Microsoft begins cracking down on people dodging Windows 11 system requirements
xda-developers.com
xda-developers.com
I cannot see how they would want option 1 or 2, then I have to deduct that they want people to buy new hardware to run the latest OS version. Do they want to force the increase in TPM 2.0 share in the PC market quicker? Do they want to increase hardware sales because they get more money from those than from older licenses?
I think we are seriously nearing the point of no return. Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts. Over time, the side channels will get ironed out.
Enforcing TPM requirements isn't about making users make changes, it's to scare OEMs into including TPMs by default so they don't get complaints from users. Microsoft wants a more controlled hardware environment like Apple does, because it's more profitable for a variety of reasons.
Would any OEM dare to use workarounds to install windows 11 on not officially supported hardware? I feel like most OEMs would simply upgrade the hardware no questions asked. Simply because should any problem occur, Microsoft would just tell them your problem not ours.
> Once you have manufacturers start implementing TC, that will really hamper reverse engineering efforts.
Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?
Well on a basic level, if the consumer buys your motherboard or laptop and it doesn't work out of the box (but your competitors do) then you are going to have a massive customer satisfaction problem.
> Doesn't 90% of the push for this come from Media companies to implement DRM?
I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach. Consider something like iOS where the developers can just make it very uncomfortable to do something like download a video and watch it. There's no bittorrent app or p2p file-sharing, there's no real filesystem, and there is no real standalone video player. So users rely on streaming services to do this for them, and you can charge money to middle-man that service.
You don't need to strictly enforce copyright like with DRM, just use trusted computing so that the entire system discourages general computer-like operations (including copying files, running programs, etc.) and encourages acting like a thin client to some server. This is a much better model because some small fraction of users still DO need to have general-purpose computing to make consumables in the first place (for example, video editors or musicians, writers, programmers) but the majority of the user-base is discouraged for a variety of reasons. The more you can separate the creator of information from the user of information, the more you can charge the user to access the creator.
You can't replace the OS or any of the parts of the machine because of trusted computing, so you cannot really use reverse engineering to simply break the system (and if you do, it may break the trust chain you now need to access now-networked services). Another example is that on a lot of phones and laptops these days, you can't add removable storage, so you are heavily encouraged to use cloud storage. And you are discouraged from using cloud services from any third party (usually on an API level, as services provided from the OS vendor can integrate better with the system). Consider how Apple pushes iCloud and Microsoft pushes OneCloud.
Ah I see what you mean. I over-focused on the full integrated system with pre-installed windows.
> I don't think so. DRM is an old lens of understanding the problem from the last generation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg . The new methods use a softer approach.
Thanks for the link.
Imagine the possibilities of capturing the non-Microsoft market be allowing the TC to be turned off, or by not including it.
When it comes to Microsoft, there is an old business saying: "Never turn away a paying customer", because you will not only lose this sale, you will lose all future sales too.
Compare Microsoft that tried various different visual overhauls in the same period, first with Windows XP (2001) leaning into the Fruitiger asthetic, then Windows Vista and 7 (Aero design), Metro (windows 8, windows mobile) and now Fluent (windows 10 and beyond). While trying to add more monetization via ads and office365 integration.
I'm not saying Apple is not guilty of the monetization, they've had three different incarnations of their cloud offerings before iCloud settled things (iirc) and they do promote it within MacOS, but it doesn't come across as cynically as MS's offerings do.
Obviously it's not going to work because the only advantage Windows had was being the last popular platform that didn't work this way^ but the admins in charge of the decisions probably don't understand this.
^There also used to be compatibility with early y2k apps and familiarity of users from school but both of those have been quickly eroding.
EDIT: Out of replies
Trapping 20% of tech illiterate users would be a loss considering they currently have upwards of 80%.
If they can trap 20% of tech illiterate customers into their garden would that not already count as a win? Now they can extract more money from them than they could before.
Option 2 is a non-starter for a lot of people - can't afford a Mac, would never be able to work out Linux. ChromeOS is an option but if you're going to buy new hardware, why not just go with option 3 and get a new Windows machine.
Option 3 is MS's favourite; they shift more unit of their own hardware, failing that they shift more licenses from OEMs, they lock more people into W11, then progressively upsell them stuff from within the OS itself, and finally make more money off of advertising from 3rd parties in the OS itself.
I'm also inclined to think that by creating a generational gap with hardware like this, MS is making their own lives easier by only having to test W11 on modern hardware - no legacy users to support. So they make more money, potentially for less effort.
I quite like Windows 10. It's unassuming and everything more or less works. I was somewhat shocked at how much worse Windows 11 is, despite not looking that different at first glance.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Windows 7 was fantastic. Windows 10 was... OK at best.
I'll never forgive MS for what they did with the UI from Windows 8 onward.
"Why doesn't everyone switch to Linux? They must be stupid" is just as short-sighted now as it was 30 years ago.
Linux is great, but there are and were plenty of good reasons why it's not optimal for the average user. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41283651
You say “average user” and then point to a comment where someone’s disappointed that they can’t get their professional software to work. The average user these days needs a web browser, and doesn’t care which one.
