Microsoft deletes all comments under heavily criticized Windows 11 upgrade video
notebookcheck.net
notebookcheck.net
I haven't had Windows on my computer since Windows 7. Instead I've been using modern Linux distributions. This is freedom. My computer doesn't slow down, is lightning fast, and just works, year after year.
1. Win 10 was promised to be the "last Windows", updated like a rolling distro.
2. Minimum system requirements are raised in a way that leaves behind "as many as 60 percent" of hardware that's otherwise fine.
3. Home edition cannot be set up with a local account.
Valve is working together with AAA publishers to get better Linux support.
WSL2 is a game changer.
That's brave of you, I hope you had installed the latest security updates, which for Windows which hasn't been updated in months can take several hours, multiple reboots and has 1/10 chance to update successfully.
Update mechanism are another reason for someone to run Linux, Especially a rolling release distribution.
Linux for work and development. PS5 for gaming. I am happy that my complete household is Microsoft free.
In this case, Windows 10 will continue to run on your computer perfectly fine. Microsoft are not changing anything about Windows 10, or the way people use Windows 10, or removing any Windows 10 'ownership' that people have right now.
The complaints are that Windows 11 has additional requirements (a modern CPU with a TMP 2.0 chip), and that older computers don't have that. Essentially people are sad that they can't upgrade because their computers don't meet the minimum spec. TMP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module) is a bit controversial, but you can run Windows without it. Just not Windows 11.
Secure boot does not prevent a user from installing Linux. That’s just FUD.
Secure boot or TPM can make sense for the cloud, since you might want to check if the provider changed your OS. MS used ransomware to justify secure boot. That is FUD. Boot and Bios trojans have become extremely rare and it doesn't provide enough protection anyway.
This is for vendor lock in and nothing else.
But if you ask me, "they" essentially want an un-tamperable and un-recordable pipe between hosted server and the monitor that emits electrons to your eyeballs.
Secure boot was introduced for Windows 8, ages ago. Microsoft and PC vendors promised that on all Intel PCs the user can install their own certificates. I have not heard that this would have changed. So the problem affects only ARM PCs, which aren't particularly common.
As a Linux user I use secure boot. On some machines with big distros that have shims signed by Microsoft. On others with Arch or Yocto with my own keys.
From a security standpoint secure boot is hard to justify to be honest. When did you encounter the last boot or bias trojan?
Sure, large distros are signed by Microsoft. Do I want that? They also complained that it takes quite a long time....
Where is the benefit for the user?
Secure boot is simple and lightweight. Should I just wait until some damage happens? I agree it's not the most critical measure. I have at least one machine where it doesn't work and many where initramfs remains unchecked. Have not lost my sleep yet.
There's nothing to stop you from using Windows 10 or Linux on your hardware unless MS goes all anti-competitive and forces OEMs to build hardware that only runs Windows 11.
They didn't force OEMs, but some devices can only run Windows 8.1 with no ability to turn Secure boot off.
> ARM-based Certified For Windows RT devices, such as the Microsoft Surface RT device, are designed to run only Windows 8.1. Therefore, Secure Boot cannot be turned off, and you cannot load a different operating system.
Same for TPM. Not even TPM 1.2 is enforced and that was a requirement for windows 10 already.
For lazy people with win10 already installed use https://github.com/ArkaneDev/WinPass11
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci725s2c/archive/...
This isn't exactly comforting or acceptable. Windows 10 will stop receiving security updates in what, 5 years? I have a desktop computer from 2014 that I use daily, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The amount of (unnecessary) ewaste Microsoft will create by going through with this decision is staggering.
On the other hand every other device on the market now (mobile phone, tablets, everything Apple) are almost completely locked down from the user's perspective so MS probably feels they are safe in joining the rest of the world in tying the user's hands.
I understand the move towards better security but they should also consider extending Windows 10 support beyond the current end of 2025 deadline, given the harsh requirements for upgrade. You could buy a brand new MS device today and see it turn into an unsupported paperweight in just 4 years. The security pros for Secure Boot shouldn't come at the cost of millions of useless and unsupported PCs so early in their (historically long) lifecycle.
I've had personal computers for years and none of them have been on corporate networks so I don't see how MS should care about me in that - and for actual businesses aren't their hardware turnaround times generally less than 5 years? Is this all worth it to shave off that 1%?
