I refuse. There better be easily accessible versions without this requirement.

Why is MS encouraging people to have one giant admin account with a work or school account connected? That's stupid. My personal account should be considered untrusted. Having it acting like the root account is just dumb, right?

Because it makes us easier to track and make money out of, would be my first thought. Seems to be why everyone else want my everything to be connected to my everything else.

However the real reason to install Pro is to get access to the virtualisation services, which aren't enabled on Home. Most users doing development now benefit from that (think Android emulators, Docker desktop etc). The enterprise versions are just overkill for a lot of small businesses.

Specifically, I have a problem with any operating system that will update itself in arbitrary ways without our consent and at a time we have not chosen. We no longer have control of our own business's IT resources and whether they will continue to meet our business needs in this scenario. That is simply unacceptable in a professional context IMO. Moreover, I have worked in several places over the years where long-running jobs (days or more) were needed, and you shouldn't have to ask your equipment's permission to start a job like that before you can safely start it and expect it to complete uninterrupted, and you certainly shouldn't have to ask and risk being told no.

I also have a problem with any operating system that will phone home with any data from our systems without our consent. That's all kinds of liability waiting to happen if you work with any sort of sensitive information, whether it's a client's trade secrets, personal data about customers, technical data you've been given under NDA, unreleased company statements, or simply whatever you're working on right now that you haven't chosen to disclose publicly yet. I don't care what Microsoft is or isn't doing right now, partly because of the previous point. The fact that the technical capability exists at all without an absolute power to disable it is a deal-breaker, and the convoluted mess that is Microsoft's numerous legal terms and privacy policies offers me no reassurance at all on this point.

Professionals control their own IT systems. It's really as simple as that. That's why the higher editions of Windows 10, which aren't just used by professionals but administered by IT professionals as well, don't try to pull these kinds of stunts.

I was sitting in a keynote talk at a conference once and mid-presentation Windows decided it was time to update. Very embarrassing for the speaker and for Microsoft.

Salespeople forget that the computer exists to update itself. Anything you do with it is a distant second, because security.

One could be sceptical that with admin account required for MS account, telemetry collection and applying some other kind of restrictions is much easier to target the vast majority of the users.

if you want to use a local account, USE ONE.

It's such a simple way of making sure they don't trash their machine that I'm going to miss it. I'm sure there'll be a new way of doing the same thing, but with 5x the effort and 1/2 the effectiveness.

I've been using Home version since Windows ME and it's being fine.

It's usually an option that's hidden away. It's definitely there if you disconnect the computer from the network when you install the OS.

Also, if you want the old type display drivers instead of DCH you'd have to do that. Otherwise Windows will automatically download and install DCH drivers which are a pain to uninstall.

Edit: if you're wondering what the problem with DCH drivers can be, then the problem is that they can't come with an application. If you have Nvidia display drivers installed as DCH and want to use the Nvidia Control Panel then you have to get the Control Panel from the Microsoft Store separately.

This would basically allow Dell/Hp/Surface to use the same latest Intel/Nvidia/AMD drivers but have their differentiation and config apps updated on their own schedule while the OS takes care of the actual driver components.

so that's a feature not a bug.

The new store that I've been using in internal builds is far more responsive. I believe they will require a Microsoft ID to access it, but other than that I have no complaints about the new version.

You can see this in steps 8 and 9 at https://www.windowscentral.com/how-set-windows-10-local-acco...

On Windows 11 it seems like they are saying you won't be able to install Home without an active Internet connection.

Didn't windows suggest to create a free email @outlook.com (or whatever MS have for free emails)? I have used that on a couple of computers, was no requirement for phone number and I have no idea about what the addresses I created are

I think I’m just going to make a junk account instead of linking it to any real account I use

Typically, you're not in a position to google around for how to not have that. After all, you're in an OS setup screen, without a browser.

I do it all the time. Do not plug network cable and do not connect to WiFi. Windows then proceeds to setting up local account

https://i.imgur.com/vxs03rC.png

Another difference: Cortana talks you through the installation on Home but not Pro. After years of installing Pro that was a bit of a shock.

See https://www.neowin.net/news/windows-11-home-requires-interne...