You're claiming that the main reason most people don't switch to Linux is some sort of deficiency of judgment rather than anything practical, and that's not true and it's never been true.
You dismissed the costs of getting used to a new OS right off the bat, and that's a real thing. In my link that you dismissed, the first sentence ("while Windows is very hostile ... to its users, it's rarely broken or buggy") is relevant to most users. Professionals may have trouble getting their apps to work, gaming has gotten better but still has the same problem. If user literally only cares about running a web browser, then yeah, Linux would be fine; but Windows is already fine, so why bother switching?
I like Linux. I've used it at home and professionally. I'm a huge fan of FOSS principles, and I think it would be better for everyone if more people used open systems. But Windows works well enough to satisfy most people, and they're not going to change purely for ideological reasons. Maybe it'd be a better world if they did! But it's not reasonable to expect them to, or to cast that as a failure of judgment.
The trouble is the slightly above average user who is not technical. They think they know computers because they can click around in some random Windows GUI and get something to work. But they don't actually know much in a general "how stuff works" way.
And then there's the highly technical like SWE who thrive under Linux.
So really it's just the weird middle ground that struggles. You know, your MBAs who can use Excel but get scared at plaintext files.
But these solutions are lot more complex than the default windows experience of download steam, install game, play. Many people don’t want to tinker, they want to play their game, not the operating system.
Did they give any more details as to why? It could come from cheaters preferring developing for one platform than the other. I would like to know which features windows has that makes cheats harder that they miss on linux.
Thanks for clarifying.
Is this really true? I find it _really_ hard to believe.
At least most stuff puts everything in a single .pak file and uses sqlite databases to avoid most of the windows filesystem overheads I guess.
Tim Sweeney's tweet comparing computer users moving from Windows to Linux to "moving to Canada" comes to mind.
Also, a major way that the Epic Games store was funded was via double-digit stock investment from Tencent, one of the largest gaming monopolies and also tech monopolies. Imagine if Facebook, Paypal, Disney, and Microsoft's gaming division merged into one company, and you start to describe Tencent.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and my kid uses it, but it's STILL more painful than Windows for a lot of things.
If you're using something like i3, sure, but you know what you're getting into. If you're using something like KDE, it just works.
Battery life is the second issue.
Linux-on-the-desktop has made great strides. But I still get screen tearing when scrolling in my browser. I still tend to find that I need 0.5 to 1 generation old hardware for the drivers to work. I don't get good battery life on laptops unless I spend way too much time fiddling with things.
And of course, a lot of professional tools don't work on Linux at all. I'm an electrical engineer and while I'm not a designer for my day job any more, I do still use professional-level tools for personal projects. They run in Windows, and Windows only. So basically no matter how much strength of will I have, those tools ultimately keep me on Windows as my daily driver.
I love a lot of Linux command-line tools and always have WSL w/Debian on my Windows machines. No more dual-booting.
I've been fortunate that Claude 3.5 Sonnet has been an excellent troubleshooter for my problems so far.
And now someone tells them to install Linux, on a separate partition perhaps, with a shared boot manager, migrate their data from NTFS to ext4 into the correct folders, install their apps or equivalents in the package manager, and get used to a myriad of different interface design approaches? This is just not going to happen, unless the onboarding experience is improved by a few orders of magnitude, and desktop applications use a single, consistent, UI framework.
And that comes before all the user interface struggles mentioned above.
So my point here is that even people open to experimenting with technology will be absolutely helpless in setting up and using a Linux distribution, because the onboarding experience demands so much implicit knowledge.
I mean... I don't want to say anything mean because it's not her fault, but I wouldn't say this.
A digital native 30 years ago was writing SQL queries to make reports for their boss. And they were a secretary making hourly pay.
Digital natives today can barely run their goo goo ga ga phone software. Systems have gotten so abstract that complexity is completely hidden from users. So users don't actually know how to do anything.
I mean, I've had friends, digital native friends, who can't explain what a filesystem is. They don't know what a directory is. They don't know what different types of files are. They don't know what an Excel workbook is versus a text document or what .md means or whatever.
Point being, the problem isn't the complexity or "arcaneness" of linux (side note: linux isn't even arcane, many workflows are much more modern/faster than in Windows land). The issue is that nobody knows how to do anything anymore.
It is interesting that around this time (COVID age) I started using the MB Air M1 and couldn't connect many external monitors while my "old" XPS 13 could be plugged to any Thunderbolt dock and works incredible well, even without configuring anything special in Linux.
I don't think this is a benefit for a Microsoft strategy but that many people there should be layoff. It is completely contrary with their current developer strategy. Also, privacy-wise you cannot now for sure if they are sending your keystrokes via telemetry... as a negligence.
Essentially all I need is Steam and discord. Let me know what Linux distributions is most suitable?
FreeBSD is my daily driver but I’m well familiar with the entire OS jungle by now :-)
Why in the world would anyone continue to rely on this company?
Edit: this is for the installer of the latest (canary) branch. Not sure if it will be an issue for updates on existing installs.