Windows 11 - Insider Program - Master Thread

[Jontario]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes, in front of my face on 3 systems.

That isn't hard data. What benchmark or test can I run to verify this?

[Jontario]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I would not get a TPM chip. First, normally your CPU has a firmware TPM. Just ASUS decided to not give you the option to enable it. It is there in the latest UEFI but looking quickly at the user manual on ASUS site, it isn't listed. Second, your CPU is not officially supported in any case, so getting a TPM chip is nice and all, but getting Windows 11 officially is still unclear once the OS is released.

 

If you have money to burn, and you want to play, and but the odds more on your side in getting Windows 11 working after its released, sure. But aside of that, I would not consider this as a universal solution to get Windows 11.

Why would they put a TPM header and sell a TPM 2.0 chip for boards that can't support it? I think you are buying into some misleading statements. They wanna sell more product.

[Jontario]

Sorry that last screenshot was the wrong one, this one shows TPM working on z170.
My firmware is like 2 years old or something.
 

[GoodBytes]

Just now, Jontario said:

That isn't hard data. What benchmark or test can I run to verify this?

If you are going to prove me (and Microsoft) by contradictions, you should be the one that provide the proof.

I don't need to run benchmark to confirm that all of my 3 system is notably slower. My desktop, which has the highest impact, pass from a system that is OK in performance for web surfing, to one that really needs to be really updated. 

[GoodBytes]

5 minutes ago, Jontario said:

Why would they put a TPM header and sell a TPM 2.0 chip for boards that can't support it? I think you are buying into some misleading statements. They wanna sell more product.

huh? dedicated TPM is more secure than firmware level TPM, if that is what you are asking.

[Jontario]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

If you are going to prove me (and Microsoft) by contradictions, you should be the one that provide the proof.

I don't need to run benchmark to confirm that all of my 3 system is notably slower. My desktop, which has the highest impact, pass from a system that is OK in performance for web surfing, to one that really needs to be really updated. 

it's anecdotal. There hasn't been much innovation in Intel chips since 6th gen, which is why their CEO got canned. As far as the tpm modules being less secure that's only if they have physical access to your motherboard, which is a stupid reason to buy a new motherboard for a computer in your house. Microsoft is a company that lies and wants to sell more new laptops. I'm already planning on running benchmarks and testing gaming performance I just haven't got around to it yet I installed it yesterday. None of your arguments are convincing though.

[Jontario]

I don't think this should be a place where we just blindly listen to corporations. I have hard proof they have already been misleading. Both Asus and Microsoft.

[Jontario]

Also if a hacker has physical access to your new laptop, it's already been proven they can hack the TPM in 30 minutes without soldering. LTT covered it. Alot of the statements they're making are smoke and mirrors or misleading at best. Sure TPM is slightly more secure and has some randsomware protection but it's more something that corporations need then the average consumer. We can just backup our data and tell an attacker to go #$* themselves if they ask for money in a randsomware attack. I'm no expert on cpus but as far as I know the only difference between 6th and 8th gen might be some instruction sets that aren't supported if there is a slight performance drop in some executions that use newer features that might be legit but as for games and such they should be using the same instructions on either OS and I highly doubt the performance difference in whatever security functions you're talking about are gonna be game breaking for anyone that has a reasonably powered CPU. I wouldn't wanna be using a low end locked I5 6th gen anymore but an i7 O/C'd to 4.7/4.8 ghz should be fine.

[Jontario]

LTT somewhat settled the benchmark question (windows 10 vs 11) in games here:

They used an old and new gpu but didn't swap to an old cpu however given their cs:go results a low core cpu might actually be more consistent across the operating systems.

[Jontario]

On 8/22/2021 at 8:36 AM, Nacht said:

I thought auto hdr was meant to make screen equally as bright as SDR or did i miss understand ?

yo watch the video I just posted they mention auto hdr, based on what Linus said I think it's just meant to make none-HDR content look better when HDR is enabled by some sort of auto color processing.