Cloud account, cloud storage, cloud applications, cloud content, cloud security, cloud messaging, cloud meeting, cloud moderation.
Everything will be in the cloud and connected with a subscription, paid or with ads.
Your computer will only be client connected to those services, and just as users getting banned from different internet services by breaking the user agreement, you will be banned from your computer for breaking the user agreement. The distinction between the computer and the internet services will be very fuzzy because they will be intertwined.
Also read this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28059074
Doesn't that count as deceptive marketing? I mean, the timespan between Win10 and Win11 is comparable to the timespan between Win8 and Win10. Does Microsoft lack a corporate memory? Have they said anything about this discrepancy between their forward-looking announcements and their actual behaviour?
Do they think it doesn't matter what BS they spin to their prospective customers?
To go through your points, people are still buying new computers today which Windows 11 will not support, so we're looking at a 5 year life cycle for that hardware if those users do not do something like switch to Linux, which we know most people will not.
Using a PC which is no longer receiving security updates is a terrible idea if it's connected to the internet. Continuing to use the device while it is connected to the internet is not a viable option.
Most importantly, even if my computer happens to be 11 years old at that time, if it still works, it still works. I 100% reject the idea that people should retire perfectly fine computers over unnecessary and arbitrary hardware requirements.
What really gets me upset about this whole situation is the marketing around Windows 10, and how it would be the last version of Windows ever.
For example, if we change the version number, we get a slightly different picture: "...Windows 7 will continue to run on your computer perfectly fine. Microsoft are not changing anything about Windows 7, or the way people use Windows 7, or removing any Windows 7 'ownership' that people have right now."
Remember Windows 7 having constant nag screens in it to upgrade? Remember Microsoft pushing their godawful Metro design, alongside a lack of a proper Start menu, before that was patched out? Remember people discovering that their OSes had forcefully upgraded after leaving their computers unattended for a while?
Given all of that, a bit of distrust is to be expected.
You haven't been doing this long enough if you believe that.
Has it been confirmed anywhere that Win10 installations won't be automatically updated to Win11? Given the automatic nature of Win10 updates I'd expect that I'm waking up one morning, and be greeted by Win11 on my gaming PC (and since Win11 is just a marketing name for what's normally a Win10 feature update, this is most likely to happen, at least for Win10 Home users).
That said, I might not really cry myself to sleep if people leave Windows behind.
Though right now the only problem I have is Windows restarting overnight for updates. Closing half the open programs.
Even though I explicitly set it to no auto restart if user logged on. Then again, it ignores the work time, too.
This really annoys me. I mean, why can't they just pop up a warning that I need to reboot? Or perhaps (not so good) at least take note of which apps are running, and re-launch them after the forced reboot?
Windows has been getting suckier with each release since Win2K. None of this suckiness is security, or seriously-cool enhancements. It's all caused by marketing exigencies.
Microsoft's awfulness makes me want to cry.
[Edit: changed "since WinNT" to "since Win2K" - Win2K wasn't suckier than WinNT - as far as I know, it was just WinNT re-skinned]
I think people who complain about this situation are people who know enough about computers to know that an "older" but higher-end computer would run just fine. The random Joe probably isn't running a 6th gen maxed-out i7, but some cheap low-end PC that they're used to having to change fairly regularly because it breaks for no reason.
I'm not defending MS here, but I think their strength is based on enterprise clients, where people change computers much more often, as based on their support contracts, and run-of-the-mill users who don't even think of "Windows" as being different from "the computer".
Power users are either "stuck" somehow on Windows (games, or other software that requires Windows) or are already on Linux. In the first case, it may be an issue, but they'll probably just grumpily whip out their card and upgrade. What else are they going to do?
I'm in the second situation and running a 3rd gen i7 and have no intention of upgrading it as long the computer works. But I only occasionally boot it in Windows to play some game. When games won't support Windows 10 anymore, I'll just play some other game.
But there are plenty of people out there who are otherwise highly educated or intelligent who simply don't have sufficient domain knowledge when it comes to computers, to make more informed choices instead of being herded like sheep by the tech-giants.
And I can't think of a single go-to resource on the net that can explain the intricacies of computers and apps to the average (but intelligent) Joe, with a particular view towards enabling more freedom and privacy for them.
That may be true, but I also get the feeling that they choose to spend their energy worrying about other things, as long as the computer does the job they want it to do.
