So to summerize what they have announced (so far) -
* A new look task bar. Centred similar to the macOS dock by default but lacking the ability to position on any other screen edge?
* A new start menu design
* Windows have rounded corners
* Some built in apps such as the Xbox app and Microsoft Store have been redesigned (Xbox Game Pass and xCloud built into the Xbox app)
* New touch keyboard (SwiftKey?) with improved speech recognition
* New haptics when a stylus is used
* Teams integrated into Windows
* Support for Android apps built into the OS (using Intel Bridge technology whatever that is?). Apparently this works via the Amazon App Store although I am not sure what this actually means in a practical sense?
* A new widgets fly out for weather, news, etc. (appears this will require you login with a Microsoft Account)
* Improved windows snapping with a dynamic (based on your screen(s) size and layout) UI built into the maximize button
* DirectX 12 improvements (unsure if limited to Windows 11 only?)
* Auto HDR for games
* Improved experience when switching between tablet and desktop modes
* Apparently there will be "Windows 11 ready" PCs for sale "today"?
* Microsoft say they have been working with AMD, Intel and Qualcomm to optimise the silicon for Windows 11
* 40% smaller Windows Updates
* TPM 2.0 and UEFI are hardware requirements. No legacy BIOS compatibility at all?
* A Microsoft account and internet connectivity is required for Windows 11 Home setup
* 64-bit processor required (no 32-bit build at all?)
* There is a universal mute button in the system tray so you can mute yourself system wide rather than in the app
I need a local account. I set up my PC with multiple profiles. I start with a local admin account and then I add Microsoft accounts for my day-to-day work. I have one profile logged in to my personal Microsoft account. Another is logged in to an Office 365 account that belongs to someone I do work for. Etc..
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?
> Why is MS encouraging people to have one giant admin account with a work or school account connected?
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.
Windows professional for professionals. Windows home for grandparents. Always has been this way. I'm ok with that. The tiers of OS have different requirements and features. Expected.
Windows Professional used to be for professionals. I think there is a strong argument that since Windows 10 it hasn't been, at least not for technically competent professionals. In 10, the Pro edition still has much the same user-hostile aspects as Home, which are inappropriate in a business context. If Windows 10 Pro had the same kinds of control over things like updates and telemetry as the Enterprise and Education editions, but without the volume licensing and large-scale management features that larger organisations want, it would still be suitable for small businesses or independent professionals.
Why are candy crush Saga (whatever that is) and xbox, default installs in all 'pro' versions?
Never understood that logic. Unless they are just another form of auto telemetry.
Depends on the business. If you buy into the office365 thing it actually makes it easier to set up a business network across a number of machines without having to dork around with Active Directory or anything hideous like that. Up to 25 people I think it's pretty good. I'd much rather set up a clients business on Office365 than have to install an Exchange/AD server on their premises.
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.
For me, as someone who runs small tech businesses, it's not about what you get with Pro, it's about what you don't.
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.
> 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.
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.
Now imagine that was a salesman's laptop being out of action and it happened at the start of a big demo to a C-suite decision maker for a potential deal worth millions.
since windows me it's been clear there's a product designed to be utterly unpalatable, a product whose purpose is to produce upsells by behaving rudely.
The real issue was driver support. If you had the right hardware you had no issues. If you had a weak graphics card Vista would not have certain features.
I think this should not be related for OS tiers. Every user should have possibility to use different accounts on their computer, and to adjust permission levels of them and choose which one to connect to MS account.
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.
I use Win10 Pro, but have Home on a few computers for my parents and nieces/nephews. I set up the first user on all of them as a local admin and their account (local or MS) is always a normal user.
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.
Why would you be ok with that and don't demand choice? Would you give me 10$ for nothing? Because nothing is what you get in return. Pretty unstable business position.
I'm not a Windows person but recently had to go through the setup process on my parents' newly purchased desktop machine. As far as I could tell, creating a user account just locally was not possible, you had to have an online account, hooked up with a valid email address. Given that most free email providers require you to provide your phone number (I don't own a phone), I had to do some digging--- all just to create a local user account on Windows 10.
>As far as I could tell, creating a user account just locally was not possible, you had to have an online account, hooked up with a valid email address.
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.
The whole point of DCH iirc was to decouple the rendering and display engine driver from the User/Control/Config interface.
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.
