Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aerroon | Hacker News Reader

>* A Microsoft account and internet connectivity is required for Windows 11 Home setup

I refuse. There better be easily accessible versions without this requirement.

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?

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.

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.

I always thought that Windows ME was designed to make users rush to XP, and Windows Vista to drive them to 7.

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.

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.

That happens all of the time.

Salespeople forget that the computer exists to update itself. Anything you do with it is a distant second, because security.

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.

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.

where does it say that only MS accounts can be used or that you can only use one user account on the machine?

if you want to use a local account, USE ONE.

Yeah I don’t think MS is going to rip out Local Users and Computers any time ever.

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.

Not for long. Azure AD P2 for all, baby.

So where do average users fit in? It's funny people are led to believe they need pro version just because.

I've been using Home version since Windows ME and it's being fine.

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.

so set up a local account... there's no requirement that all accounts be MS accounts...

> 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.

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.

Can you make a Microsoft account at the time of install?

I think I’m just going to make a junk account instead of linking it to any real account I use

That's what I did, but I first had to find a free email provider that doesn't asks for a valid phone number.

>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.

so that's a feature not a bug.

Yes, and in practice it's a pain that forces/highly encourages you to use the Microsoft Store.

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.

I thought the current store was a native UWP app? Am I wrong?

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.

iirc it is possible, but I recall you needed to click unobvious buttons or just do it while offline and connect only after that

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.

It looks like they removed it from Home but not Pro.

https://i.imgur.com/vxs03rC.png

Another difference: Cortana talks you through the installation on Home but not Pro. After years of installing Pro that was a bit of a shock.

It's possible, but only if you don't connect to the internet. See https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-set-up-windows-10-with-a...

Yes which is why you don't connect to wifi right away. But I've installed Windows without an internet connection many times.

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 see this in steps 8 and 9 at https://www.windowscentral.com/how-set-windows-10-local-acco...

I just did an install of Windows 10 this morning and can confirm that the option is still there in 21H1.

It is available on Pro but not Home unless you disable all Internet access while doing the install.

On Windows 11 it seems like they are saying you won't be able to install Home without an active Internet connection.

>"As far as I could tell, creating a user account just locally was not possible"

I do it all the time. Do not plug network cable and do not connect to WiFi. Windows then proceeds to setting up local account

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.

Disable WiFi in the BIOS.

Insane that you have to resort to that.

You don't have to resort to that.

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.

Shift+F10 is your friend at installation time.

>>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

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.

Similar experience here. Upon first boot, (i.e. during setup of windows) MS insists upon a microsoft account.

Typically, you're not in a position to google around for how to not have that. After all, you're in an OS setup screen, without a browser.

Creating a local use account in Windows 11 is _much_ easier than in Windows 10 (at least based on the leaked version I have seen).

There is a workaround for now: just press Alt-F4

See https://www.neowin.net/news/windows-11-home-requires-interne...

Probably intentional. They'll remove this in Windows 12.

Microsoft is continuing their long tradition of screwing up every other version of Windows.

98SE - ok, ME - bad, XP - good, Vista - bad, 7 - good, 8 - bad, 10 - good, 11 - can safely skip it and wait for 12

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.

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).

Version parity with competitors. It's stupid but a thing. At least they didn't straight up call it Windows X.

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.

But today's announcement would have been Windows 10X if it hadn't been canceled...

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?

As mentioned 95, 98, 98se... before that was win 3.1 and of course windows for workgroups was fun....

Microsoft has a long history of screwing things up before they get better...

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.

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.

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.

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."

Smells like you are forced to login with a Microsoft account and can't do a local account

You can use a local account as has been demonstrated by many people on YouTube when installing the leaked build.

As I mentioned elsewhere. You can do it _and_ it is easier than in Windows 10.

Yes, it's probably called Windows 11 Pro

5.12.12 was released on the 18th.

I expect the enterprise version to not have this requirement. Massive enterprises would refuse to upgrade if it did.

Correct, this is a limitation in the Home Edition only according to the system requirements.

Who uses home edition anyway? Your parents? It's not suitable for anyone that may want to lift the hood.

They mostly come bundled with laptops, which your parents and most users will buy without even caring about it.

Exactly, and if you do care, you can upgrade to pro without a wipe within the OS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com