I just wanted tell you that I found someone else managed to install unmodified Windows 11 on the unsupported system. This might give a hint for MS's blocking mechanism for older systems:
I was able to install the "leaked" Win11 version on, ironically enough, an 11 yr old HP Pavilion with an Intel Q8400 CPU. The trick is to not use the standard Windows installation procedure and instead "deploy" the Win11 "install.wim" file via Diskpart/DISM or a 3rd party installer (which I did).
A weak effort, then.
Interesting. My take on all this is:
"We are preparing a New Release of the O.S. But in order to use it, you must buy what we tell you to buy."
That is a bit extreme in the name of Security.
A simple Warning Disclaimer would be sufficient.
If their installation requirements in the name of security are so insecurely coded...
Well, if anyone is too unhappy about it, they can always visit this link.
For me, the simplest answer for this "why" is a corporate profit.
Some years ago, when MS started to marketing MS bland hardware and even opened now mostly closed brick and mortar "Microsoft Stores", the speculation was that they were eyeing at Apple's business model.
Apple is not selling their OS by itself (the last such OS for sale was Snow Leopard disk which still sits in my drawer as a memento for my Hackintosh career). Anyone who wants to use macOS must purchase Apple hardware with it. I think it is way more profitable than selling OS alone and providing support for hardware which is not made/sold by Apple.
I quote Avarisian's words one more time here.
I am sure some people at MS sit at their desk all day long and doing such calculation/simulation for how to maximize their profit
Well, yes - since you can "upgrade" to Windows 11 for "Free."
Microsoft has never been in the "free" business, so that money must come from somewhere.
Radio; Google; Youtube; For many, advertising revenue has been the primary source of cost covering. Obviously, lucratively.
Microsoft has no infrastructure in place for advertising revenue. However, it is a good point that MS has ventured into Console Gaming (X-box) and marketing MS Bland Hardware. It may well be that MS sees its future in Hardware Dominance.
Restriction due to Hardware for Security:
This is where the "Is it necessary" question I referred to above comes back around. Looking at this logically, placing security in hardware is a terrible idea. Computer vulnerability exploitation and security is a rapidly changing field. Placing security fixes on the hardware side would require changing the hardware to patch a security vulnerability.
I need not detail the problems that this invokes.
Perhaps this is a one-time thing: That the hardware manufacturers figured out a long-lasting way of improving security by making a change in how the CPU operates.
But as a white-hat-hacker, I must say it smacks of hogwash. The exploitation of such is done with code.
This discussion is; as tomscharbach put it well; an evolution. I find that more and more, my ideas are reverting back to known, tested, tried and true. Just as known insurance companies will find every manipulation to exploit their source of income: us.
Applying occams razor, which is more likely: That Microsoft cares about us and is giving us a Free OS and encouraging us to buy safer "hardware" or that Microsoft is switching to supporting its product by boosting hardware sales?
This is certainly not motivated by "hate" for Microsoft. Because I do not hate Microsoft. MS as a company has made a lot of mistakes, but has also put out many great products, done great things and uplifted communities and saved lives with advanced medical systems. But as a major company, Microsofts motivations are all too human and exploitation is as much an expectation as litigation is.
They are when Microsoft absolutely Dominates the market.
In Q1 2020, Apple held 5.8 percent market share, Google held 5.3 percent, and Windows had 87.5 percent (of the) market share.
This is not how business works. Profit margins do not ignore percentages of increase - period.
It is quite astounding, really, the lengths that many businesses will go to just to increase profits by a handful of percent. Anyone in marketing or advertising would fall off their chair reading that line.
An increase in Surface books is an increase in sales. This is not so easily dismissed. If anything, what you posted nails down the topic more clearly, rather than refuting it.
You provided evidence to show what Microsoft stands to gain.
...I had honestly forgotten all about the Surface Product line. Even so, when a person buys any computer that is not branded by Microsoft, they are still buying Microsoft Windows that comes installed on it. Every single computer that is not branded by Microsoft but that is sold with Windows OS makes Microsoft Profit. No matter whose boat they float, they raise their own. Reference above: 74% to 87+% of the market share. Dell, Lenovo and HP do not produce, make nor provide a comprehensive GUI Operating System for data and word processing.
