Microsoft makes things worse: Windows 11 upgrade video blasted as being "tone deaf"

[StDragon]

4 hours ago, Pyxlwuff said:

As a student about to enter university in the UK, how do they expect me, let alone many millions of people who would've been displaced because of the current economic situation be able to go "lol ok" and roll up to their local PC store to buy a "compatible" machine?

MS is playing the long-game with Windows 11 regarding security. They're not leaving Windows 10 user behind until EOL date. So don't worry if you can run Windows 11. The adoption of it will be far less with people moving from 10 to 11 whereas the upgrade path from 7 to 10 was rather straight forward.

MS plans to still support both 10 and 11 concurrently for the next four years. And by the time you need to replace your computer that does support 11, I'm sure you can find a refurbished 8th gen Intel unit.

[WintorialsLift]

12 hours ago, Pyxlwuff said:

Summary

After a month and a half of silence from Microsoft regarding any clarification for the System Requirements of its future OS, Windows 11, a liverstream (now unlisted) appeared on the Microsoft Tech Community YouTube channel that was meant

to answer questions about upgrade paths and deployment methods with Senior Program Manager Aria Carley. However the responses she made regarding Windows 11 and compatible hardware didn't rub off well with audiences (around the 6:20 minute mark) and it's reflected with the heavy like-dislike ratio. Comments called the video "tone-deaf" and others argued that the requirements were a "thinly veiled ploy to warrant fresh licence purchases alongside new machines for more revenue". The comments have since been completely disabled.

 

 

 

Quotes

 

 

My thoughts

While it's fine for those who are able to get a TPM module for their machine or have an OEM pre-built that has it already, for those who custom-build with perfectly capable machines, who until recently had never heard of such a chip which is suddenly being scalped for hundreds of dollars it's a massive kick in the stomach. While there are workarounds to get around the restrictions imposed by MS during the insider stages, there's no guarentee that these will continue to work later down the line nearer the release. Really does feel like we'll be sticking to the traditional release pattern of every other Windows version being a mess.

 

Sources

Windows 11 upgrade and deployment video gets blasted as being 'tone deaf' | Windows Central

 

As a guy who uses a lot of Microsoft's stuff (Windows, Office, I'm even myself on the Insider Preview), this actually sucks.

Computers just 4 years ago now cant run Windows 11 because "older hardware" or whatever.

I'm actually quite certain even the Skylake series CPUs can run W11.

Probably even older ones can.

 

Damn MS. You've "outdone" yourself again.

[GoodBytes]

5 hours ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

and there are people who fucking can't upgrade due to reasons beyond their control.

it's unfair to them that their computer can run 10 and not 11 even though it's just 10 with a lick of paint.

How is it unfair. Windows 10 is supported until 2025, assuming no extensions, and no "extended support" (security only updates).

 

Quote

they don't have that option, they don't have the money to buy a new computer.

Windows 8.1 is still supported. Windows 7 was still supported for a long time after Windows 8 and 10 was released. When a new version of Windows comes out, the old version is still supported for a while.

 

Quote

and before you say 'BuT lInUx', guess what, most people aren't us, if something goes wrong in a linux install, it's up to the user to figure it out, most linux distros don't have inbuilt troubleshooting tools for the user to easily diagnose issues, if it breaks the user is expected to fix it.

Use a popular distro like Ubuntu, and there is a good chance you'll have no problem, and have access to support online.

 

Quote

i have friends who have no option but to keep using their computer from 2010 that they got on gumtree for $100 5 years ago,

Nice. Mine is early 2010. I can tell you, if I can't upgrade mine, it is going back to Windows 10, Windows 11 is too demanding for it.

 

Quote

the fact microshit rode in and said 'no windows 10.1 for you!' is fucking bullshit, who are they to assume that this person has the option to upgrade, who are they to assume that they can fucking afford a new computer that has bullshit requirements. if 10 can fucking run on a core2quad so can 11.

Yea. Microsoft tried that with Vista.... and what was the reputation of Vista again? Just saying...

[linkboy]

Honestly, thinking back on it, I don't think MS should have let "unsupported" CPUs into the beta program (and I say this as someone who is running it and really likes it). By doing so, all they've done is show people that older CPUs can run the OS just fine, and nobody is going to care about the security requirements. Either that, or have them all enabled to see how older CPUs handle it. All they've done by running the beta with all requirements off is just give a false impression of the OS. 

 

They set the requirements at what they are, just roll with it. 

 

It's only adding to the confusion and muddling the message they're trying to get across. 

 

It's downright amazing how Microsoft has bungled damn near everything about the announcement of this OS. 