Hell, I have a friend who's actually a techie, tried Linux, actually even has it installed on his daily driver (dual boot on a single drive in a laptop), he just never uses it. He's a Java dev, so all his stack would probably work on Linux with little or no fiddling.
But he just does not care. Windows doesn't bother him enough to make the change, so he didn't change.
I think this is the most important part: Windows mostly works for most people. Paradoxically, I think that the fact that the OS is less and less important is actually a bad thing for Linux adoption. Because people just don't care about the OS as long as the browser works. And on Windows, it works well enough. So why would they change?
There are of course philosophical reasons, but people don't appear to care. There are billions of Facebook users. This shows people don't care about these issues. I don't know if it's because they intrinsically don't care, or because we've done a bad job of educating them. Maybe a bit of both.
But it sure feels like an uphill battle, even among "techies".
I disagree that it's a bad thing for Linux. If you install Linux on a persons machine where they only browse facebook, they wont notice and they save ~120$. Worked fine enough for a couple of non-techies I know (kindergarten teachers).
This is no longer the 90s, every year there are articles "20?? is the year of the linux"! Linux has actually been around for longer than w95/NT and it is 10-15 years now that user friendly distributions are available. More or less, a laptop with a linux installation will work until it is thrown away.
However, installing an operation system (be it win or linux or OSX) is not sth that everyone can do neither that can be expected of everyone.
So, in my opinion:
1) Linux usage/adoption can not increase unless there are ways to be preinstalled on laptops/supported in a similar way as windows/osx are.
2) The importance of freedom is a personal matter which we can not impose on people.
This is a pretty dated argument. Chromebooks outsell Macs. Tablets (Mac or Android) are another well-known substitute for PCs for many. Macs are not that expensive compared to similar Windows hardware, and there's an entire low end tier of alternatives priced below Windows machines. 15 years ago Macs were expensive and nobody knew about Linux, so they drove to the store and bought a cheap Windows device. That hasn't been accurate for a long time though.
I think that "regular users" don't make a difference between operating systems, as in it's not something they consider and, most importantly, it's not something they change after the fact. As a sibling said, people upgrade when they change computers.
I'm not arguing whether apple's hardware prices are justified or not (I personally consider they were up until a few years ago – I own multiple MBPs). I'm specifically talking about cheap computers. But the fact is I can walk into a random supermarket in my parents' small town and walk out with a windows laptop for a few hundred euros. Not sure where you can find "low end macs priced below windows machines" (or maybe I misunderstood your point). Chromebooks do look like an alternative, though, and can be found just as easily.
Of course, many people are taking up alternatives to windows pcs, like chromebooks or tablets. But I doubt they do this because they can't run windows 11 specifically. They probably realized they only browse randomly the internet, so they don't need a "full-blown" computer. Bonus points for chromebooks being cheap, and for tablets being light. But I think they only make this change when it's time to buy a new computer, not in response to some MS decision.
And more importantly, they won't install some other OS on some PC they have when they realize it can't run windows 11. They'll just keep running windows 10 until the pc won't boot anymore.
Windows 10 was my fav version because that was the straw that broke the camels back for me and I would never even consider installing Windows at this point.
KDE Plasma is so vastly superior to Windows it isn't even close. I don't even work in IT either. A Dev intentionally using Windows is just embarrassing.
Can say that about pretty much any OS, highly depending on what exactly it is you do with it, and if you happen to be lucky enough that you're the one which doesnt't have one single problem. Especially the 'just works' bit rings much less bells for me when it comes to Linux than it does for other OS. Which kinda harms the feeling of freedom I get from it.
I had a ton of issues with Windows when my mother used it (despite me being a long time Windows user and offering her remote assistence). At one point I got so fed up with yet another update that fucked things up (=changed the UI she was used to) that I decided to install Ubuntu. My mother was happy with the new system and the number of times I had to support her was one thenth of what it was before.
OSX is also not without pitfalls, especially the updates can break a lot of existing setups (hardware...)
Linux is great for real power users or real beginners, not so great for intermediate people who know enough to fuck a system up for good. But if you are a beginner or a power user it just works unless you fuck it up.
With Windows and OSX it just works till they decide to fuck it up, even if you are trying to actively prevent it.
Well sure, because it is. As mentioned I also worked both in first- and second level support in an enviroment that had Windows, OSX and Linux desktop, with very varying degrees of proficiency between the users of all operating systems.