Well the initial version of Store (it didn't really improve in iterations of 10) was horrible UX and dodgy state changes. It's essentially just a webpage and a very bad one at that.
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.
Yes, the current store is a very janky UWP app written in HTML and javascript. I believe their original motive was to share the code base between the online store and the desktop client.
On a recent (i.e. the last 2 or 3 major releases) Windows 10 install (any edition) you can create a local account during the post-install setup assistant by selecting to make an offline account and then selecting "limited experience" when it tries to convince you an online account is better.
You can set up an offline account but you have to literally disable any Internet connection (pull the Ethernet cable, turn off the WiFi card, etc) so that it activates the option to tell the installer you want to install offline.
>>Given that most free email providers require you to provide your phone number
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
If you do accidentally connect to a network, before you realise this, there's no way to get it to forget. Rebooting doesn't work. The only solution I found was walking 30m away to the other side of the parking lot out of range of WiFi.
Start the install over from scratch. You can have wifi enabled when installing. Just don't plug in a network cable and don't connect to a wifi network when it prompts you to. Read carefully, you can avoid connecting and if you do you don't connect, you don't have to use a Microsoft account.
It used to be a sneaky button, but last time I installed there was no way to do it without disconnecting from the Internet. If you're connected, you are not presented an option to create a local account, even in a way that's hard to find.
Last time I did it, the trick was to begin logging in or creating a new online account (forget which way), and from there you could actually change your mind and create a local account.
The way I see it, 8.1 was the (relatively) good version, and 10 has been... okayish. 8.1 did a good job walking back most of the interface travesties from 8, and still retained the best parts of the Windows experience. (Fullscreen apps notwithstanding.) 10 has been changing dramatically with every update, moving or replacing system/settings screens and making their own documentation obsolete.
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.
I didn't mind 10 at first but I hate it more and more as it keeps updating and breaking things. They recently completely replaced the IME implementation with a new one that refuses to do the configuration I need (Dvorak Japanese), silently replaced the dual graphics card configuration with one that ignores all the preferences I've previously set, and added weatherbug to my taskbar like some early 2000s malware.
This has been my experience as well, and I was putting up with it because of windows 10 being the "last version" on sort of a rolling release schedule. But now that they're going back on that, I don't understand why they've been making so many workflow- and documentation-breaking changes in 10 recently. Why not just hold major changes until the next release?
I thought Windows 9 was the good one that would have come between Windows 8 and 10. Because 10 certainly isn't a good one (looking at you, fantastically broken start menu search that needs frequent re-indexing).
It was less about version parity with Apple and more about avoiding bugs in applications that would have mistaken a Windows 9 for a member of the 95/98/98SE family.
That's the technical excuse they come with afterwards. The fact is while Mac Os was stuck in version X (ten), Microsoft decided to make a perpetual Windows 10 version. Now that Apple moved up to 11 and now 12, Windows is moving to 11 too. That's a big "coincidence"...
But what for? Do you really think they think people will stand in a shop and say "that laptop is only at 10, I take the one at 11"? Also, if that was indeed the intention, they should've moved for 11 earlier. The technical explanation seems far more reasonable.
It's not just me then;) Windows vista seems to be crying out for a Windows 7, XP is ok and Windows 8... I've never even used Windows 8, it's the most anonymous Windows imaginable.
All the anti-linux comments from people who tried it 15 years ago talking about how windows "just works" not looking so justified now. Thankful I use linux today. While linux has issues this in particular is one thing I don't have to worry about.
Not really, hidpi, multidpi, fractional scaling are the new Linux "sound cards", in the sense that buying modern screens and expecting them to work under Linux is an act of gambling. For example, for fractional scaling you probably end up using (broken for many drivers) raster scaling in xrandr, which is resource intensive and (being a raster operation on top of font rendering!) poor quality. But, hey, there is Wayland, you say. Well, Wayland does the same, maybe with slightly better performance because of some technical nuances, but still essentially the same, since it doesn't support fractional scales: just render everything to the next higher integer scale, then downscale using a brutal raster operation. This is the standard we have been waiting for a decade now and it's not only that its adoption and its support for important features are still far from what's required, it's also that it has design shortcomings that it's probably too late to change now. At least at fractional scales, I suspect that Qt, browsers and other rendering engines that already supported it (GTK being the conspicuous absence here) won't see any improvement but a loss of font rendering quality in the future. Now look at most of the current offer of budget laptops: FHD 13-14'' screens, good enough for most people, poorly supported in Linux even if Wayland was now shinning at its brightest, which is far from real. Not to talk about the poor fellow that wants to plug his cheap external FHD screen or, worse, that shiny new UHD screen that costed her hard earned money. The mishmash of scales a typical modern setup like this requires is too much for Linux and will be for the foreseeable future. I'd like Linux fans to be more responsible with their advice since Linux desktop is actually an expensive hobby for people with time, money and technical savvy.
