Microsoft to Remove Ability to Install Win 11 Pro Without Being Online and Signing in to Microsoft Account

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,812

pendragon1

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
41,903
Since you seem suspicious, here's a first-party link to the page where you can find the PDF: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...inimum/minimum-hardware-requirements-overview

Next, scroll down one (1) page, and click the heading labelled "camera". The quote comes from the bottom of that page and the top of the next one.
ah i see now, youre right. i stopped at the box right above it that says optional.
1657239108935.png

edit: that is from last year, hopefully it changes.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,522
https://www.windowscentral.com/starting-2023-windows-11-will-require-laptops-have-cameras

I wouldn't be surprised if this is a requirement for OEMs as a reaction to COVID lockdowns. A bunch of people had to buy all-new computers to WFH; it could be that a percentage of them got burned on bargain-bin hardware without webcams, cheap webcams, and blamed Microsoft.

I could also see Microsoft having actual nefarious reasons, too.

I have been working from home 99% of the time since March 2020. Never once have I used a webcam.

I don't see why this should be a requirement.

It's the content on the screen share that is being discussed that is important. Seeing collegaues faces is a complete waste of resources (money, bandwidth, screen real estate, CPU cycles, etc.)

That said, I don't see why Microsoft needs to make them mandatory. I haven;t seen a laptop without one in many years, and this mandatory requirement apparently doesn't kick in until 2023.

Also, so are they going to prevent installs, or deactivate computers that don't have a camera installed starting in 2023? That would be utterly moronic. I'm guessing this is only pushed on OEM's as part of the windows licensing contracts.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
13,446
Also, so are they going to prevent installs, or deactivate computers that don't have a camera installed starting in 2023? That would be utterly moronic. I'm guessing this is only pushed on OEM's as part of the windows licensing contracts.

It looks like they made it optional now.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,522
It looks like they made it optional now.

This is still in the current specifications PDF linked above:

• Forward facing camera – Optional*
• Rear facing camera - Optional

*Starting from January 1, 2023, all Device Types except Desktop PC, are required to have Forward-facing camera which meets the following
requirements. A rear-facing camera is optional.

That's kind of stupid, but stupid is the way tech is going, so...
 

ElementDave

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
351
The WIndows install media are weird,m at least since Windows 10.

With everything linux, I can just take the bootable ISO image, and write it to a USB stick and it just works, and boots and I can install.

With Windows 10 and Windows 11, you need specialty tools like Rufus that does some sort of processing to the image before placing it on a USB stick, OR you need to use the Windows Media Creation Tool.

I've never quite understood why, and why they made it so convoluted.
Unless something has changed within the past couple of years, creating a bootable USB flash drive from a Windows "ISO" basically involves copying the contents from the root directory of the ISO to an appropriately formatted USB device. Usually the destination is a FAT32-formatted partition, but it's possible to boot from an NTFS filesystem with support from a UEFI driver (e.g., provided by motherboard firmware). NTFS avoids the file size limitations of FAT32, but I'd stick to FAT32 unless you know for certain you won't run into compatibility problems.

The following can easily be adapted to other OSes:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...indows-from-a-usb-flash-drive?view=windows-11

On Linux, you can split the install.wim with wimsplit from the wimtools package (on Debian) instead of Dism. See: https://wimlib.net/
The legacy partition tables in the example aren't necessary. I just use GPT.

You may find the Rufus FAQ helpful regardless of whether you use the program:
https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/wiki/FAQ

Other potentially useful links:
https://uupdump.net/
https://www.rodsbooks.com/gdisk/


Edit: appended the letter "s" to the URI scheme of a link, fixing a major security vulnerability in my post. ;) Oops!
DukenukemX also mentioned Ventoy (nice find!), which might be worth looking into. I'd forgotten about that one. Also: https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy
 
Last edited:

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
11,043
Unless something has changed within the past couple of years, creating a bootable USB flash drive from a Windows "ISO" basically involves copying the contents from the root directory of the ISO to an appropriately formatted USB device.

Yeah it's not difficult nor has it ever been. What also has not changed are the minority of Linux fanatics on this forum who drop into every Windows thread just to exaggerate and intentionally misrepresent every perceived "flaw" in windows in order to make themselves feel better.
 