This is not to provide contest - but clarity of vision. There is nothing wrong with a company turning profit or seeking growth. Nor is there anything wrong with recognizing it as such.
However, for me personally, I do not like when a company becomes forceful. As Optimus Prime said, "Freedom is everyone's right."
And I said, "A warning label would have been sufficient."
It is illogical to think that MS would take such measures without a reason.
Anyone who knows anything about cracking and hacking knows full-well that it is a Responsive effort. Reactive. The battlefield is not in the hardware, but in the ever-present arms race of circumventing barriers. The problem with a hardware adjustment to inhibit viruses and hacking is that when the hackers overcome that barrier- replacing the hardware is the only viable solution.
This is why I pointed out- It is in The Code. There is where our battlefield is.
I certainly understand that like Gnome and like XFCE when XFCE decided to switch to CSD's, Microsoft expected that they would receive backlash from the users for their forcefulness. It makes sense to me that MS would try to mitigate that with an active effort to "convince" that the medicine is good for us.
Ah... I need evidence. Not claims and apologetics.
Microsoft has been and continues toward the service model...IoT at a cost... this is why windows 10 and now windows 11 is free to upgrade. They make more with office 365 and azure than they ever did with os sales. This is the direction Microsoft has taken to make their money and the os's here on out will be the avenue to use those services easily, catering to their long hooked corporate customers. This nails the "why". With this os you will see improved security in azure and 365, especially for corporate and enterprise customers. Limited support will be given to private users unless you subscribe to one or multiple services they provide.
Of course this is speculation, but a logical and educated speculation following microsoft's current trend of service integration and sales (following Amazon's and Google's lead into a lucrative, almost monopolized market). They are appealing to and ensuring corporate customers continue and upgrade for security.. at a most compelling cost, "free".
It will not be fun watching (as many companies have already started adopting the model) how many companies break down and charge for "microservices", as the cable company and mobile providers already try to adopt and use the same.
This is the boldest that Microsoft has ever been since starting the sale of licenses. I'm wondering if it's accepted and praised how far they are willing to take it and where the line of common access vs supported paid subscription will be drawn. Will we soon be paying for windows on a use basis? They already collect the data and have the algorithms in azure... it's more than possible. Will Linux follow suit? Will Google (Android)? This is the current direction though, everything as a service.
Very few if any have considered the failure of tpm and secure boot, and that does frighten me because of hardware is compromised is there ever a way for it to be secure again without modifying the build. It will be a wonder if Microsoft is able to "pull the wool over customers" eyes and sweep this bit of possibility under the carpet.
They are not alone in ignoring important points. You have ignored the question of how necessary hardware requirements truly are for security. Please answer me directly on this:
How does the latest CPU manufacturing process inhibit computer viruses? How effective is it?
You also do not address the statement: "A warning label would have been sufficient". This is a very important point. When you consider how intrusive it is to take other peoples security under your own umbrella, to make critical decisions on other peoples behalf...
Let's apply this absurdity to other markets to compare the concept:
Auto insurance refusing you service unless you buy a 2018 or newer vehicle.
Grocers refusing to sell you groceries unless you buy a late model fully charged refrigerator
An electric company refusing you service unless you buy all the top end "energy-efficient" electrical appliances (Water heaters, stoves...)
The list could go on for a very long time. But you get the idea - easily. Each of those listed so far can be justified in the same exact manner as you have been justifying Microsofts invasive demands.
Whether it be good for the environment, good for safety or good for security; On average, the common person could be doing much more for the greater good. And so any entity can always easily 'justify' taking more and more control in the name of a cause. What the justifications ignore, is the price to be paid for this.
What is unthinkable for most any other company to do- as demonstrated above- is being justified by Microsoft in this thread.
As to the point of Enterprise customers vs Private home customers- I remind you: 80+% of the market share.
This does not look very quiet, to me.
You have said this several times. Let's talk about observational evidence for a moment.
