Microsoft Windows Eleven SecureBoot & TPMCheck Bypass?

obviously they do know but they dont seem to care either

 

I would not be surprised to see Windows 12 have some kind of hard requirement that causes a BSOD condition if you try to use Windows 12 on a "...legacy..." system.

As far as Windows 11 goes, a lot of people would be seriously pissed if their Windows 11 system suddenly got bricked by an update that forced a hard requirement on TPM and the like.

I can't see Microsoft being dumb enough to break systems intentionally that have bypassed the soft requirements for Windows 11. I also can't see how they could break new installs without breaking existing installs and even if they did come up with a way to do that, people could simply install an older version of 11 and then update.

If Microsoft introduces a hard requirement, it has to be from day 1 of the new build to avoid problems down the road.

 

100% sure they care, they are just powerless against bypasses though as the OS itself has 0 actual requirements beyond what allows Windows 10 to install.

Its like the many ..... many bypasses that allow the creation of a local account on a new Windows 11 install. Microsoft cares about this quite a bit, there just isn't anything that can do about it.

These 2 things are also linked. If a user upgrades a Windows 10 install to 11, they do not need to transform their local account to a Microsoft account. But ........ if that upgrade from 10 to 11 is blocked due to "...compatibility..." problems, the user might buy a new system. Setting up that new system will require the user setup a Microsoft account. The average user wont understand that this new Microsoft account is optional and simply complete the process without ever understanding that it can be bypassed. I have done work for countless people with Windows 11 systems and excluding the ones that were upgraded from 10 to 11, 100% of them had Microsoft accounts ....... mission accomplished.

 

The requirements are not meant for absolutely preventing installation and usage on unsupported hardware. But with these requirements in place, MS won't have to support such systems, and, more importantly, they can't be sued if things go south on such a system.
They sure know that it is technically not a 100% bulletproof method, but won't lose any sleep over it. Fact: If you bypass requirements, you're completely on your own, even with a license. MS' behind is safe.

Same with the local account case. There will likely always be a method to install with local account, but eventually, you will only be able to do the most basic things with it. Anything fancy, and you'll have to login, including Office.

The only way they can technically break all compatibility, is an architecture change. I've read that they are working on their own silicon, like Apple's M1/M2. Windows versions produced for MS silicon will only run on MS silicon, and all security features will be there from the start.
Even then, the Intel architecture will still be there for some time and stay supported, as not everyone can and will change to MS silicon. As long as they can make money with Intel architecture systems, it will stay supported somehow.


My 0.02€, with a touch of assumptions.

 

Which is why i said they dont really care cause its not gonna cause them to shut down operation anytime in the near future

 

Microsoft will surely weigh all their options every few months. They could even try a nag screen on bootup: "This system is unsupported."

 

You need to login to view this posts content.

 

The "official TPM workaround" still requires a TPM. It's just a compromise option for TPM 1.2 owners. But many machines don't have any TPM at all, and that official workaround won't help here.

 

Correct. And Microsoft policies evolve.

 

You need to login to view this posts content.

 

It's not a point of 'do THEY care?', as its all designed to 'annoy', and 'harass' those 'USERS' who do. Whether its 100% fool proof matters not a jot, as THEY thrive on it.

 

You need to login to view this posts content.

 

In the end this thread is about if M$ knows and cares...or doesnt.

Seems like as if enough humans asked for a NON-TPM Win 11 and M$ partially cared.

Of course they do know MDL.
Others and things like Rufus followed. Its more or less public knowledge by now, if you are into computers.

Its not that M$ created some monster like Denuvo.
But they have made a decision...and we DO know what decisions sometimes can mean in the world of M$. ^^

There is and there always will be exceptions and it never is/was normal. ;D

Back then it was activating Win95 via SafeMode + a simple regedit (change activated from 0 to 1).
In todays world it is about deleting a file called appraiserres.dll and...some more regedit.

[sarcasm] Who knows what Windows 10X might have ended up as... [/sarcasm]

 

Anything below XP didn't need activation. The Win95 thing was about the (optional) registration with MS, you set "Registered" in the registry to "1" in order to skip it and silence the registration reminders.

 

I only remember we had no serial ready on the installation process.

So we rebooted into safemode using F8 and started regedit.

Set registered to "1".

Its been some decades , Im not sure anymore if this step was needed or not.

 

I think if Microsoft is kind of 50/50 here. They care and they don't, either way they are making money with the adds, and data collecting they do on your computer.

 

Isnt that the new thing they are coming out with "pluton" directly integrated into cpus. They are saying its just like a tpm for now, but can be updated with windows update to add other functions like maybe drm.

First on mobile amd cpus but later desktops apparently.

 

You need to login to view this posts content.