I'm actually curious as to how people fall for the malware these days because most operating systems and web browsers give you big red warnings and make you jump through hoops to run any executable file that hasn't been verified as legit.
That's all they're being used for at present (and the fingerprint stuff, I think). Once M$ is sure it will be present, they can make more and more things depend on it. You mentioned activation - now think activation for other programs as well. That MSOffice will have TPM activation is a given, but consider other expensive software like Photoshop, AutoCAD, Solidworks, etc. I'm pretty sure these companies will pay big bucks to Microsoft to make pirating their software very difficult.
Maybe, maybe not. If people refuse to upgrade their systems just to install this operating system it will send the opposite message. MS is under pressure by government leaders to do something about all the ransomware attacks. I'm not sure what they could do that they haven't already done. Most of the problem is that people just have no common sense even in big companies and they inadequate security protocols. They're living in a fantasy land if they think people are going to want to spend a thousand dollars on a new computer just for a new operating system for no good reason. There needs to be a lot more carrot on the end of that stick.
Mhh...yes and no, at least for now. There are still many things still to merge inside the main Windows code (from what I seen). Maybe they'll do it with Nickel.
Considering the fact that they have put aside the possibility of sandboxing applications (like on Win10X), I'm not surprised of this decision to forcely uupdate some machines. They not even considered the idea of getting rid of the antiquated system registry concept.
I used to think it was silly that MS did all of these things, but they do them for a reason. Perhaps a compromise that resembles shadowbanning is in order where the program isn't aware that it is being sandboxed and thinks it is writing to the registry and doing all sorts of things, but is in fact quarantined the whole time. They could store compressed files that contain just the keys that are different that the program was writing to and other system elements that it tried to modify. Kind-of a system delta. They could do it, but like a lot of things, it might require a redesign of the OS to make it happen. It's a lot cheaper to make a microchip and argue that everyone should buy a new computer than to completely redesign your operating system.
What do you mean put aside? Don't gen 7+ CPUs support hardware based app virtualization, to counter the ransomware problem? If untrusted apps run in a sandbox environment (like Outlook attachments) then it will lower malware infections by 60+% like MSFT claims. Obviously MSFT haven't enabled it for Win11 insiders as it will likely be toggeled at launch (as it will crush all older CPUs that have to emulate it). Apparently 10 supports it and it's enabled on Surface PCs. Also not sure if core isolation\memory isolation of drivers is the same thing?
I mean that Win32 can be runned on Win10X (and just on this version) only inside an emulated containers, like a kind of virtual machine.
Somebody can confirm this (seems more others changes on File Explorer)? mobile .twitter .com/AldrichUyliong/status/1420277743594348545
Yes, but the reason why people use Windows over any other operating system is because you can use software from 25 years ago without an emulator. A semi-sandboxing approach would retain the ability to run legacy programs. They want everyone to use store apps but nobody wants to use them. I'm not super familiar with them as I always use LTSC which doesn't have the store installed. From what little I have read, they are generally sandboxed but if they have a script that the screening team didn't catch, they could go outside the sandbox. Of course that doesn't solve the businesses being hit by ransomware problem. Those businesses are all using custom software to power machines. They could probably use an email app from the store, but they'd still fall prey to the dumb user error and click on things they shouldn't click on. This semi-sandboxing issue would protect them a bit, but the store apps wouldn't as they would just pass the file off to the operating system for execution.