You have repeated the same talking points since you joined this thread.
You have, as addressed above, ignored any rebuttals.
You fail to address those rebuttals or explain how changing out hardware is truly necessary - you only claim that it is without evidence.
You elude to your own skepticism, but never demonstrated it here. Here, you have shown a steady and consistent series of the same arguments.
Logical steps are required. Before a person can claim that CPU generational requirements, Secure Boot and TPM are justifiably enforceable; they must first produce evidence as to their effectiveness. This is a reasonable expectation, is it not?
You do not demonstrate this. When pressed, you fall back to, "I'm just asking questions. I'm just feeling my way." If you were feeling your way, you would be asking these same questions that I am asking, not ignoring them.
Apologetics: To use reasoned arguments to promote a Belief when lacking empirical evidence.
I suggest that the "why" is fairly obvious. As noted several times in this thread by multiple people. The "how" is by far, the more pressing question.
You say that I said "In particular, Surface sales" and I had said, "I had honestly forgotten all about the Surface product line." This is a Red Herring.
Microsofts business is based on Sales. Selling a service, a console game platform, a surface or an OS... It's Sales. Companies pursuing an increase in sales is not unbelievable, by any measure. Shifting the goal posts as to what it is exactly they are selling is irrelevant. It does not change the basic Business Pressure in any way whatsoever.
Whether MS wants to increase profit from services like Azure or from Windows OS is really not relevant. What is relevant is that they were driven to such an extreme measure. It is noteworthy that this direction would increase OS sales. I agree that may not be the only Prime Driver. That does not make it "nothing" however.
Moreover- @FrenchPress has repeatedly shown that the restrictions are very weakly enforced. While this may look like MS is giving boons, it also can look like MS is not as serious about security as the claim suggests.
80+% of the market share. This simply cannot be ignored. This is not some figure I made up. I cited it. I showed it. We are not even remotely talking about peanuts or Small Numbers here. At one point, it exceeded 87% and "I don't buy (believe) it" pales in comparison with that massive market share.
If Microsoft truly was aiming for Internet Security through hardware, they would demand a V-Chip to block access to all the Naughty Sites.
Apple went down this same road (I wonder why) in years past. Bricking Products that they deemed too old. So has Shenzen. So has Samsung. We are definitely seeing, as you suggest, a Repeat Behaviour over the last several years...
While Microsofts current trend is not as extreme as Bricking Devices; the principle is the same.
The driver is: Money.
This is a claim without evidence. I asked you to describe how it does this and to cite the effectiveness.
So... You cannot really say?
You don't know?
You believe that they are "highly effective" but can cite no sources, give no figures and provide no evidence? Earlier you stated "Yes, you do." Then added, "As do we all." The implication of that addition is that you were awaiting evidence, too. But this statement by you contradicts that- you now suggest you have evidence, but prefer for me to do your homework for you and search the web for it on behalf of your presentation.
Exactly. And I also pointed out the fallacy of trying to do this with Hardware instead of in the code. When a virus overcomes the hardware limitation, will we then have to change out all our hardware, again?
You believe that User Control is no longer viable and that Microsoft must control not only our computers, but dictate which computers we buy in order to effectively provide a Secure Computing field? Teaching users and providing instruction, warnings and Personal Responsibility are no longer viable and we must hand over all control to Microsoft?
I disagree. A Warning Label would be sufficient to protect Microsoft. Users are responsible for maintaining their machinery.
The hardware change may well be effective. It may even be highly effective... But The Choice To Use It Remains Mine.
Not at all. I point out that you have been doing it on your own since you joined.
I disagree: You have, so far, argued heavily in favor of Microsoft dictating to users what Computers They May Buy. And you have done so without providing any evidence to support this rather extreme conclusion. You have repeatedly made claims, but not supported them with any figures. In this post above, you vaguely allude to a body of evidence out there somewhere for me to search out... To do your homework for you.