[GoodBytes]

20 minutes ago, linkboy said:

Honestly, thinking back on it, I don't think MS should have let "unsupported" CPUs into the beta program (and I say this as someone who is running it and really likes it). By doing so, all they've done is show people that older CPUs can run the OS just fine, and nobody is going to care about the security requirements. Either that, or have them all enabled to see how older CPUs handle it. All they've done by running the beta with all requirements off is just give a false impression of the OS. 

 

They set the requirements at what they are, just roll with it. 

 

It's only adding to the confusion and muddling the message they're trying to get across. 

 

It's downright amazing how Microsoft has bungled damn near everything about the announcement of this OS. 

Would not change a thing, People would still by-pass the checks, and install Windows 11 on unsupported hardware, and we would be on the same situation.

 

[StDragon]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Would not change a thing, People would still by-pass the checks, and install Windows 11 on unsupported hardware, and we would be on the same situation.

 

I don't think so. Maybe with the same group of people that complain because Apple makes putting together a "Hackentosh" a PITA.

If MS really gets that much flak over Windows 11 compatibility, maybe they should just throw in the towel and say "Eff it! You want to run Windows 11 on older CPUs? Fine! But don't complain when performance takes a hit because VBS / HVCI is now emulated because the hardware extensions aren't there." At that point everyone can shut up about it and move on.

[atxcyclist]

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

I don't think so. Maybe with the same group of people that complain because Apple makes putting together a "Hackentosh" a PITA.

If MS really gets that much flak over Windows 11 compatibility, maybe they should just throw in the towel and say "Eff it! You want to run Windows 11 on older CPUs? Fine! But don't complain when performance takes a hit because VBS / HVCI is now emulated because the hardware extensions aren't there." At that point everyone can shut up about it and move on.

People are running insider builds on Sandy Bridge, Haswell, and even Core2Quad systems though, so the security measures are clearly not mandatory for operation of the kernel. Microsoft putting a limitation on hardware would mean something, if lacking those features were keeping you from being able to run the OS. If the situation were like old AMD Phenom systems missing instructions sets and being unable to launch certain software, that is a legitimate reason. Realistically if it's like every version of Windows since at least 7, the heavy security features like drive encryption won't even be supported on the consumer versions of the OS anyway.

 

[JZStudios]

12 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Pretty sure they ARE dropping 32bit support though.

https://www.xda-developers.com/windows-11/

 

Even if the current beta has 32bit ISOs for testing (not sure, didn't check), the final release is set to not have 32bit support according to all info available.

Huh. If that's the case it would be nicer if they trimmed out all the old stuff from 98. It won't be though. Wonder what that means for certain programs and older games n such that are still 32 bit. Dosbox I guess?

 

How is the other stuff supposed to increase security, and why is it seemingly not an issue now?

[LAwLz]

All the people going "just use Windows 10 until 2025" reminds me off when Don Mattrick said:

Quote

We have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity. It's called the Xbox 360.

 

If there is someone that is "tone deaf" here, it's the people saying "just keep using Windows 10".

The people asking Microsoft to remove or lower the arbitrary requirements they have put up want to use Windows 11. You'd have to be a real arrogant asshole to tell someone "just use our old product lol". 

It's such an easy and sad deflection of the real issue. Software shouldn't have artifical limits on it. 

 

I've seen plenty of bad arguments from people in this and other threads that are clearly just non-programmers who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about make shit up to try and justify things as well. That really bothers me too. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The people asking Microsoft to remove or lower the arbitrary requirements they have put up want to use Windows 11.

Well your arbitrary limits is just the same as another's perfectly acceptable limits. I'll happily wear that asshole badge if a product chooses to go down the path of requiring a hardware feature set that can be, now or later, used to improve security or allow a much more modern common working set. Personally I see such reasoning you are trying to put forward as missing the forest for the trees. Strategic plans be dammed, cater for everyone and have a scope so wide nothing really gets achieved, as is the way with Windows for ages now. I'd really like to see some truly meaningful changes and developments happen, not that I see Windows 11 as that right now though.

 

You simply can't run or have everything you want all the time, you're quite welcome to ask or petition for change but doesn't mean you'll get it though.

 

My current computer cannot run Windows 11 and I'm 0% disappointed by that fact.

[LAwLz]

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well your arbitrary limits is just the same as another's perfectly acceptable limits. 

We'll just have to disagree on that. 

 

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'll happily wear that asshole badge if a product chooses to go down the path of requiring a hardware feature set that can be, now or later, used to improve security or allow a much more modern common working set. Personally I see such reasoning you are trying to put forward as missing the forest for the trees. Strategic plans be dammed, cater for everyone and have a scope so wide nothing really gets achieved, as is the way with Windows for ages now. I'd really like to see some truly meaningful changes and developments happen, not that I see Windows 11 as that right now though.