98SE - ok, ME - bad, XP - good, Vista - bad, 7 - good, 8 - bad, 10 - good, 11 - can safely skip it and wait for 12

I hate 10 a lot less than I did 5 years ago. I'm hoping 11 will be a little less screwed up, but I'm not holding my breath.

Microsoft has a long history of screwing things up before they get better...

Certainly will I not develop against their frameworks.

  - Windows have rounded corners
  - Teams integrated into Windows
  - A new widgets fly out for weather, news, etc. (appears   this will require you login with a Microsoft Account)
  - A Microsoft account and internet connectivity is required for Windows 11 Home setup

Sounds daft and pointless to me. Are they mistaking their software for Apple or Android? Is Linux a usable alternative? IMHO, Windows 7 is my favorite OS, also XP, I don't love Windows 10 but Windows 11 sounds even less exciting, maybe MS should make some kind of "special edition" Windows XP that can support new features as a novelty.

> Is Linux a usable alternative?

Who knows. Look at Ubuntu and some of the other distros that try to push the app store model, connected accounts, etc.. These people are building the software they want, not the software I want as a consumer.

I pay for Windows. I'd gladly pay for Linux instead if it was good enough.

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time with Red Hat (stuck in windows most of the time due to embedded development tools). Can anyone who has used it (and something like Ubuntu) weigh in?

So the idea that it's "more workstation oriented..." doesn't really reflect what your experience is.

At the end of the day you have a desktop environment and some packages. And Linux, especially Ubuntu with its package manager, makes it really trivial to swap out the DE if there's something that doesn't seem "power user" enough for you. (And for me, I find the default Ubuntu DE bloated and trend-chasing, but Xubuntu-desktop gives me the same well-supported packages you get on Ubuntu with a stable, no-frills desktop.)

Ultimately it really is about support. There's a lot of services and products that simply don't offer a Linux client, and that's where the trouble comes. Like I was contemplating trying out Tidal since I was annoyed with Spotify's removing a bunch of features from their desktop app, but Tidal doesn't offer a native Linux client. Zoom's Linux client is simply inferior. Lots of stuff like that which have nothing to do with any shortcomings in the OS is where I find the actual problems lie.

Like they added weather to the Win 10 taskbar recently and it’s something I’ve wanted before… but it’s blurry! Wtf??

That’s the problem I have with MS… they can do a lot of good engineering but they rarely can do product design, so half the things they build are doomed to fail by default.

No strong evidence that this will be the case other than Windows 95/2000, Windows Vista/7, and Windows 8/10.

As best I can tell from the last 25 years, alternating releases are basically alpha versions that everyone is forced to pay to test for them.

Is this just asking for antitrust? I mean, Apple can get away with sherlocking their opposition but they don't have a monopoly on desktop OS.

How about fixing basic functionality like the ability to scroll back and view old messages, before integrating it into the OS?...

Besides, most people can easily discover that it's a simple checkbox in settings.

* Windows Updates need to be solved even more comprehensively (get rid of winsxs or use smaller backing, adopt sane file locking so that reboots are less required, etc.). Still any improvement can justify a new version by itself.

* Per wiki, TPM 2.0 was released in 2019. 2019 wasn't that long ago. Does that mean older computers will be unable to run W11? Many more computers will end up running Linux eventually.

* The account requirement is unfortunately. Really, MS didn't get enough users using the old method?

This can't be right. I have 5+ year old PCs with 2.0 TPMs.

Would be odd for MS to do so - according to other news, W11 could run with TPM 1.2, so apparently they didn't increase their requirements that much. Even that would leave quite a few systems out...

Looks like I'll be skipping windows 11 and any future windows iterations if this is unavoidable

As long as you don’t game, need to use office or some other windoze software it seems like a viable choice.

My Linux mint install gets a duplicate mouse cursor appearing sometimes, just floating on top of everything on my desktop. If I don’t reboot the machine often weird things break. Like after a few days my media keys stop working on my keyboard. My trackpad sometimes stops working and needs to be power cycled. (One time after awaking from sleep my mouse was moving upside down.) The activity monitor in the tray freezes for me after a week or so. I’ve had some hard graphical freezes as well, which I assume is an AMD graphics driver bug.

