Windows 11 General Discussion

[theFOoL]

I like whatever M$ trys to do with having to force people to buy a new computer, there's always a CMD or registry hack later on

 

[windwhirl]

IIRC, with TPM disabled, VBS doesn't run.

Not really, you can run it without TPM.

Secureboot and Bitlocker however depend on TPM (because digitally signed bootloaders and on the fly encryption, respectively).

Regarding VBS, it will probably run noticeably slower on machines that do not support Mode-based Execution Control, the CPU instruction that started the controversy over what CPUs were officially supported

Also, I do think the theory of TPM enabled/disabled might have some merit on whether VBS is enabled or not, but mostly betting on Microsoft simply bundling all the required services together, which means that when one requirement isn't met, all the others are disabled because they were simply chained together, not because they depend on the unmet requirement.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Not really, you can run it without TPM.

Fair enough. But does it run by default with TPM disabled I wonder..

 

[R-T-B]

Secureboot and Bitlocker however depend on TPM

Secureboot does not require a TPM.

Could be VBS?

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[windwhirl]

Secureboot does not require a TPM.

Ah, yes, you're right. I thought they used the TPM for the keys, but nope.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I just found a way to install the android app support for win 11 in the EU. Atm it only works in the US, so i cant use the Amazon store for android apps, but can install the .apk's directly.

Here's moonlighter running

 

[AusWolf]

I've got a weird proposition here...

Microsoft says that only Windows 11 has the scheduler needed for Alder Lake and future heterogenous CPU architectures at the moment, with updates to Windows 10 coming later at an unspecified time. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but technically, Zen 3, Comet Lake and Rocket Lake are all heterogenous architectures in a way that they operate with preferred cores that can (potentially) boost higher. Windows 10 already has support for this in its kernel, so couldn't it just work with Alder Lake in the same way?

As illustration, this is what background/foreground tasks look like on my Core i7-11700 under Windows 10:

Background tasks (Windows Update) / one single-threaded foreground task (Cinebench R20 single core):

 

[windwhirl]

I've got a weird proposition here...

Microsoft says that only Windows 11 has the scheduler needed for Alder Lake and future heterogenous CPU architectures at the moment, with updates to Windows 10 coming later at an unspecified time.

Correct so far.

Zen 3, Comet Lake and Rocket Lake are all heterogenous architectures in a way that they operate with preferred cores that can (potentially) boost higher.

Not the same, really. Each core in any processor built using those architectures has all the same characteristics and feature support. Literally the only difference is how high they can clock compared to the other cores in the package.

Alder Lake, on the other hand, has two different core microarchitectures in the same processor package. And both microarchitectures differ in terms of what kind of instructions they support (the most talked about is AVX-512, but there might be a few more obscure ones that I may not know about), the amount of cache per core and per module, register size is different too, decoders width might also be different... so, really, they're basically two different processors bundled in one package.

Windows 10 already has support for this in its kernel, so couldn't it just work with Alder Lake in the same way?

Microsoft is the only one that can really tell why it wasn't simply backported to Windows 10. I mean, we can all throw theories about how they're all greedy bastards, but at the end of the day those are just theories with no actual, real proof.

Regardless, you already know about how Denuvo handled this with complete lack of grace. So, there's also third-party software that really can't handle heterogeneous architecture CPUs because the idea never existed in X86 land until barely months ago. And I suppose that's also where the Intel Thread Director comes in.

To be honest, I don't really have much faith in Alder Lake's approach to be actually worthwhile, though I do offer it the benefit of doubt.

 

[Mussels]

It's the difference between altering weighting (prefer cores with higher value) vs "if process requires X feature set move to this core design:"


I want them to throw in super low wattage ARM cores (like apple has done) and have the OS run off those, similar to how we moved from software graphics to a GPU.
Let the big beefy cores lie in wait, and keep the OS slim for the efficient cores

 

[AusWolf]

Correct so far.


Not the same, really. Each core in any processor built using those architectures has all the same characteristics and feature support. Literally the only difference is how high they can clock compared to the other cores in the package.