Don't know why you are downvoted. It is a bit charged, but very correct. It was predicted quite some time ago and Microsoft isn't really user orientated. I probably drop Windows after 10, I use it less and less.
Certainly will I not develop against their frameworks.
There will certainly be a version available for offline installations. It won't be marketed toward consumers because offline access is now a "pro" feature they can charge extra for. It will be given to deep pocketed organizations that say "we use air gapped computers and have money to burn."
- 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
- A new widgets fly out for weather, news, etc. (appears this will require you login with a Microsoft Account)
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.
I don't get it either. I've never met anyone who liked any of the dynamic content provided by MS pretending that Windows is media platform. I think these are features the MS execs want, not users.
> 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.
Red Hat seems at a glance to be more focused on making a good workstation for professional use. Ubuntu seems to be more for beginners on their home computer.
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?
I use Xubuntu, which is great. Really, I would say the difference between Red Hat/Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora is largely cosmetic. I haven't actually used Red Hat as a workstation in years, but the nice thing is that on Ubuntu you can just install the gnome-desktop package or the kubuntu-desktop package, and you get that desktop environment.
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.
Again, Microsoft seems to be genuinely incapable of understandng why anyone could havev ever liked the Windows already available. As if that was some crazy unthinkable impossibility. Perhaps at some point between 60 and 90% market share you should stop trying too hard to be like the others and consider the possibility that not everything you've done is wrong?
I like the idea and motivations behind a lot of the changes a lot of the time but it’s basically never done well. It’s like… always mediocre.
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.
Judging by their own line of tablet computers, it seems like they genuinely don't understand why anyone in would want a desktop. Which is sad, because Windows 10 is not a nice tablet UI
When you model this kind of befuddlement, assume that it's rational, strategic action intended to secure more money/growth in the short term than the "sane choice", even if that requires a worse user experience.
They'll just see how bad the complaints are about weird UI choices and privacy, and then release Windows 12 which will be a return to Windows 10 except with less control over your computer.
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.
I don't really think desktops are a real source of tech competition anymore. If the FTC isn't going to do anything about vendor lock-in on iOS, MacOS, Android, or ChromeOS, they really don't have any business doing the same on Windows.
And having a client that can switch between tabs at something faster than a glacial pace. Switching from Chat to Teams took about 10-15 seconds, during which the program was entirely unresponsive. And yet it still claims that it goes faster by virtue of using a horrendous amount of RAM for a chat program.
It is, but it was also easy to click previously. By being in the bottom left you could just flick your mouse to the corner and not have to aim for a little icon. Now you can't do that. The position will also change as more icons are added which will make for bad UX as well.
IMHO, The main things of interest are the 40% smaller Windows Updates, TPM 2.0 requirement and Microsoft account requirement.
* 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?
I stand corrected. Still, 2015 isn't that long ago, and new systems of the time couldn't adopt it immediately.
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...
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.
There's always that one deal-breaker on linux. Some hardware that you need just doesn't work or the software does some very minor thing that makes it unusable.
Yeah. Though I'd say broken things are the exception, not the rule now. It mostly works most of the time. And the list of broken / awkward interactions is much smaller than the list of stuff that just works out of the box.
I got sick of any Debian based OS. On AMD hardware I get nothing but problems on Pop_OS!, Mint, Ubuntu.
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.
I mostly play older games, but the ones I play work on Steam through PlayOnLinux. I've used Linux as my primary OS off and on since the 90's, I switched back again recently and I'm impressed. Almost everything worked except for the color printer, and that doesn't work on Windows either, I have to get the MacBook out.
2022 will be the year of Linux on the desktop, for sure.
As recently as a decade ago, Linux was borderline unusable for a home computer. Lots of driver problems. Lack of software.