Then bugs aside, I hate how inconsistent the keyboard shortcuts are between applications. I’ve been spoiled by macos where the same keyboard shortcuts to move a text editing cursor (cmd+left/right and so on) work the same in every application. Not so in Linux - and I can’t even configure it to work based on my muscle memory because IntelliJ doesn’t support using the start/meta key as a modifier. And some applications don’t support smooth scrolling for some reason.

So yeah, it’s viable. But I can’t say I’m impressed. I love having the source code, and knowing that if I want to I can actually fix these issues. But I’m still considering bouncing back to macos for my next computer.

Screen tearing, screen flicking, random reboots or screen freezing etc.

Been on Manjaro as the recommendation of someone on HN and it's been absolutely rock-solid. No more random reboots, no screen tearing out of the box, no flicking. Works and works well, but still have the occasional issue.

There was an update the other day where I had to find out which package wasn't being used and remove it so I could do an upgrade. If you update NPM outside of pacman it gets messy when theres an upgrade in pacman.

But after ~10 years of on/off use of Linux, then Jan 2020 putting myself on it full time, I'm a bit over it, Windows just works, since Windows 10 I've never had any issues at all. I miss just getting work done and gaming.

Edit: Oh the thing I hate most about Linux is multi-monitor setup.

I had 2x 1440p monitors, 1 was 144hz and the other was 60hz. If either 1 was connected, boot time was like 20s, very quick, if both were connected, it was 2-3 minutes to boot. Took me ages to figure out having 2 different monitors caused Ubuntu boot times to suffer. If I took the wifes 144hz monitor which was same as mine, boot time < 20s, but mix-match, 2-3 minutes.

2022 will be the year of Linux on the desktop, for sure.

In contrast to Apple's OSs (and increasingly Windows) which assumes you don't know what you're doing, Linux as a whole basically assumes you already know everything you need to know about what you're doing. Fixing a display issue could be a whole adventure, complete with side-quests as you worked your way to a solution. Not the best experience TBH.

Some time between 2010-ish and 2015, Linux (at least Mint and Ubuntu) suddenly became MUCH better. I'm not saying it's perfect, but things tend to "just work" much more often. A lot of the open source software improved by leaps and bounds during that period as well.

Sadly for the past few years, I game at home, and I'm stuck using windows programs at work (embedded development), so I haven't really kept up well with Linux.

This really doesn't match my experiences at all. Using Linux in 2008 was essentially the same as using Windows. I got my parents using Ubuntu in 2010 without complaints.

Instead of the "you have to know what you're doing" line that's been around for 30 years, I think the situation has been more "80% of the installs works perfectly" for a long time. But if you get hit by that 20%, from a driver issue or whatever, then expect a few days of debugging followed by constant hassles for the life of that machine.

And yeah, a lot of niche professional programs are Windows-only, so if you need them you're stuck. And gaming on Linux has been getting better, but only the chart-toppers and obscure indie games have actual Linux support with any regularity, with anything between those extremes rarely having any support.

Well Windows 10 does that randomly as well, don't even need to use mixed DPI. Arguably "better than Windows for multihead" is a very low bar to clear, since Windows is utter garbage at dealing with it.

Libre-office seems a little rough around the edges, but it works for 95% of use cases I can think of.

And for most people Google Docs or... Office 365 are all they really need.

Or you can just use Google Docs, or even the browser edition of Microsoft Office.

Why? Why not wanting to associate your computer with some Microsoft account is juvenile?

> Do you use a smartphone?

What does that have to do with anything?

I would bet 99% of iOS and Android users sign in with their Apple or Google account. Signing into an account for an OS is par for the course in 2021.

Because Microsoft _is_ releasing a version of this operating system that fits your needs. You just don't want to pay for it.

Meanwhile, I have a Surface Book 2, an expensive laptop from Microsoft running Windows 10 Pro. I actively removed all the ads in when I got it, yet still it periodically fucks with my OS and creates new ads, such as a new not-so-helpful keyboard shortcut with Win10 1903 that advertised Office at me that had to be disabled with a Registry Edit.

So even though MS does some cool shit, I do not trust them. I paid the money, I got the pro version, and they still come up with bizarre new ways to advertise at me.

Some companies like DJI actually let you download from their site directly and bypass the playstore. Notice the apple version links to the apple store but the Android version downloads the APK directly from DJI: https://www.dji.com/downloads/djiapp/dji-fly

From experience, companies that provide apps directly have some malware to hide.