The anectdote from my mother is mirrored in the many experiences I made at the job. Sure that is still no true evidence, but I never claimed it was more than just my opinion. My opinion that I derived from working at precisely the issues involved.
Btw. there was one particularily bad Windows user (the type that comes with viruses and toolbars, the type that thinks someone can control their computer if you plug their mouse into another computer). We had nothing but hassle with that person until we moved said person to Linux, where a big pain turned into a much smaller pain.
This is again just another annecdotal example, but I could go on.
Just like the sibling comment, some more anecdotes painting the 'it depends' picture: my main Windows 7 dev machine has been running for about a decade now. It's not slower than it used to and just works, year after year. My main Ubuntu (LTS 14 through 18) machine has also been doing pretty well in the roughly same timespan. Same hardware, but took substantially more hours on keeping it running. In the meantime also had an MBP with OSX and the software overall is pretty decent, just got unlucky apparently and the hardware died on me after just 3 years IIRC. Other machines I also use sometimes didn't all do so well, but there's really no clear loser.
That doesn't match my experience of modern Linux at all. Plenty of forced "upgrades" that broke things, sometimes leaving me with an unbootable system (systemd).
I switched to FreeBSD and things are much better.
You can still create a local account and login to your PC without a callback to Microsoft.
"Johnathan Smith" => "johna" == yuck.
Imagine if Windows had charged every developer who ever built anything on windows 30% of their revenue. They got almost bludgeoned to death for shipping a default browser 20 years ago.
Windows deserves a lot of criticism but we take it for granted that a monopolist basically just sold an operating system and let everyone run and build whatever they wanted on top of it, we could've been fucked way worse.
It is really a problem to get someone that knows the tech if you have to interface it for some mundane Office tasks.
Interfacing their Graph API is a horror show that I recommend to any dev about how not to do security.
It's every other version:
95 - ok (because we didn't know better)
me - nope
XP - ok
Vista - nope
7 - ok
8 - double nope
10 - ok
11 - ...nope?
If they’re not automatically installed, they’ll never be installed. They’ll upgrade to Windows 11 when they buy a new computer. The idea of downgrading won’t cross their mind because the operating system and hardware are not distinct, decoupled components—if they don’t like Windows 11 they’ll just learn to live with it because that’s just how new computers are.
The reason for this phenomenon is in my experience that most computers are actually managed by a vast public of "techies", i.e. people that are computer literate enough to reinstall an OS and to provide support to their computer illiterate relatives and friends. These people tend to be vastly over assess their IT knowledge, and are very vulnerable to "rumors" spread on forums and blogs. This makes them very prone to becoming zealot about random topics they hear on the internet (like "Windows 8 sucks", or "Linux is bad").
When a non-techie gets a new computer with a new Windows version, they often can't figure out how to accomplish even the most basic things - or rather, they don't care and don't want to invest the time to tinker with the new system, generally. They then rely on their own "trusted" person for that, and one frequent answer they get is that the new Windows version is crap and they offer to downgrade their computer. I've seen this happen a lot with both Vista and 8, EVERYONE was downgrading PCs back then without a good reason for doing so. I even saw PC shops recommending to downgrade before selling a computer, with leaflets advertising for the service on the front desk.
I saw a high school buy Core 2 Quad machines in 2008 and wipe away Vista in favour of XP, even though they only needed the machines for Office and Autocad, and there was thus absolutely no reason whatsoever for doing so, given how beefy the machines were back then and that Vista SP1 had basically fixed the OS. The main motivation behind this was the stigma around Vista, and the fact the IT department was full of low-skilled technicians that got their training from pinned threads in PC forums. It was rare to find anyone using Vista back then, even on new computers, unless they were basically grandparents whose grandchildren lived far away.
For what I've learned in these years, the first month or so a new Windows version comes out is crucial and it foreshadows how well it's going to fare with users. If there's even a slight hint of doubt it could be bad the users immediately reject it, it gets stigmatized and it is basically dead in the water.
They don't want to deal with criticism and likely consider everything a sunk cost, so it is what it is and nothing will change.
But when checking the video without logging in to YouTube, my comment was gone.
So it looks like comments can be quietly deleted without the commenter even knowing it.
THAT is censorship.
I would disable them as well, not because of 'being afraid of anything' but because it's a net loss to have them enabled, and nothing of value is lost if they are disabled.
