a very far cry from "8th gen Intel required", TPM 1.2 has been around for more than a decade. Odds are you need to change a setting in your BIOS.

So that document says:

  There are new minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11. In order to run Windows 11, devices must meet the hardware specifications. Devices that do not meet the hardware requirements cannot be upgraded to Windows 11.
  
  Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or System on a Chip (SoC)
Following the link for "compatible 64-bit Processor" brings me to:

  Windows Processor Requirements

  ...

  Windows Client Edition Processors

  ...

  Windows 11  Supported AMD Processors  Supported Intel Processors  Supported Qualcomm Processors
The link for "Supported Intel Processors" brings me back to the original link that you claim is only for system builders and only lists i8 and above. So I'm not sure where the actual list of supported processors is.

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#693

Post by themacguffinman »

javchz wrote: post #624
askonomm wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright. So if Netflix wants their app to be hosted and indexed by the App Store, Apple should just provide the costs related to that because of charity? The bandwidth alone I imagine carries a pretty hefty price for an app like Netflix. By your logic, this should all be given free - which actually is negative profit for Apple .. why? Would you create an App Store, dedicate resources on moderation and app curation, a…

You could give Devs two options A) Give me X% of revenue, and I will give you free hosting of your app, and some form of promotion. B) No commission, but you host your own binaries. To be a valid installable app, you need to give me a hash of the binary valid to install, that I have approved before. Each audit of binaries cost X. No promotion for free in the app store.

The main problem with Option B is the potential for bad/inconsistent app download experiences. Many companies may cheap out on binary hosting and have very slow or broken downloads (especially in certain countries), which results in a kind of random "never know if this will work well" patchy UX for iOS/Android users at large.

This isn't an insurmountable problem of course. Perhaps Apple/Google could charge fixed bandwidth rates and host it themselves, or they could contractually set SLA requirements that could be verified regularly with an uptime service.

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#694

Post by BoorishBears »

jandrese wrote: post #692
BoorishBears wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the actual compatibility doc. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/windo... TPM 1.2 is the bare minimum required, TPM 2.0 for some security features That's a very far cry from "8th gen Intel required", TPM 1.2 has been around for more than a decade. Odds are you need to change a setting in your BIOS.

So that document says: There are new minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11. In order to run Windows 11, devices must meet the hardware specifications. Devices that do not meet the hardware requirements cannot be upgraded to Windows 11. Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or System on a Chip (SoC) Following the link for "compatible 64-bit Processor" bring…

Guess what? Last night when I wrote that comment the link said

> TPM 1.2 is a “hard floor” for installing Windows 11 TPM 2.0 is a "soft floor"

Now, presumably because everyone's hotlinking to the one place where they admitted "Well actually you don't *need* TPM 2.0" they cut and paste data from some other page and put that note on the bottom

It's amazing, through sheer will in rejecting a not-very-well-hidden truth, people got MS to bury this even further. Impressive!

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#695

Post by jandrese »

BoorishBears wrote: post #694
jandrese wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that document says: There are new minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11. In order to run Windows 11, devices must meet the hardware specifications. Devices that do not meet the hardware requirements cannot be upgraded to Windows 11. Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or System on a Chip (SoC) Following the link for "compatible 64-bit Processor" bring…

Guess what? Last night when I wrote that comment the link said > TPM 1.2 is a “hard floor” for installing Windows 11 TPM 2.0 is a "soft floor" Now, presumably because everyone's hotlinking to the one place where they admitted "Well actually you don't *need* TPM 2.0" they cut and paste data from some other page and put that note on the bottom It's amazing, through sheer will in rejecting a not-very-well-hidden truth,…

This thread was about the CPU requirements, the TPM requirements are orthogonal.

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#696

Post by BoorishBears »

jandrese wrote: post #695
BoorishBears wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess what? Last night when I wrote that comment the link said > TPM 1.2 is a “hard floor” for installing Windows 11 TPM 2.0 is a "soft floor" Now, presumably because everyone's hotlinking to the one place where they admitted "Well actually you don't *need* TPM 2.0" they cut and paste data from some other page and put that note on the bottom It's amazing, through sheer will in rejecting a not-very-well-hidden truth,…

This thread was about the CPU requirements, the TPM requirements are orthogonal.

One requirement on a requirement list is not orthogonal from another requirement... especially when we're talking something largely tied to CPU/Chipset generations

Just like there was a Soft/Hard for TPM there was one for CPU... but again now that's gone:

https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/articles/03M5zHCwxn6igCkcMUN78hz...

No CPU generation for the hard floor.

This is simple. MS wants the proliferation of features that require TPM 2.0.

So if you use a layperson's tool for identifying Windows 11 install targets, it requires 2.0.

If you use their own documents (which are now hidden) the OS will run on much more hardware.

If I was talking to my mom about if she can install Windows 11 it'd be one thing, but this is HN. If MS is saying "we want this on X, but it runs on Y"... it runs on Y.

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#697

Post by cdrini »

cdrini wrote: post #596
satysin wrote: post #94

So to summerize what they have announced (so far) - * A new look task bar. Centred similar to the macOS dock by default but lacking the ability to position on any other screen edge? * A new start menu design * Windows have rounded corners * Some built in apps such as the Xbox app and Microsoft Store have been redesigned (Xbox Game Pass and xCloud built into the Xbox app) * New touch keyboard (SwiftKey?) with improved…

Do you have a citation for this? > * A Microsoft account and internet connectivity is required for Windows 11 Home setup I saw a video of Linus tech tips taking the leaked demo for a spin, and it looked like there was an option to use it with a local only account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odZSCdNTFPw&t=305s

Update: it does appear to be the case that Windows 11 home edition will need a Microsoft account :( src: another Linus video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFCeCPpfnhQ

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#698

Post by phendrenad2 »

noobermin wrote: post #542
phendrenad2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those are actually features. 1. Old control panels: Drivers may overlay or modify the window, so you can't really change them (don't forget: Windows supports many obscure devices like DAWs and heavy machinery, many things Linux users have never even considered connecting to a PC, and all of those have custom drivers from the device manufacturer that Microsoft doesn't control) 2. Telemetry, ads: Yes, this is a…

1 is widely broken then by Win11 not supporting 32 bit machines anymore.

It's possible that having invested effort into integrating with these old control panels, the hardware manufacturer wants to keep reusing that code, and is willing up recompile for 64-bit to do so, rather than throw it all away and start over.

Re: Microsoft announces Windows 11

#699

Post by walteweiss »

mdoms wrote: post #486
literallyaduck wrote: post #288

Every time this happens someone says fuck it and installs Linux. After two weeks some of them come back, but the Linux market share grows. I want an OS that stays current on security patches, attempts to be as unobtrusive as possible, allows for Desktop Environment customization but has sane defaults. I don't want special integrations. The OS should follow single responsibility and defer special functionality to app…

Wait until you see what happens with Ubuntu updates.

Is that still a thing in 2021? Switched from Ubuntu to Debian quite a long time ago (now on Arch) for this very reason.
Post reply on HN