Alder Lake, on the other hand, has two different core microarchitectures in the same processor package. And both microarchitectures differ in terms of what kind of instructions they support (the most talked about is AVX-512, but there might be a few more obscure ones that I may not know about), the amount of cache per core and per module, register size is different too, decoders width might also be different... so, really, they're basically two different processors bundled in one package.


Microsoft is the only one that can really tell why it wasn't simply backported to Windows 10. I mean, we can all throw theories about how they're all greedy bastards, but at the end of the day those are just theories with no actual, real proof.

Regardless, you already know about how Denuvo handled this with complete lack of grace. So, there's also third-party software that really can't handle heterogeneous architecture CPUs because the idea never existed in X86 land until barely months ago. And I suppose that's also where the Intel Thread Director comes in.

To be honest, I don't really have much faith in Alder Lake's approach to be actually worthwhile, though I do offer it the benefit of doubt.

It's the difference between altering weighting (prefer cores with higher value) vs "if process requires X feature set move to this core design:"

Thank you both. Different instruction sets make total sense.

I want them to throw in super low wattage ARM cores (like apple has done) and have the OS run off those, similar to how we moved from software graphics to a GPU.
Let the big beefy cores lie in wait, and keep the OS slim for the efficient cores

That would be nice. Or even if low-power cores were actually something really low power, like actual Atom cores. You don't even need 8 of them to run Windows Update while playing games or doing other stuff.

 

[londiste]

Alder Lake, on the other hand, has two different core microarchitectures in the same processor package. And both microarchitectures differ in terms of what kind of instructions they support (the most talked about is AVX-512, but there might be a few more obscure ones that I may not know about), the amount of cache per core and per module, register size is different too, decoders width might also be different... so, really, they're basically two different processors bundled in one package.

The different microarchitectures but same ISA. There really is no indication that scheduler does know or needs to know anything about cache, register size, decoder etc differences. Some cores have more performance, some have less and that should be quite fine for scheduler to do its thing. Preferred cores sounds like exactly the same functionality. The bug with Ryzens was around the same area as well, so quite likely was a result of some changes done for Alder Lake.

I want them to throw in super low wattage ARM cores (like apple has done) and have the OS run off those, similar to how we moved from software graphics to a GPU.
Let the big beefy cores lie in wait, and keep the OS slim for the efficient cores

Now this is something not easily done due to the problems with (wildly) different ISAs that were pointed out above.
What Apple did, what Intel does and what AMD is planning all have similar traits - more or less different cores but same ISA. Apple now runs ARM on both Firestorm and Icestorm cores, Intel runs x86 on both Golden Cove and Gracemont.

That would be nice. Or even if low-power cores were actually something really low power, like actual Atom cores. You don't even need 8 of them to run Windows Update while playing games or doing other stuff.

What do you mean? Alder Lake E-cores are Gracemont, literally actual Atom cores.

 

[AusWolf]

What do you mean? Alder Lake E-cores are Gracemont, literally actual Atom cores.

Point taken. I'll take back what I said, then.

Edit: Doesn't that mean that they have different ISA than P-cores?

 

[windwhirl]

The different microarchitectures but same ISA

Yes, no arguments there.

There really is no indication that scheduler does know or needs to know anything about cache, register size, decoder etc differences.

That I do not know and I didn't meant to imply that it's necessary for the scheduler to know (because, again, I do not know). Regardless, I was merely mentioning why the cores are not really the same.

Preferred cores sounds like exactly the same functionality.

Yep, though now there's an extra consideration for the possibility of differing support for certain instruction sets.

Edit: Doesn't that mean that they have different ISA than P-cores?

Not exactly. The ISA in general is x86. The E-cores' microarchitecture (Gracemont) is an implementation of said ISA, which can implement the full set of capabilities or only some. Due to this being Atom / Alder Lake E-cores, some capabilities are not implemented or disabled (such as AVX-512), because they're not important to the microarchitecture's design goals (such as low power consumption).

EDITs for clarification (hopefully)

 

[londiste]

Not exactly. The ISA in general is x86. The microarchitecture (in this case, Gracemont) is an implementation of said ISA, which can implement the full set of capabilities or only some. Due to this being Atom, some capabilities are not implemented or disabled (such as AVX-512), because they're not important to the microarchitecture's design goals (such as low power consumption).