Though, after any ordinary live stream has ended the chats usually are retained as chat history or comments if you will.
Title should read "Microsoft disables comments under heavily criticized Windows 11 upgrade video"
Clickbait.
After 20 or so years of using Windows at home, I think I'm probably done with Microsoft.
Linux and KDE satisfies all requirements now, and in fact my machine is dual boot and I haven't booted into Windows in weeks.
The only thing I'll miss is Visual Studio, but I have a Jetbrains license, so that's fine.
With Windows 10 Home forced upgrades I saw again something that I haven't seen since Windows 95: a growing feeling among users that their OS, which just supposed to work, is overtly hostile to them. You can hold it just a bit and then it will reboot against your will and you just hope all your work, settings and so on was saved. Your OS is getting in your way, it prevents your work being done, just like Windows 95 did with constant crashing. Once these things have piled up, users seriously start looking for an alternative. My parents, for example, switched to iPad Pros and haven't regretted it. This might not be possible now for all users yet, but we're getting there, and Microsoft seems to be as blind to this aspect as in the 90s.
Apparently everyone is going to switch since Windows XP.
Haha. Yes, next year of the Linux desktop. Like 'free beer tomorrow' outside your favourite bar.
In my other comment, I believe that developers are gradually moving to other platforms. I don't expect Windows to go away, because it's a massive platform and therefore you can make money writing code for it, but I do see it becoming less and less relevant.
It's just not what I want or need in an OS any more. I develop on and for Linux.
I don't expect my friends to switch from Windows because they're not that techie.
But consider that in 2001 you'd go to a download page and the option would be "Windows only", and in 2021, you can go to a download page and it can now be "Mac only" or no Windows option at all.
There's a slow shift away from MS.
What has happened is that the computer has changed, it is no longer the big old tower but mobile phones, tablets and laptops. And the laptop and tablet space is already merging as laptops that has a touch display or a tablet with a keyboard.
Where the tower could be upgraded part by part including the operating system, the new type of computer doesn’t. The consumer usually buys a new one within a few years. This is where Windows 11 fits in.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you rent your computer in the future, you already have phones, which is a computer, with carrier subscription. This will of course also reduce user control even more. Combined that with the cloud computing and your computer is more of a client on a corporate controlled network.
The PC, Personal Computer, is dead.
What Windows "suffers" from is that it is still in a transitive state going from an open platform (open in the sense the user decides what to run & install) to a closed platform (the iPad).
Traditional desktop users expect an open platform and thus gets annoyed over forced updates, stores and similar things, but those things is considered normal on closed platform.
The thing is that the traditional desktop user is vanishing, as your parents are an examples of. The "market" wants a closed system, thus Windows is adapting. Eventually Windows will have completely moved to a closed platform and will be used and viewed as iPad or similar (the Xbox is already such a device) and the annoyances will no longer be annoyances.
Yes, the traditional PC user will be migrating to Linux & BSD, but they will be such a small number globally it will be a rounding error, and eventually it will be harder & harder to stay on those platform when the hardware industry is entirely serving the closed platforms.
I think there is some hope as the example of Valve shows.
EuroPC, Atari ST, Amiga 500/600/1200, Acorn Archimedes, Mac Classic,....
However fast forward to today and Macs integrate very well into the environment, the development tools are free, you can throw iterm2 on and have a very nice Unix environment, add in Docker and you have a pleasant Linux environment at your disposal as well. Microsoft stuff works well enough - Teams on Linux is a real pig that consumes all memory and CPU, and drops audio randomly - but that is completely on Microsoft.
Apple has its own issues but if your not developing MacOS kernel extensions you can steer clear of most of it. Pay your $100 for Apple Care or your a third class citizen. I’ve seen Apple replace iPhones that had obviously been clawed open with a fork with a smile if you had Apple Care but they won’t do jack if you don’t have it.
40 years ago, the Mac had not been released yet. Hell, neither had the IBM PC, MS-DOS 1.0, or even the Commodore 64.
This happened during Windows XP days (and I think one which still continues!), Windows 7 and Windows 8.
I don't expect things to be any different this time around!
You're claiming that XP was worse than ME?
Windows 3.x -> Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Windows ME
Windows NT 3.x -> Windows NT 4.0 -> Windows 2000 -> Windows XP -> Windows Vista -> Windows 7 -> Windows 8 -> Windows 10
Many people believe that XP was the successor of ME because this is where non-business users were migrated to the NT line of Windows.