The good thing about software is that it can be made flexible. 

Also, I think you're making a massive assumption when saying that the "scope being too wide" is the reason why no truly meaningful development has happened, or that things will change with Windows 11.

 

I am all for "truly meaningful changes" being done to Windows. I just don't believe that will happen with Windows 11, and even if it does I don't believe for a second that it will be because Microsoft decided to stop support for anything older than 4 year old processors. 

 

I think Windows 11 will just be Windows 10 with a new coat of paint, with arbitrary hardware restrictions because Microsoft want or are being pushed by PC makers so that they can sell more hardware. And that's bullshit. That's anti-consumer, it's bad for the environment and it's an asshole move that is deeply insulting to me. I hate arbitrary restrictions with a passion. 

It's such a massive "fuck you" to your users. In this case it's not even about Microsoft being lazy and isn't bothered (like with Android OEMs). In this case MI rosoft are actively putting in work hours to prevent their customers from using their product, for no apparent reason (except maybe to sell more licenses). 

[Dabombinable]

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

• Virtualisation-Based Security
• Hypervisor-Protected Code Integrity check,
• Control-flow Enforcement.

These are the security technologies that Windows 11 uses on the CPU side.

On 8th gen Intel CPUs and newer and Zen 2 and newer, you have hardware inside which is dedicated to handle the task, so no performance impact (or minimal) occurs. Older CPUs don't. The security systems will still work... however, has a performance impact, which could be notable, all depending on the CPU performance you have. This impact could be really minor, but for you, for your level of standards, it might be "OMG I can't use my system anymore!!!" So, it's off the list.

 

I am no security experts; I don't know if the firmware level security features are less secure for the user than a CPU with the dedicated hardware to perform the task. That could also play a role.

 

But anyway, Microsoft has chosen to avoid a Vista. 

So, I think, Microsoft aims the following:

• System performance must remain the same from Windows 10 (so the CPU needs to have those security hardware enhancement in them)
• Ensured full driver and BIOS/UEFI support from manufactures for all parts (All hardware that the user have will have not only Windows 11 drivers using the latest driver model, but also be properly supported with bug fixes and performance improvements)

This is Microsoft decision. They decided, to have a good image of its OS over usage.

Windows 10 will be supported until 2025 if no extension are done. Microsoft already confirmed that Direct Storage feature will be coming to Windows 10 as well. It won't be a Win11 exclusive feature. 

Vitalisation support and TPM 2 in my 2016 Galaxy TabPro S, with secure boot being obviously supported. The only area where it doesn't meet Windows 11's requirements fully is  the Core M3-6Y30 being 6th gen.
Meaning that the whole "8th gen and above/Ryzen+ and above" requirement is complete bullshit. Especially when you consider for example that Ryzen+ runs on the exact same boards as Ryzen, and has the exact same feature set.

[linkboy]

52 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

We'll just have to disagree on that. 

 

The good thing about software is that it can be made flexible. 

Also, I think you're making a massive assumption when saying that the "scope being too wide" is the reason why no truly meaningful development has happened, or that things will change with Windows 11.

 

I am all for "truly meaningful changes" being done to Windows. I just don't believe that will happen with Windows 11, and even if it does I don't believe for a second that it will be because Microsoft decided to stop support for anything older than 4 year old processors. 

 

I think Windows 11 will just be Windows 10 with a new coat of paint, with arbitrary hardware restrictions because Microsoft want or are being pushed by PC makers so that they can sell more hardware. And that's bullshit. That's anti-consumer, it's bad for the environment and it's an asshole move that is deeply insulting to me. I hate arbitrary restrictions with a passion. 

It's such a massive "fuck you" to your users. In this case it's not even about Microsoft being lazy and isn't bothered (like with Android OEMs). In this case MI rosoft are actively putting in work hours to prevent their customers from using their product, for no apparent reason (except maybe to sell more licenses). 

Imagine paying $3,500 for a Surface Studio 2 this year only to find out that it can't be upgraded to latest version Microsoft's own operating system that releases in the same year. I know the computer came out in 2018, but it (and other computers with older CPUs) are still being sold brand new around the world. 

 

I know I've brought it up a few times, but that's so massively mind boggling stupid that I still can't belive Microsoft actually did it. 

 

It just goes to how much of a disaster the messaging around this OS has been and how the different departments at Microsoft don't talk to each other. 

 

The fact that Microsoft can't even guarantee their own hardware will be able to run their own OS is beyond dumb. 