AVX-512 is not important for E-core design coals. They do seem to have a place in P-core goals though. AVX-512 being disabled on P-cores when both P and E cores are used is an example of matching instruction sets - since E-cores cannot do AVX-512, P-cores should not either due to possible complications this means for the scheduler.

 

[Mussels]

Now this is something not easily done due to the problems with (wildly) different ISAs that were pointed out above.
What Apple did, what Intel does and what AMD is planning all have similar traits - more or less different cores but same ISA. Apple now runs ARM on both Firestorm and Icestorm cores, Intel runs x86 on both Golden Cove and Gracemont.

Agreed, except windows 10/11 already run on ARM, and the x64 version of the OS has ARM emulation

They're slowly heading in this direction already

 

[londiste]

Agreed, except windows 10/11 already run on ARM, and the x64 version of the OS has ARM emulation

Emulation it is still running x86 code on CPU. ARM version runs ARM code throughout - and some x86 emulation (well, not really emulation but same idea) on the side that runs ARM code on CPU. This is different from running a computer on two different architectures simultaneously.

 

[bobbybluz]

After a few days of playing around with Win 11 Enterprise I finally got everything looking and working to suit my needs. Open Shell was a great help and other than the goofy right click options it looks very much like Win 10 now with a Win 7 start menu. After I figured the right click out and discovered everything from earlier versions of Windows are still there things went smoothly. With an i7 12700K @5GHz and 64GB of DDR4 3600 it's extremely fast as well as fast booting. So far, so good at this point in time.

 

[Mussels]

After a few days of playing around with Win 11 Enterprise I finally got everything looking and working to suit my needs. Open Shell was a great help and other than the goofy right click options it looks very much like Win 10 now with a Win 7 start menu. After I figured the right click out and discovered everything from earlier versions of Windows are still there things went smoothly. With an i7 12700K @5GHz and 64GB of DDR4 3600 it's extremely fast as well as fast booting. So far, so good at this point in time.

Everyone forgets that all the stuff is in the start menus right click, and has been since 10

theres very little more you really need regular access to

 

[Keullo-e]

Just found out that bringing back the older right-click menu is easy: https://www.pcgamer.com/windows-11-context-menu-fix-right-click/

Everyone forgets that all the stuff is in the start menus right click, and has been since 10

theres very little more you really need regular access to

View attachment 231144

In fact I found this out just recently even though I've used Win10 (and now Win11) since release.

 

[Deleted member 202104]

Just found out that bringing back the older right-click menu is easy: https://www.pcgamer.com/windows-11-context-menu-fix-right-click/

Thank you for that. x1000

 

[windwhirl]

Just found out that bringing back the older right-click menu is easy: https://www.pcgamer.com/windows-11-context-menu-fix-right-click/


In fact I found this out just recently even though I've used Win10 (and now Win11) since release.

Yeah, though it didn't work for me, but I'm on Insider preview. So likely Microsoft "fixed" the "bug" (note my heavy usage of quotes)

 

[lexluthermiester]

Just found out that bringing back the older right-click menu is easy: https://www.pcgamer.com/windows-11-context-menu-fix-right-click/

That's been fixed for a while... But hey at least you found it!

 

[R-T-B]

You could just use explorerpatcher to get that menu (and more, if desired) back.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You could just use explorerpatcher to get that menu (and more, if desired) back.

That is found here;

Releases · valinet/ExplorerPatcher

This project aims to enhance the working environment on Windows - valinet/ExplorerPatcher

github.com

Scroll down the page to find the stable "Latest" instead of the "Pre-release" versions.

There is also WinAero Tweaker which will enable the original context menu;

Winaero Tweaker

Winaero Tweaker is a free app for all versions of Windows that lets you adjust (i.e. tweak) hidden secret settings that Microsoft does not let you adjust

winaero.com

Yeah, though it didn't work for me, but I'm on Insider preview. So likely Microsoft "fixed" the "bug" (note my heavy usage of quotes)

Those are the pains of being on the insider channel...

 

[R-T-B]

Yeah, forgot about all the prereleases he puts out, nice catch!