[Master Disaster]

Just had an interesting thing happen....

 

Windows 11 Pro just popped up a toast and told me it was going to restart in 5 minutes to install updates, the only options it gave me were OK or See Less Notifications.

 

I literally had to go into WU and pause updates for a week to prevent it from rebooting my computer while I'm in the middle of building an SELinux Kernel in a VM.

[GoodBytes]

Windows 11 New Build - 22000.168

Sorry for the big delay, you probably all got it already. Had a busy day.

This build is mostly bug fixes. There is a new widget which ties into Microsoft 365 subscription service (aka: Office 365). Shows you recent documents you worked on, trending public documents in your org, and SharePoints events (again, corp env stuff).

 

Chat (consumer Microsoft Teams) moved forward in development, and now include multiple language support.

 

Lastly, the Store got once again updated in its presentation. Library section has been reworked and has various animation improvements.

 

 

The rest are just bug fixes, and here are the main ones which Microsoft listed:

Quote

Search:

• We’ve addressed an underlying issue in the last couple flights for pen enabled devices that was resulting in Search getting into a state where it wasn’t possible to launch apps from the results.

Settings:

• We fixed an issue where typing certain phrases into the search box in Settings were crashing Settings sometimes.

Widgets:

• When using the Family widget, you should no longer unexpectedly see a message saying ‘connect a device to see screen time activity’ despite there being available activity to display.

Chat from Microsoft Teams:

• We fixed the issue where sometimes videos would freeze or display a black image during video calls.
• We also fixed the issue where if you switched between calls, the previous call is not automatically put on hold, so audio and video streams continue with both calls.

As always, the real list, which we don't know, is larger, and Microsoft chooses to only list the big ones.

So, you faced an issue not listed as fixed above, there is a chance that it could be fixed regardless.

[GoodBytes]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Just had an interesting thing happen....

 

Windows 11 Pro just popped up a toast and told me it was going to restart in 5 minutes to install updates, the only options it gave me were OK or See Less Notifications.

 

I literally had to go into WU and pause updates for a week to prevent it from rebooting my computer while I'm in the middle of building an SELinux Kernel in a VM.

I think you miss read. It normally says that the update will take 5 minutes (assuming the system has an SSD, for those minor build increases) and will restart outside of Active Hours.

[Jontario]

Victory. Microsoft caved =D
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3631509/microsoft-backs-down-older-pcs-will-be-able-to-run-windows-11.html

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Jontario said:

Victory. Microsoft caved =D
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3631509/microsoft-backs-down-older-pcs-will-be-able-to-run-windows-11.html

Caved? Nah.

 

More like they simply acknowledged the inevitable truth that they were never gonna be able to stop it so they might as well call it unofficial support.

 

Optics & marketing.

[Master Disaster]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I think you miss read. It normally says that the update will take 5 minutes (assuming the system has an SSD, for those minor build increases) and will restart outside of Active Hours.

Very possible, I kinda got very sketched out that it was going to wipe out 1.5 hours of build time. In the end it was inconsequential because around 20 minutes later the build failed anyway

[GoodBytes]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Caved? Nah.

 

More like they simply acknowledged the inevitable truth that they were never gonna be able to stop it so they might as well call it unofficial support.

 

Optics & marketing.

Completely agree.

 

It stops Mr. Ms. everyone from upgrading with incompatible systems. The group of people who would miss blame their reduced experience to Windows instead of their PC. This was Microsoft main goal.

 

And with mass tech news outlets and more, reporting on the strict requirements of Win11, it past the message to tech community that if they have issues (performance or stability) with Win11 with their unsupported system, they are on their own.

 

Personally, as I always said, even if Microsoft would have blocked unsupported systems, Microsoft would implement a basic, easily by-passable lock. Historically, Microsoft always took the approach of 'least amount of effort' when creating restrictions.

[Jontario]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Caved? Nah.

 

More like they simply acknowledged the inevitable truth that they were never gonna be able to stop it so they might as well call it unofficial support.

 

Optics & marketing.

I think that's what caved is. If they weren't lying and it there was an actual reason older cpus couldn't run it they wouldn't have had to change anything. I still have had zero crashes, performance issues or any issues. No driver issues either even though they said something about driver support.

[Jontario]

@GoodBytes
Apparently this is why some cpus suffer a performance loss. What's strange though is Windows 10 also has the feature but it can be disabled on Windows 10. Not sure about Windows 11 yet but it's possible higher performance cpus are fast enough it's not noticeable. Basically it's a security feature that protects kernel level processes from code injection. If your CPU doesn't support MBEC it can cause up to a 40% performance loss. I tried a few games last night on Windows 11 with a 6700k and noticed no difference from Windows 10. Maybe it's just system processes that suffer this 40% performance loss and if your cpu is powerful enough it's not noticeable, I'm not sure yet.
http://borec.ch/the-potential-performance-impact-of-device-guard-hvci/

[Jontario]

I also ran this benchmark for everyone to prove it's not a 40% performance hit across the board. I get the same results on cinebench in Windows 10 and Windows 11. If I bump my overclock up to max I can actually get the same speed as a stock 7700k on my 6700k but this is my settings that keep my cpu at a reasonable temperature since it's the summer time. This was run on Windows 11 current beta build, it shows Windows 10 but that's because the current build number is sitll actually Windows 10. If you go to build number on Windows 11 current it's actually build 22000. Don't believe Microsoft's lies.
 

[GoodBytes]

5 hours ago, Jontario said:

I also ran this benchmark for everyone to prove it's not a 40% performance hit across the board. I get the same results on cinebench in Windows 10 and Windows 11. If I bump my overclock up to max I can actually get the same speed as a stock 7700k on my 6700k but this is my settings that keep my cpu at a reasonable temperature since it's the summer time. This was run on Windows 11 current beta build, it shows Windows 10 but that's because the current build number is sitll actually Windows 10. If you go to build number on Windows 11 current it's actually build 22000. Don't believe Microsoft's lies.
 

It is important to know what the benchmark tests.

Using the right benchmark is important.

 

Win10 - fully updated - just installed - same config environment as Win11 system (pretty much all defaults)

 

Win11 - Latest Insider Build - Same install config as above. The additional startup programs beyond Windows defaults has been killed (It's my own software. Beside OneDrive, which was also setup in the Win10 install, and Defender panel, I don't have any startup programs.. system not fancy enough these days to afford startup programs)

[Jontario]

@GoodBytes I know what cinebench tests, it's rendering an image with ray tracing. You got an 8% overall performance hit on Windows 11 and on things that nobody will notice on a decent system. That has been my point the entire time. I didn't say it will be the same across the board I said on a decent system it won't be noticeable. I wasn't saying you should run Windows 11 on any cpu.

[Jontario]

@GoodBytes I ran PC Mark on my PC for comparison. Is it possible you have performance mode on in Windows 10 but not 11? I wanted to run both in performance mode (in battery settings) but Windows 11 would not even let me save the plan as performance, so instead I ran both as balanced. The other thing I'm wondering is if you are running them both off the same hard drive? I'm running both of mine off the same NVMe hard drive. These results aren't jiving as I'm still seeing no difference unless it's purely down to our processors or something. Either way Microsoft is lying, it's not a 40% performance hit and the stuff that is affected in your system is stuff most people won't care about. Browsing is the same and gaming is the same. A slightly slower app launch nobody would care about unless their app launches are already slow, a 1 second or 1.5 second launch would be in the fractions of a second more for your app to launch. I'm still not seeing anything justifying the things Microsoft has claimed even in your results.
Windows 10