[mr moose]

It seems the accusation "tone deaf" has become an arbitrary rebuttal to anyone who says something you don't like.  Being tone deaf usually means you are rubbing salt in the wound or blaming the victims of your own actions, not re-enforcing a personal ideal/policy.

[Sauron]

20 hours ago, Pyxlwuff said:

"It's looking like Windows 11 will be another Windows 8."

only someone who doesn't understand what 8's problems were could write something like this...

[StDragon]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well your arbitrary limits is just the same as another's perfectly acceptable limits. I'll happily wear that asshole badge if a product chooses to go down the path of requiring a hardware feature set that can be, now or later, used to improve security or allow a much more modern common working set. Personally I see such reasoning you are trying to put forward as missing the forest for the trees. Strategic plans be dammed, cater for everyone and have a scope so wide nothing really gets achieved, as is the way with Windows for ages now. I'd really like to see some truly meaningful changes and developments happen, not that I see Windows 11 as that right now though.

Personally, I hate being that "asshole". That said, I wholeheartedly agree; at some point MS just needs to rip the Band-Aid off and draw a line in the sand for meaningful much-needed change in a security baseline starting with VBS (along with code integrity and attestation).
 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The good thing about software is that it can be made flexible. 

Agreed. If I had my druthers, I would allow for the option to override the CPU generational requirements with a giant disclaimer requiring acknowledgement to the fact performance would be impacted. Above all however, security must not be compromised with 11. Performance, yes. Security, no. The only exception to that rule would be for software development testing purposes.
 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think Windows 11 will just be Windows 10 with a new coat of paint, with arbitrary hardware restrictions because Microsoft want or are being pushed by PC makers so that they can sell more hardware.

Security baseline requirement aside, I agree that it's just lipstick on a pig. I honestly don't care for the new UI; specifically icons now centered in the task bar like OSX. Unless thing change for the better, that alone and other UI changes might have me hold off on upgrading. I'm in no rush.

That said, I don't ascribe these requirements to a conspiracy of collusion with HW vendors. I genuinely believe this is MS major attempt at plugging OS holes given the recent zero day exploits involving ransomware suites. In fact, I'll quote Microsoft:

"VBS provides significant security gains against practical attacks including several we saw last year, including human-operated ransomware attacks like RobbinHood and sophisticated malware attacks like Trickbot, which employ kernel drivers and techniques that can be mitigated by HVCI. Our research shows that there were 60% fewer active malware reports from machines reporting detections to Microsoft 365 Defender with HVCI enabled compared to systems without HVCI." -MS

So while "yes", this will push new HW sales in an already bad supply chain environment, I also see this as Microsoft's major attempt at taking security seriously in the industry; if anything for their own image and reputation which is already in a questionable state as it currently is.

[hishnash]

19 hours ago, StDragon said:

I also see this as Microsoft's major attempt at taking security seriously in the industry; if anything for their own image and reputation which is already in a questionable state as it currently is.

MS have tired a lot of windows security features to Secure boot. In perciualr some very important ones such as DLL injection protections. This is were a virus can modify/replace a DLL file and thus trick another application to run its code... this is a classic way of privilege escalation, the virus modifes a DLL file that is used by an app that the user is happy to give admin power to and then the virus thus has those powers!
 

MS could implement DLL injection protection without secure boot (macOS had done this for a long time, it is of course the reason that Nvidia can't just write drivers for macOS as no apps compiled on the system would trust their alternative DLLs without apples blessing).

 

They could also implement readonly OS partitions (something that linux started doing and now is also used in macOS were the portion of the file system that belongs to the OS is mounted in read only mode so that even if you get supper user powers you can't modify it without rebooting into safe mode).  
 

Safe boot makes these other protections better, without safe boot if someone is able to modify the data on your OS driver they can turn off any protections however if you do use the read-only snapshot during runtime even if you don't have secure boot it is much much harder for an app running on your system (after booting) to be able to persist with a kernel level exploit after re-start. 

There are a load of other protections you can put in place but many of these benefit from hardware features (such as signed pointers) and strictly ensuring that executable memory can't be writable (so that just in case someone does find a cpu exploit it is much harder for them to write instructions into the kernels memory region).

Fundamentally the secure boot that MS use on intel systems (not sure about AMD systems) has a load of issues due to the power on sequencing of PCIe devices and when the v-td tables that protect against DMA from PCIe devices are enabled. A `evil` PCIe device on a regular intel system power on, and has full DMA, before the v-td is activated. This means such a device is able to modify the UEFI code (that is loaded into memory) thus bypassing any/all secure boot.  Of course this requires you to compromise a PCIe device that would normally require physical access however secure boot and TPM is all about protecting you from physical access attacks.