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.
> As recently as a decade ago, Linux was borderline unusable for a home computer. Lots of driver problems. Lack of software. [...] Linux as a whole basically assumes you already know everything you need to know about what you're doing.
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.
Installed it for a friend. Most of his steam games were working and some who didn't I easily installed them with Lutris Iirc.
Libre office may not look super polished but it really covers any normal person's use case and beyond. The only thing he does not get are updates but automatic updates are coming soon anyways.
I am a programmer and I run Linux Mint myself on all my machines because it just works. Any software that's not in the packages I use an Appimage or Flatpak or language specific packages manager such as cargo.
If you use a high DPI screen things have been fine for many years. Mixed DPI is a different story, no idea if it works well, but it doesn't really work well on Windows, either.
I use mixed dpi screens on Linux mint. It works but it’s officially experimental and there are some small bugs. (After sleeping all my window move to one of my displays. And some other small things)
> After sleeping all my window move to one of my displays.
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.
Games should work fine on Mint. The only reason I can't recommend Linux for most people is that there is no usable office suite. And no the libre and open office really are not usable.
I've been exclusively using LibreOffice for ~10 years, and OpenOffice before that, and aside from just doing some things differently (not worse) compared to MS Office, it's been smooth sailing.
And for most people Google Docs or... Office 365 are all they really need.
WPS Office is alright for most people, if you are okay with proprietary software from a Chinese vendor. However, it obviously doesn't cover e.g. Excel power user needs.
Or you can just use Google Docs, or even the browser edition of Microsoft Office.
I bought an Android phone (Palm Phone) for under $100 that rarely bothers me at all, definitely the least annoying Android device I've ever had. Still not really an Android fan, but it has the least shovelware of any Android device I've had.
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.
I sign into my phone with an account, but not my primary personal one. I use a secondary one I use for this and some other throwaway uses. I'm sure this isn't the norm, but I bet it's not that unusual, at least among tech people.
But if you want get android app from playstore, you still need google account. Same for iOS, and it's even worst than android, since you can't sideload apps
Yes, ONLY if you want to download them from the playstore. As you already noted, on Android you can sideload apps and get them from other places other than the playstore. So you can still get the same app from another source without an account.
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
Bypassing the Play Store is also a bad sign, especially from chineese company. This is bypassing the Play Store rules about permissions granted to the app.
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.
Why not create a throwaway account? When you setup the phone, just go through the process of setting up your fake Google account, and don't use it for anything aside from the Play Store for easily downloading and updating apps.
Because once you have that account, it links all apps data to it, and you give enough data about yourself to be indentified somewhere else even without the account.
> 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.
@cronix, @BiteCode_dev, @gruez: I know we can sideload, but it's inconvenient. Fdroid have limited number of apps, and store like apkpure is security risk. Most of regular people just get an Google account.
A smartphone isn't a desktop OS. You're free to think it's juvenile, and I'm free to prefer a desktop OS that doesn't require an account like win10 or linux.
If its anything like windows 10 was you could just never activate the license and nothing practically would be different, unless you wanted desktop backgrounds I believe. I barely notice the watermark anyhow telling me to activate windows for the last few years.
I've never heard of that one before, but it must be one of the most squatted domain phrases. There's like 20 versions just in top results and I could not figure out which one is official and which one just installs malware...
What's frustrating about the Mac is that every time they screw up bad enough that I try to switch back to other options (I was a Windows and Linux, among other things, user for 15 years before I started using Mac) I find they're still so much worse that I'd just be cutting off my nose to spite my face, by switching.
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".
This is false. A pirated Windows 10 Pro license costs like $25. These are not legitimate licenses, they're overprovisioned enterprise keys being sold in violation of the license agreement. And yes, they register differently in Windows, and can be easily detected. (Command is slmgr /dli)
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.
For $25 I can get a legitimate Windows 7 Pro license sticker that works like any Windows 10 license, which is perfectly legal all the way through.
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.
It's not perfectly legal, but reasonably more legal than the alternative (a key bought from a reseller). Those stickers are meant to be affixed to a machine sold by a reseller, and is only meant to be used for that machine. If the machine is destroyed and the sticker/key is kept, then it can be used, and it does register Windows Professional/Home installation rather than an Enterprise/Education installation, but is in violation of the TOS that it's provided under.
That being said it is difficult to shed a tear for Microsoft of all companies over this practice.
Cheap key allows you to activate windows and to bind valid windows license to your hardware, so you won't have to enter any product key anymore. Using cracks is just not safe for most people. I'd recommend to buy cheap key over crack any time.
Wait, are free pirated keys that work as reliably as paid technically-pirated enterprise keys and don't require downloading some probably-comes-pre-botnetted "hacked" Windows installer, but work flawlessly with the installer downloaded straight from Microsoft, readily available? Asking for a friend.
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.
Version 1.0 is out. Uninstall is no longer experimental. You really should do some more research again. You are doing yourself no service by being so smug.
Yuck. That'll keep me on 10 for the time being. With widescreen monitors it's so nice to be able to use as much of your vertical real-estate as possible.
This is a shame. I always was the odd one who put his task bar to the right, but it makes so much more sense if you have many windows open. I can scan over the titles much faster vertically. There's more space for task tray icons and I could easily add multiple rows of quick start icons in a folder. [1]
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"...
Somehow it is easier for me. Can it be that I can drag the mouse faster to the right as a right-hander? Maybe because the cursor is more often on the right, because of scrollbars on the right side? Maybe because many programs have their vertical menu on the left side (Outlook, Teams, etc) and therefore the left side would be too busy?
To be honest, some of these are exactly the reason why I would keep the taskbar to the left - UI elements such as scrollbars or caption buttons are much faster to access with mouse, when they're glued to the edge/corner of the screen, because you can just "throw" your mouse cursor instead of having to aim for a 20x20px target. Having your taskbar to the right takes away that feature
Part of Fitt's Law. The corners of the screen infinitely large so they are easiest to target. As you said, just "throw" your mouse. The edges of the screen are infinitely long (1 dimension) but you still need to target the X range. Still easy to target.
UX designers use to study this stuff and apply it. Now they unwittingly undo all of these thoughtful experiences with their cosmetic changes.
> Alignment to the bottom of the screen is the only location allowed.
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.
Thinking though how I use UIs, I like having one sidebar per screen edge because:
- 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.
Ughhh. This is legit something that'll stop me from upgrading for at least a bit. Gotten so used to having it on the left side that I really don't want to go back.
Strange decision. It doesn't even seem like a design challenge to have the task bar on any side of the screen. I can't see any reason for such an easily avoidable limitation.
they are integrating teams, onedrive, office, microsoft 365 stuff directly into windows 11. Doesn't that spark anti-trust concerns? Think about Microsoft was fined for anti-trust for integrating internet explorer into windows and making it the default. Looks like every platform holder is just using the dominance of their platform to push their other stuff.
Sure does, but Microsoft is eyeing the valuations of zoom and slack and have decided that the fines they’ll get are a bargain for destroying those companies and taking over the market.
Microsoft was not fined for integrating IE IIRC. They where fined because they did not allowed you to install Netscape for example.
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.
> 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.
Same for me, I have a recent-ish desktop that works just fine (Haswell) but that TPM requirement means I can't upgrade... It's forcing me to throw away a perfectly functional computer if I want to upgrade.
For me personally, TPM is the concern because of how integrated DRM is with it. Light DRM is fine, and prevents casual rights abuse by casual players. Stricter DRM gets used to lock things up and it becomes pervasive and hard to discourage. It chews extra resources, requires more power, and eventually means that some things that probably should be copied freely eventually cannot ever really be. Just imagine if Doom had been written with TPM in mind. You would never see it running on any of the myriad devices that people have had it running on, and the knowledge gained during those builds would not have come into existence.
You can still use BitLocker completely without TPM, but it needs an explicit change in Group Policy. If opted in, BitLocker setup will behave much like well known TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt, offering encryption options with a password or a keyfile.
You have been able to move the task bar to left/right screen edges for years. If your task bar is not locked, just click and drag it to the window edges.
A feature to Left align the buttons has been shown in the leaked builds.
Correct you can left align the buttons but there is no longer settings related to locking the taskbar and dragging it does nothing in the leaked build.
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.
I remember during the Windows 95 days users at my company suddenly had their task bars stuck to the left or right side of the screen and nobody knew how to get them back :(
Seamless interaction between phone and Windows is their mobile strategy. Windows 10 already did a lot in this direction, with the ability to link a phone, or to cast the phone screen onto a dedicated window. Allowing apps to run in Windows is a logical next step.
The other part of their mobile strategy are tablets or tablet-substitutes. Basically their whole Surface lineup, which Windows 11 aims to improve.
Except for one small detail, they appear not to support the latest Surface Go 2 tablet! According to the PC Health Check tool, my maxed out Microsoft Surface Go 2 that I bought new a few months ago (with 8GB RAM, 64-bit Intel core m3 processor) is NOT supported to upgrade to Windows 11. Wow. Their system requirements tool also doesn't say why my tablet doesn't meet the requirements, just that it doesn't.
I believe Apple is working on getting iOS apps working in future versions of Mac OS. Microsoft being able to run Android apps in Windows is probably in part a response to that.
You can already install iOS apps in the current version of macOS, but only on Apple Silicon machines and app developers can decide whether their apps show up on the Mac App Store.
>For more information, search for the System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot system requirements in PDF download of the Windows Hardware Compatibility Program Specifications and Policies.
>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.
The BIOS vendor would need to prevent you from turning off secure boot. Windows can't do that, except where they also control hardware, so possibly on the Surface?
Can you verify this using the verification tool? Reports on the internet say the tool reports machines with earlier generation processors are being flagged as not compatible.
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.
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)
Following the link for "compatible 64-bit Processor" brings me to:
Windows Processor Requirements
...
Windows Client Edition Processors
...
Windows 11 Supported AMD Processors Supported Intel Processors Supported Qualcomm Processors
The link for "Supported Intel Processors" brings me back to the original link that you claim is only for system builders and only lists i8 and above. So I'm not sure where the actual list of supported processors is.
Guess what? Last night when I wrote that comment the link said
> 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!
One requirement on a requirement list is not orthogonal from another requirement... especially when we're talking something largely tied to CPU/Chipset generations
Just like there was a Soft/Hard for TPM there was one for CPU... but again now that's gone:
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.
> *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.
> 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...
I am running a Ryzen 2200G (1st gen Zen) on an Asus Tuf B450M-Pro S, 32 GB RAM, 1 TB NVMe SSD (GPT). I have fTPM (firmware TPM) enabled in the BIOS. My Windows 10 detects a running TPM 2.0.
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!
They’re saying TPM 2.0 is required. If so, many Windows systems from before 2017 won’t be supported, and even some Windows systems since then may have it disabled in the BIOS/UEFI settings, and many brand new built-from-parts systems may lack a needed chip. See https://mspoweruser.com/turns-out-windows-11-does-not-need-t... for some review of the situation (which seems to be “official docs say 2.0 is recommended but actually only 1.2 is required, but the app is currently enforcing 2.0”).
Update: the 8th gen and up is a soft requirement. The Health Check tool will tell you that you are not compatible, but the installer should let you in with a warning.
Caveat: The install tool bypass has not been verified yet.
* A new look task bar. Centred similar to the macOS dock by default but lacking the ability to position on any other screen edge?
* A new start menu design
* Windows have rounded corners
* Some built in apps such as the Xbox app and Microsoft Store have been redesigned (Xbox Game Pass and xCloud built into the Xbox app)
* New touch keyboard (SwiftKey?) with improved speech recognition
* New haptics when a stylus is used
* Teams integrated into Windows
* Support for Android apps built into the OS (using Intel Bridge technology whatever that is?). Apparently this works via the Amazon App Store although I am not sure what this actually means in a practical sense?
* A new widgets fly out for weather, news, etc. (appears this will require you login with a Microsoft Account)
* Improved windows snapping with a dynamic (based on your screen(s) size and layout) UI built into the maximize button
* DirectX 12 improvements (unsure if limited to Windows 11 only?)
* Auto HDR for games
* Improved experience when switching between tablet and desktop modes
* Apparently there will be "Windows 11 ready" PCs for sale "today"?
* Microsoft say they have been working with AMD, Intel and Qualcomm to optimise the silicon for Windows 11
* 40% smaller Windows Updates
* TPM 2.0 and UEFI are hardware requirements. No legacy BIOS compatibility at all?
* A Microsoft account and internet connectivity is required for Windows 11 Home setup
* 64-bit processor required (no 32-bit build at all?)
* There is a universal mute button in the system tray so you can mute yourself system wide rather than in the app
Probably some other things I have missed