No. That is not how supporting your position works.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence. The onus is on you to support the Claims you Make. The conclusions you made in this very thread:
If it was an evolution of your thinking or you were just feeling your way, as you repeatedly suggest, you would be open to other points of view. You would be willing to examine the other side. You would be asking the same questions that I am and addressing your concerns- For
Instead, you promote One View. You ignore any address to an opposing viewpoint or when you do address them, you seek to disqualify them. That is not practical- it is bias. It is interesting to me, because at first, seeing both sides of this: I stated I could see that we do need to adjust to change, to replace machines over time. I gave an example of a very old computer. What interests me the most is that the more you presented your promotion of Microsofts position, the more it solidified my own, the other way. You reminded me of all the reasons to oppose Microsofts direction, unintentionally.
Aside: Apologetics as a word is not exclusive to religion (Though I certainly understand how a Modern meaning may have caused your reaction. I agree with you and apologize for my wording being unclear.)
The word is derived from the Greek apologia, meaning a 'reasoned defence'. The word "faith" or to take something "on faith" or "in good faith" - Do you have faith that Microsoft is just Protecting us? None of these are religious, even if the word "faith" is often perceived as such.
EDIT: For Clarity:
My position is not that TPM, CPU structure change, Secure boot, etc. have no merit for security; Rather, that they alone, even all combined, do not have enough merit to permit a multi-billion dollar corporation dictatorial rights over My decisions, choices and purchases. Are these hardware changes so effective and so necessary as to permit Microsoft invasiveness?
I agree that diversity in ideas and opinions is absolutely necessary in order to really examine the same.
You make a strong point using Covid-19 vaccination - as well as the probability of new mask mandates with the Delta Strain. To use this example without going off topic- I support Vaccination and I support further Mask wearing. I do not believe this is a Freedom of Choice because - over 700,000 dead. For perspective; Covid-19 killed more people in under two years than AIDS did over the course of Fifteen years. Lives are on the line. This is not something where my freedom overrides the cessation of life in so many others.
However, seat belts are interesting as I believe that should be a personal choice, as only the wearer (or not) of the seat belt is Truly At Risk. Same goes for helmets.
It's not always so cut and dry- with clear Yes / No or Right / Wrong answers.
In my opinion, lives are not endangered by Microsoft users being careless with security of their computers. While Covid-19 is a virus and stuxnet is a virus; they are not the same thing. Covid is highly contagious and deadly.
There is one small contradiction here;
In one statement, you respect the Right of others to Choose For Themselves, but in the next, you suggest that in your opinion, Microsoft is correct in removing that Right to Choose from users.
Perhaps you might prefer to say that you respect that others have the opinion that they should have the Right to wear no helmet...
Or, perhaps you might consider that when two parties fundamentally disagree; only an unhappy compromise can let them leave the table grumbling, but not feeling threatened.
Microsofts current Restrictions are not an unhappy compromise- they are a pretty extreme effort.
You missed it and it is still ongoing - you can even use the search function on this very forum to find threads discussing it, along with Artyom Zorins response.
Just as the users are within their rights to pressure Microsoft to back down on its extreme proposals. Or as you call their protests: "Howling."
This... is a very interesting point. Again...
80+% of the market share.
I agree that the reality is that many users have a choice. But to many users, they do not feel as though they have a choice at all. For a company that has held 87.5% of the market share to set a restriction to their customers... They would feel like the Monopoly is making a demand upon them.
When you do not feel like you have a choice - you don't.
How do many businesses or private users learn an entire new system and also somehow transfer all data safely to that new system, complete with compatibility?
And there are many people out there that depend on independent Proprietary Software that is built only to work on Windows. Perhaps they may get it to work on Linux using Wine... Perhaps not. For those individuals- they have no choice but to use Windows. Now... Whether they Must up to Win 11 and therefore, buy all new machines... Well, that comes down to MS dropping Support for Win10.
And there they are with Choice stripped away from them.
EDIT: I think a better approach may be an analogy: If the grocer in town decides to restrict all grocery shoppers to only those who show up and park in their parking garage with a 2018 or newer vehicle (For safety, you know); Can you say that those left behind Had a Choice? Sure, they could grow a garden or hunt wildlife, right? Heck, three hours with a shovel and rake and assuredly, supper is served.