Windows 11

As far as I can tell the only difference between the two might be some background processes running or something in Windows 10 causing it to be slightly slower. My Windows 11 install is much newer with fewer apps installed so that would explain the slightly lower score (on Windows 10).
Edit to add my system information:
I7-6700k @ 4.5 GHZ all cores (It'll go up to 4.8 GHZ but I only turn it up in the winter)
Asus Z170-A
XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB NVMe
16GB Ram @ 2400Mhz (4 sets of 4GB two diff brands but this shouldn't matter all that much)
Asus 1060 strix 6GB OC

 

[GoodBytes]

3 hours ago, Jontario said:

@GoodBytes I ran PC Mark on my PC for comparison. Is it possible you have performance mode on in Windows 10 but not 11? I wanted to run both in performance mode (in battery settings) but Windows 11 would not even let me save the plan as performance, so instead I ran both as balanced. The other thing I'm wondering is if you are running them both off the same hard drive? I'm running both of mine off the same NVMe hard drive. These results aren't jiving as I'm still seeing no difference unless it's purely down to our processors or something. Either way Microsoft is lying, it's not a 40% performance hit and the stuff that is affected in your system is stuff most people won't care about. Browsing is the same and gaming is the same. A slightly slower app launch nobody would care about unless their app launches are already slow, a 1 second or 1.5 second launch would be in the fractions of a second more for your app to launch. I'm still not seeing anything justifying the things Microsoft has claimed even in your results.

There is no performance difference between Balance and High Performance based on my testing (a few points difference in benchmarks, within margin of error). System was dual booted. Same SSD was used.

• Core I7 930 2.8GHz
• 6GB of RAM triple channel 1333MHz
• GeForce GTX 680
• X58 chipset (the only one for the 900 series, if I recall correctly)
• SATA-3 SSD on SATA-2
• Power plan was Balance. I always use Balance. 
• Both installs are clean. I cannot game anymore on this system. I have a Switch, I play my games there.

No one said 40% performance reduction. The only 40% that was ever said, was "Windows Updates are 40-50% faster to install". Any Insiders here that was from Win10 days, can confirm this as true.

 

The performance drop is notable on my side. I see a performance drop on your side as well. YOU might not care about it. YOU might have headroom because you over built your system for your needs. But SOME people, might be the end of the world. Heck, at every version of Windows, people are concern of performance drop in their games, and productivity apps, benchmarks are looks, and a small minute drop, is the end of the world. I must deal with this conversation on this very forum, and I am basically like you, saying that the drop of 2fps (or whatever) on a 100fps+ game, doesn't matter. They won't pass from a playable experience to a slide show, as some assumed. And probably, the performance difference has more to do with the new driver's which needs tuning by Nvidia or AMD. 

[Jontario]

@goodbytes are you seriously taking an 11 year old cpu @2.8ghz and using it as an example for other people not to install Windows 11 on pre 8th gen chips? Telling people with boards that support tpm not to buy one and get new hardware when you're running a system with 6gb of ram? Of course you're going to notice little performance hits on that system. I would be running Linux on that. You "saw" a performance drop on my side? What are you talking about? I think you are the one who doesn't understand what the benchmarks are. This is such a stupid conversation my point has always been that cpus relative to the performance of mine will run Windows 11 fine without any noticeable performance loss especially in games and that is 100% correct. There isn't a 2fps drop there is NO DROP. I never argued that your system runs it well I didn't even know what it is and it's no wonder it doesn't. I don't care what you do and if you stay on Windows 10 what originally bothered me was you echoing Microsoft and Asus and telling people that shouldn't get a TPM. Asus told people to buy a new motherboard instead of getting a tpm chip and Microsoft has overstated the performance hits by making the cuttoff 8th gen intel and I guess now a few other cpus but my point is higher end 6th gen and 7th gen should be fine, maybe even 5th gen and Ryzen. Microsoft did not say it will be an ever so slight performance drop on those cpus that you would never notice in the real world, they said something about crashing, security, bleh, bleh, bleh, whatever they could say to convince people to buy a new computer and throw perfectly good ones in a landfill. If they said your cpu is too old I would have agreed but that's not what they said.