Here is an example: GAN Cube is the world leader in Rubik's Cube. They provide an Android app by direct download [1]. Strangely this app has the permission to install other apps. That's obviously something not allowed to publish on the Play Store.

[1] https://cubestation.com/

nope, just use aurora store

> You agree to defend, indemnify and hold us harmless from and against any and all costs, damages, liabilities, and expenses (including attorneys' fees, costs, penalties, interest and disbursements) we incur in relation to, arising from, or for the purpose of avoiding, any claim or demand from a third party relating to your use of the Service

I'm not sure what is the worst: being tied to Google or being tied to a company which wants to push me in front of Google's lawyers if they get annoyed.

That seems... pretty reasonable? I'm not sure what kind of developer would want to foot the legal bills caused by one of their users.

Correct in that you can at least get through setup to have a functional device though.

I would certainly prefer it to not require an account.

I wish they had actual competition. It doesn't seem like anyone else is targeting the same market at all, despite technically having "competing products".

For now.

"I'm too old for this sh*t", and by the next day, a new Macbook Pro was on my table.

You will need an account.

Like, if you want to pirate software, go pirate software. If you're going to pay someone on a per-install basis for pirated keys, I'm gonna laugh at how easily you're being taken advantage of.

But depending on your jurisdiction, the $5 enterprise keys can also be entirely fine. Sure, in a way that's outsourcing piracy. But the law doesn't have to see it that way. There's nothing illegal about buying enterprise keys, and if they are overprovisioning keys that's between them and MS, I can't even know if that's the case.

That being said it is difficult to shed a tear for Microsoft of all companies over this practice.

Was there anything about faster updates?

Why does the Windows Update service take 50%+ of my CPU and multiple minutes to figure out if there's any updates available for me?

I get Windows doesn't have a package manager, but given yum and deb can figure out the answer in seconds... there has to be some way to improve that.

That is the thing. Modern days update are slow down because we spend more time computing the difference of update, check sum and other things and very little at transferring.

We now have very decent CDN ( or at least they should it really is table stake in 2021 for Microsoft ) and bandwidth should be limited by last mile.

Smaller Update seems like a marketing point they want to make. I want faster update in total time.

Uninstallation is now "experimental", and dependency support is still missing. The latter is what I'd consider a core functionality of a package manager, so my original comment stands.

This is confirmed on the Windows 11 specification site:

> Alignment to the bottom of the screen is the only location allowed.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifica...

For some reason nowadays design trumps everything. I understand, it has to look good and I like how Windows 11 looks on those screenshots. But sometimes those Microsoft developers seem to forget, that with every cut feature they will annoy some users. For example, I fear the day they will finally get rid of the old Control Panel.

It's even more annoying if the change just happens because of "Design"...

[1] https://imgur.com/a/q7gOlIG

But maybe I am just used to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law

That's incredibly disappointing! Having the task bar at the top of the screen makes a lot more sense for me. Application bars (tabs, urls, etc. in browsers) are at the top, so why place the task bar as far away from that as possible? It just doesn't make sense imo.

- I can spatially separate OS-level and program-level controls instead of visually/mentally hunting around in the same general area of the screen

- The effective clickable surface area of a button next to a screen edge is effectively infinite. For example, you can "crash" the mouse pointer downward onto a minimized window such that the bottom edge stops your mouse pointer from overshooting, and clicking will maximize that window. If you stacked OS-level and program-level control bars onto the same edge of a screen, one of them loses this UI perk

I switched to having the taskbar on the left in 1999 or so, then when I got a super ultrawide monitor I just realized I don't need/want it visible at all and found the program linked to above.

I meant to said that they prevented OEMs like Dell, Acer, etc., to install Netscape. They gave them more discounts and such if you didn't install Netscape.

They did similar with OS/2 IIRC. Is not that they prevented you from installing OS/2 as an OEM, but Microsoft will charge you for the number of PCs you sold, not he PCs with Windows.

This was a long time ago, so I might be wrong.

Straight copy pasta from https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...

> Intel Bridge Technology is a runtime post-compiler that enables applications to run natively on x86-based devices, including running those applications on Windows. Intel’s multi-architecture XPU strategy provides the right engines for the right workloads by integrating leading CPU cores, graphics technology, artificial intelligence accelerators, image processors and more, in a single, verified solution.

looks like a JIT recompiler to me

If that's the case, I guess Windows 10 is the last Windows version I will use on my machines.

> * 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

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

I can't imagine travelling with a work laptop without FDE.

I didn’t watch the video, and your question mark gives me hope: Was this actually said? A horizontal taskbar would be horrible.

Hopefully it was just a limitation in that particular developer build.

> Alignment to the bottom of the screen is the only location allowed.

-- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifica...

A feature to Left align the buttons has been shown in the leaked builds.

Hopefully that changes however with the new widgets fly-in from the left side it may be locked to the bottom similar to the dock on iOS.

> Alignment to the bottom of the screen is the only location allowed.

-- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifica...

Since Windows 95, even.

Interesting, why would they do that? I mean it's nice ;) but, is this the new MS mobile strategy? Android?

The other part of their mobile strategy are tablets or tablet-substitutes. Basically their whole Surface lineup, which Windows 11 aims to improve.

Couldn’t you use Clover? OS X doesn’t have BIOS compatibility either, which is a major reason Clover exists.

Could they try to block Linux installs?

> * There is a universal mute button in the system tray so you can mute yourself system wide rather than in the app

You could always click the speaker and mute it system-wide

Linux works just fine with UEFI, that's how I have it installed on all my machines.

>https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/dev...

>For more information, search for the System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot system requirements in PDF download of the Windows Hardware Compatibility Program Specifications and Policies.

>https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/com...

>Windows 11 >Download Specifications and Policies, version 21H2

This is a .zip file containing multiple PDFs. From "Systems.pdf":

>System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot (page 99 of 184)

>15. No in-line mechanism is provided whereby a user can bypass Secure Boot failures and boot anyway.Signature verification override during boot when Secure Boot is enabled is not allowed. A physically present user override is not permitted for UEFI images that fail signature verification during boot. If a user wants to boot an image that does not pass signature verification, they must explicitly disable Secure Boot on the target system.

So if you want to boot an OS that doesn't work with Secure Boot, you're allowed to disable it. You just won't be able to boot Windows 11.

>20. (Optional for systems intended to be locked down) Enable/Disable Secure Boot. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. A Windows Server may also disable Secure Boot remotely using a strongly authenticated (preferably public-key based) out-of-bandmanagement connection, such as to a baseboard management controller or service processor. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible.

So they don't disallow the OEM from allowing Secure Boot to be disabled.

It does seem weird to see "must be allowed to disable" in a point marked "Optional", but maybe there's a strict definition of "systems intended to be locked down" that OEMs can't apply willy-nilly to any arbitrary consumer device. At the very least, they're not requiring the OEM to disallow Secure Boot from being disabled.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/min...

You just linked to a list of processors for starting development of a new embedded Windows device.

99.9999% of people will never have to concern themselves with this. Microsoft would never limit support to CPUs released a few years ago.

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

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.

  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)

  Windows Processor Requirements

  ...

  Windows Client Edition Processors

  ...

  Windows 11  Supported AMD Processors  Supported Intel Processors  Supported Qualcomm Processors 

> 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!

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.

This link says TPM 2.0 minimum:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifica...

And no 1st gen AMD Ryzen supported:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/min...

Your second link is literally the first thing I replied to in this thread. It's for OEMs making new devices.

And straight from my last comment: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/windo...

> *devices that meet the soft floor will receive a notification that upgrade is not advised*.

> *Security: TPM Version >= 1.2 and SecureBootCapable = True*

Are you just being willfully ignorant of the fact that this is clearly the more accurate page since it breaks down the requirements into two sets, or...

Again, MS, the company that introduced special code paths for Sim City to run on their OS aren't about to lock their OS to a few years of PCs.

This is no different than other versions of Windows that had increased RAM requirements but would still boot up as long as a bare minimum was met.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27626756

Click here:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifica...

Then follow the "compatible 64-bit processor" link. You will land exactly there.

Alright, you've clearly made your choice.

I just ran the MS "PC Health Check", and it tells me "This PC cannot run Windows 11" .

This is a brand new machine. I built it 2 months ago. It was the only Ryzen APU available to buy online here in Brazil!

Caveat: The install tool bypass has not been verified yet.