Replace 3 year old computer (MS) or replace 16 year old computer (Linux). Not identical. At. All.
Personally... I think this portrayal of your attitude speaks volumes of what you think of the users.
Non sequitur. That the users "howl" in protest does not mean that they are invalid or wrong.
"All the technology in the world won't put an end to ID-10-T errors, but technology can mitigate the damage caused by malware.":
I love your recognition of the layer 8 issues that plague the OSI model.
"A warning label is not sufficient for systemic security, because a weakness at any point in the system reduces the security of the entire system.":
Again, the weakest part of the system is usually the user and developers... so in essence every system is insecure to some degree both because of software and the person using it, regardless of administrator efforts and hardware assurances. The only secure computer is the unplugged paper weight collecting dust in a museum.
Would you mind providing a little direction regarding the studies you have read that cpu architecture and tpm attribute to computer security. I haven't seen these studies and would find them am interesting read as well as learn more about how far architecture has come. Please forgive my ignorance in this, i haven't been following hardware development for some time.
I say that ID-10-T and layer 8 issues plague the OSI model due to the simple fact that people are lazy and expect things to work without understanding even basics of it. Ex.: kid is excited to get his license, studies for the test and passes both portions. Grabs his keys and runs out the door excited to take friends somewhere. Next thing you know he's out of gas, or brakes fail, or headlight goes out, or he throws a rod... never rtfm... who does? This is the expectation of most users in computing... but a little knowledge and understanding may leviate some of those security issues. You'll never see laziness resolved, only worsen (newer generations anyone, we've all seen it)... there has to be interest to know and rtfm. It's a losing battle unfortunately and trying to protect people from themselves will upset those who care, are interested and do rtfm.
A prisoner has a choice about being in a prison: The reality is that he can choose to break out.
People in poverty and poor neighbourhoods have a choice because the reality is that they can choose to get rich and move out.
87.5% of the market share.
Your tactic is called "dodging."
To paraphrase the Savage, "I reject your reality and choose my own (Because mine is a lot more Real.)
Imagine a future where you buy a home computer and it contains no "Operating System" as you know it. You plug it in, turn it on, it links to your Amazon account and that subscription service provides the functions of Net Browsing, Shopping and Operating System.
Computer would be useless without the internet.
This could never be totalitarian, as many users do use their computer for other things. But the majority of users just browse the web, check emails... They do not use auto CAD. Diagnostic tools. For a great many people out there, the standard OS really comes with more than they need or use (or want). It comes with too much learning curve, too much responsibility. Watch what you browse, run your anti-virus... That's Work. They don't want work, they want Fun.
If that is the majority, then that is where the money is.
Us Linux users are a different crowd - as well as a Small Crowd. To sidle this over next to cars, there will be those that appreciate racing or off-roading and those that Need a Truck for heavy hauling. But a lot of folks really just would be fine with a lil smart car to ferry them to work and back and maybe to the store. Low maintenance; no learning how to work things... Automatic; no having to put all that effort into thinking or moving a gearshift... Self-driving? Sure!
Somehow, the movie "Idiocracy" just popped into my head.
Amazon is already putting such structure into place. Capitalising on the LCD. So is Google. Microsoft may find itself with the lions share, having to compete with smaller competitors that are quite literally about to Explode. When you think about it, it is not a large step from the small Android phone to a larger Android computer on your desk. Microsoft has held an advantage in that people think that they need to Full Features of their desktop. Comfortably, but as above; Google Documents chips away at that belief. Cloud services protect you from data loss, too. Chipping away at that belief that a Full Desktop is a necessity will be ongoing.
Microsoft demanding that users buy the "latest and greatest" computer may make some more sense in light of these ramblings. I could be way off the rails, too but...
If things are trending toward making a Desktop Computer as I speculated above, where security is a Service done by someone else, where responsibility for your machine is someone elses problem... Microsoft, already lagging in very specific areas behind Google and Amazon, will want to seize that right away.
Pandering to LCD thinking, instead of doing what is Right.
EDIT: A couple hours after I wrote this post, this landed in my news feed: