One survey says Windows 11 adoption hasn't even surpassed Windows XP yet

zamroni111

Posts: 325   +191
It's real easy to stop being forced to update to Win11, just don't enable TPM 2.0 in the BIOS. Of course it'd be pretty easy to remove the option to do that, for "security" reasons of course...
You can simply postpone windows feature update for a year using gpedit config.
Keep the tpm 2 enabled.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 325   +191
Ok.

No it isn't...

Most people don't have enough critical data to protect. There are MUCH better options out there. Bitlocker is rubbish.
Most people doesn't have critical data???
So those most people doesn't keep file records of their tax forms and bank transaction history?
 

Gezzer

Posts: 259   +134
You can simply postpone windows feature update for a year using gpedit config.
Keep the tpm 2 enabled.
Why? If you're not using Bitlocker what other benefits does TPM bring to the table? If it was really important you'd think it's be enabled by default, but it isn't...
 
D

Dd663

Look at the free tech support sites and you will see that your assumptions are just that. It's buggy as hell. The older OS's have support topics with answers, W11 have support topics that end with MS bug reports.

Every new MS OS has always been buggy when released. Nothing new. The pattern is always the same and has been since MSDOS days.

But yeah, people are sick of the "new features", subscriptions and monetization in Windows. The whole corporate software world has gone like that though because they've seen a strategy to make billions off people whilst providing little more, and the people don't like it.

.
Anecdotal, but the only bug I've encountered using Windows 11 is a bug that I also encountered in Windows 10: sometimes maximized windows cover the taskbar when it's set to auto-hide, so that mousing to the bottom of the screen doesn't reveal the taskbar when said maximized window is in focus. I end up having to restart Explorer in the task manager to fix that. But like I said, I encountered the same bug in Windows 10, so it's obviously just an issue that 11 inherited from 10 and not one that was introduced by 11.

I'll also admit that resizing windows by clicking and dragging the corner of them is sometimes finickier than it used to be, thanks to the rounded corners, though I'm not sure if that qualifies as a bug.

What subscriptions and monetization in Windows are you referring to? Buying Windows is a one-time fee, same as it always has been. If you're talking about Office 365, that's separate software unrelated to the Windows OS.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 325   +191
Why? If you're not using Bitlocker what other benefits does TPM bring to the table? If it was really important you'd think it's be enabled by default, but it isn't...
I use bit locker for internal drive and external backup storage, so regular thiefs can't see the data of I lose the device.
I think all windows users must use it too because your archive tax forms and financial documents are very important private data.
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,027   +724
Most people doesn't have critical data???
So those most people doesn't keep file records of their tax forms and bank transaction history?
While that is important data and should be kept safe, TPM/SecureBoot/BitLocker is NOT needed to protect such and would be overkill for such a purpose, especially considering the annoyances those "feature" requirements create.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 325   +191
While that is important data and should be kept safe, TPM/SecureBoot/BitLocker is NOT needed to protect such and would be overkill for such a purpose, especially considering the annoyances those "feature" requirements create.
What kind of annoyance?
They are one time setup and I've using it for years.

Bit locker only needs to be temporary disabled on boot drive for bios upgrade then it will automatically enabled at again after reboot.
Secure boot is needed to be disabled only if you are dual booting
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,027   +724
What kind of annoyance?
For starters?...
Secure boot is needed to be disabled only if you are dual booting
This. Having Secureboot enabled kills dual boot or multi boot possibilities, which for many people who use multiple OS configurations is an INSTANT deal-breaker. It also makes troubleshooting for tech-support professionals very unpleasant and needlessly difficult. The presence of TPM in and of itself is not a huge problem, but forcing it to be used can be for some configurations that require it's explicit absence. It's also a completely artificial hardware requirement.

There are MUCH better, software based methods that Microsoft could have utilized if user security was their only intent. So either have an agenda, were too lazy to implement software security methods or they too incompetent to do the same. Perhaps some combination is at play.

Regardless, Microsoft's mentally lacking scheming is unacceptable and is making what is otherwise a delightful version of Windows into a disaster.
 

Gezzer

Posts: 259   +134
I use bit locker for internal drive and external backup storage, so regular thiefs can't see the data of I lose the device.
I think all windows users must use it too because your archive tax forms and financial documents are very important private data.
You're talking about a real outlier, you do know that right? How often do thieves bother to take drives? As for your assumption that all Windows users use Bitlocker, it's a real stretch. Should they, yeah maybe. Do they, I'd say the vast majority of users don't even know it exists. Plus you need Pro or enterprise to actually use it. How many non-office users do you think sprung for Pro instead of the cheaper Home version?
 

zamroni111

Posts: 325   +191
You're talking about a real outlier, you do know that right? How often do thieves bother to take drives? As for your assumption that all Windows users use Bitlocker, it's a real stretch. Should they, yeah maybe. Do they, I'd say the vast majority of users don't even know it exists. Plus you need Pro or enterprise to actually use it. How many non-office users do you think sprung for Pro instead of the cheaper Home version?
I had hard lesson of lost laptop in 2006.
That's why it's important for me to always encrypt my storage, including external backup drive.

I'm surprised that even some tech fans of tech spot readers doesn't realize the importance of storage encryption.
Microsoft indeed doesn't make setting up bit locker super easy, but it's not in difficult level.
 

Gezzer

Posts: 259   +134
I had hard lesson of lost laptop in 2006.
That's why it's important for me to always encrypt my storage, including external backup drive.

I'm surprised that even some tech fans of tech spot readers doesn't realize the importance of storage encryption.
Microsoft indeed doesn't make setting up bit locker super easy, but it's not in difficult level.
You do know that Bit Locker can be defeated right?



There's more examples. I hate to say it, but the problem is if someone has access to your computer and have the skills to actually boot into your account? Yeah, they'll eventually find a way to undo anything you've done to defeat them. It's pretty much a given.

I'm not saying don't encrypt your files if it makes you feel safer. Me I don't keep anything really important on mobile or removeable devices, period. It's too easy to lose a thumb drive or laptop, etc, or have them stolen. But it's one thing for you to make a choice, quite another to suggest it's the only choice.

Fact is M$ has a proven track record of doing things in it's own best interest over those of end users. If I was going to encrypt any files I'd go FOSS over a proprietary system. Like VeraCrypt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeraCrypt


But to be honest while I use things like malware scanners, I'm well aware that the only really safe computer is one you don't use. And is unplugged, kept in a bank vault... Everything is vulnerable to one extent or another. IMHO relying on hardware/software solutions which can be compromised is a poor second to being security aware of how your actions effect things. Common sense is your best defense as far as I'm concerned.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 325   +191
You do know that Bit Locker can be defeated right?



There's more examples. I hate to say it, but the problem is if someone has access to your computer and have the skills to actually boot into your account? Yeah, they'll eventually find a way to undo anything you've done to defeat them. It's pretty much a given.

I'm not saying don't encrypt your files if it makes you feel safer. Me I don't keep anything really important on mobile or removeable devices, period. It's too easy to lose a thumb drive or laptop, etc, or have them stolen. But it's one thing for you to make a choice, quite another to suggest it's the only choice.

Fact is M$ has a proven track record of doing things in it's own best interest over those of end users. If I was going to encrypt any files I'd go FOSS over a proprietary system. Like VeraCrypt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VeraCrypt


But to be honest while I use things like malware scanners, I'm well aware that the only really safe computer is one you don't use. And is unplugged, kept in a bank vault... Everything is vulnerable to one extent or another. IMHO relying on hardware/software solutions which can be compromised is a poor second to being security aware of how your actions effect things. Common sense is your best defense as far as I'm concerned.
The Kerberos authentication vulnerability has been fixed in 2016.
It will be extreme fool for using system without this patch in 2022.
And the method in isunshare article requires admin access which regular thiefs won't have.

Not only my external storage, I also encrypt my internal storage.
Bit locker had bad reputation but many has been fixed.
it's much secure than not encrypting your storage at all.
 

Gezzer

Posts: 259   +134
The Kerberos authentication vulnerability has been fixed in 2016.
It will be extreme fool for using system without this patch in 2022.
And the method in isunshare article requires admin access which regular thiefs won't have.

Not only my external storage, I also encrypt my internal storage.
Bit locker had bad reputation but many has been fixed.
it's much secure than not encrypting your storage at all.
Whoossshhh...
Missed my point totally, so I won't continue this discussion any longer.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
 

Gastec

Posts: 235   +115
For starters?...

This. Having Secureboot enabled kills dual boot or multi boot possibilities, which for many people who use multiple OS configurations is an INSTANT deal-breaker. It also makes troubleshooting for tech-support professionals very unpleasant and needlessly difficult. The presence of TPM in and of itself is not a huge problem, but forcing it to be used can be for some configurations that require it's explicit absence. It's also a completely artificial hardware requirement.

There are MUCH better, software based methods that Microsoft could have utilized if user security was their only intent. So either have an agenda, were too lazy to implement software security methods or they too incompetent to do the same. Perhaps some combination is at play.

Regardless, Microsoft's mentally lacking scheming is unacceptable and is making what is otherwise a delightful version of Windows into a disaster.
I agreed with everything you wrote until I reached this, quite illogical rant: "Microsoft's mentally lacking scheming is unacceptable". I'm only going to tell you this: Corporate Commander is smart, greedy and evil.
 

Gastec

Posts: 235   +115
You're talking about a real outlier, you do know that right? How often do thieves bother to take drives? As for your assumption that all Windows users use Bitlocker, it's a real stretch. Should they, yeah maybe. Do they, I'd say the vast majority of users don't even know it exists. Plus you need Pro or enterprise to actually use it. How many non-office users do you think sprung for Pro instead of the cheaper Home version?
Pardon me for sticking my head into your trophy-fishing picture, I just wanted to provide an answer to this existential question: "How many non-office users do you think sprung for Pro instead of the cheaper Home version?". The answer is: all of us who are not noobs.
 

Fox God Records

Posts: 99   +90
There are MUCH better, software based methods that Microsoft could have utilized if user security was their only intent. So [Microsoft] either have an agenda, were too lazy to implement software security methods or they['re] too incompetent to do the same. Perhaps some combination is at play.
I have said it before:
The TPM 2.0 requirement has NOTHING to do with security and EVERYTHING to do with DRM.