This is exactly like someone who bought a PS4 realizing that some new games require a PS5 (change my mind)
If Microsoft had made this in the 2022 update of Win10, that would have been outrageous. And if they stopped patching Win10 that would have been bad too. But it’s neither of those. It’s entirely new software for new hardware.
My impression is that the outrage is because the requirement is... weird. As in artificial. It will support new, lower-end CPUs, but not older, more powerful CPUs.
I seem to remember the cutoff was 8th gen Intels. A friend has an XPS with a 7th gen i7H. That thing is much more powerful than the dinky i5u I have in my work laptop, but since mine is 8th gen it will be able to run Win 11, but not his. My desktop has an overclocked 3rd gen i7 that runs circles around both of the laptops combined. Can't run win11 either.
I get there's the TPM thing, although it's not clear to me why it's so important or whether it's not at all possible (as opposed to just uncommon) to have a TPM v2 on an older than 8th gen CPU.
If not, then I really don't get it.
If anything, it should stay in place, as an argument to push adoption of Windows 11: "yeah, you need brand-new computers, but don't worry, all your old software will still work as before".
There might be hardware support that can be cut, if specific x64 features are guaranteed to exist on the newer generation or bugs are known to be fixed you can drop the fallback code without breaking anything.
Between that and trying to push a new MS store that allows them to take a cut of 3rd party software a la the play store/steam/etc is the real reason Microsoft suddenly switched gears from W10 being the "last" version of Windows to "hey guys, everyone upgrade to W11, it's totally different see, we moved the start menu!"
No it doesn't. You can disable these mitigations in kernel right now and there is no guarantee that intel won't have any vulnerabilities in future micro-architectures. So you need the support to enable/disable future mitigations in kernel anyway.
Just because you can disable the mitigations or that the new family of products may well be flawed (in a similar manner, or in entirely support manner) is frankly irrelevant, and suggesting as such entirely misses the point.
This is a business (Intel) pushing a product through a partnership (With MS) with the idea that they'll both see boosted returns from upgrades to newer hardware families and in turn new OEM/Enterprise licensing. Why fix the problem when you can bury it under new quarterly sales.
I have the feeling that it's a bit inherent to OS releases in general. I'm very interested in macOS release news, but if I come here for the discussion, it's overwhelmingly negative. I'd like to see positive discussion about how new features can benefit me, but it's just not there.
"Microsoft Defender SmartScreen prevented an unrecognised app from starting. Running this app might put your PC at risk."
I've switched off Defender. Still the same.
The tool is sound. Unless your company explicitly disallow it, you should be able to bypass defender and force it to install, although there are some dark patterns there that may not make it obvious.
The author of the tool is aware of the problem, from the github page:
_N.B. A few antivirus programs incorrectly flag Policy Plus as malware. Policy Plus is a powerful tool and so may cause problems if used recklessly, but it is not malicious. If you would prefer to not trust binaries, feel free to read the code and compile Policy Plus from source. You can also verify that a build was created from the published code by examining the output of a GitHub Actions run: the input commit hash can be found under "checkout master" and the output executable hash can be found under "compute hash."_
"But how did you solve the TPM requirement?"
"I just bought a cheap TPM module from dubious Amazon market place. I cannot examine this piece of additional device so this system is less secure in my opinion."
Some games probably will support it. I wouldn't run that kind of software on my working machine, but the possibility is there.
This is an opinion, and not a fact. I have had a much better experience with windows tooling for C++ and .net for the last 7-8 years than I have with tooling on Linux. Visual Studio and a modern terminal emulator (Conemu), are an excellent pairing.
Valve picked the right moment to enter the OS market.
With TPMs sold out around the world for the next 12-18 months, and Windows 10 still being offered to OEMs, Microsoft has assured that legal installs of Win11 will be almost unheard of.
They have just assured the revival of the long since tamed WaREz culture.
P.S. Some lucky chip hoarders made a fortune, just look at this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/174871167203
TPM chips cost literal cents up until recently, now $100
(I am not defending Microsoft's decision, just pointing out that your claim is incorrect)
Some new laptops with dated bioses still don't have the firmware code to enable it.
So yes, if Microsoft spurs the OEMs, they can make the transition going a bit faster.