Wolf_Tech

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
231
Local account no tracking, Trust me if they do switch the security experts and big companies would be in a lawsuit against them. Microsoft should just make OS and thats lt. Because 99% of the OS's run 3rd party apps.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3,161
Yeah it's not difficult nor has it ever been. What also has not changed are the minority of Linux fanatics on this forum who drop into every Windows thread just to exaggerate and intentionally misrepresent every perceived "flaw" in windows in order to make themselves feel better.
Well it's essentially impossible to discuss Microsoft being dicks without discussing the plethora of alternatives available. What I don't understand is why Windows users take such discussion so personally.

If you must have Windows, just sign up for a Microsoft account, as that appears to be the direction Microsoft are headed.
 

techie81

[H]ard for [H]ardware
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
5,907
I like windows but I don't want to sign in with a microsoft account. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are windows white knights so offended by this?
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
13,446
windows white knights

Gonna be a lot less around if this becomes inescapable.

I'm looking around for a machine that I can dedicate Pop!_OS on, I'm impressed so far. If Valve can bring gaming over in a serious way (I hear you Linux gamers, your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what makes you cheer!) then that's probably it for me. Windows only on machines that need specific driver/hardware support.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3,161
Gonna be a lot less around if this becomes inescapable.

I'm looking around for a machine that I can dedicate Pop!_OS on, I'm impressed so far. If Valve can bring gaming over in a serious way (I hear you Linux gamers, your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what makes you cheer!) then that's probably it for me. Windows only on machines that need specific driver/hardware support.
Bleh @ PopOS. KDE Neon FTW.

Go to the Steam site, download the .deb installer of Steam and install via the GUI no different to Windows. Most commands are identical to Ubuntu, so you don't need to learn anything new.
 

cpufrost

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
403
If you must have Windows, just sign up for a Microsoft account, as that appears to be the direction Microsoft are headed.

And be sure to use a "free" email (@yahoo, gmail, et al) and not a work account that's on Office 365! What a cluster that has created with that work/school/home intersection and modern authentication!
 

blackmomba

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
669
I run windows only for the Xbox pass so... microshaft knows I play games and watch YouTube. Big whoop. I'm not gonna start jumping through hoops to install an OS that's already painful enough to install, update and use just to reduce tracking a little.

Performance in Linux for the games I want to play is really good enough. I do anything that matters outside of windows mostly because it's easier

Windows is just too messy, feels like baby's first OS after coming from Linux or even macos for that matter.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,970
SHould've kept reading.

3.1 Camera • Forward facing camera – Optional*
Minimum Hardware Requirements for Windows 11 © 2021 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
• Rear facing camera - Optional
*Starting from January 1, 2023, all Device Types except Desktop PC, are required to have Forward-facing camera which meets the following requirements. A rear-facing camera is optiona
I have a forward facing camera on my laptop looking right at the back of a purple sparkly adhesive strip, is that OK dear microsoftpron?
 

ElementDave

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
351
And be sure to use a "free" email (@yahoo, gmail, et al) and not a work account that's on Office 365! What a cluster that has created with that work/school/home intersection and modern authentication!
So there's actually a user named "gmail".

You triggered a feature of the forum software I'd been unaware of: prepending the "at sign" to a username automatically links to that profile. Maybe it's common knowledge, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the Help. Thanks cpufrost! ;)
 

cpufrost

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
403
So there's actually a user named "gmail".

You triggered a feature of the forum software I'd been unaware of: prepending the "at sign" to a username automatically links to that profile. Maybe it's common knowledge, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the Help. Thanks cpufrost! ;)
I was wondering why it became a link. ;-)

Interestingly enough, they created that account back in 2005 and have three posts. Probably someone promoting gmail beta as it was back then.
 
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
4
I haven't read though all the previous 418 posts on this thread so I don't know what the consensus is... Microsoft still wants you to install Windows 11 with a Microsoft account but as of July 10, 2022 you don't have to. I just installed two Windows 11 computers using Hyper-V

Computer #1: Windows 11 Pro
I started with the network disconnected.
When it noticed the network was disconnected...
Select "I don't have internet"
Select "Continue with limited setup"
...
I was then asked to enter Name for local account user.

Computer #2: Windows 11 Home
I started with the network disconnected.
When it noticed the network was disconnected...it would not continue
I then connected the network
When it noticed the network was connected...it checked for updates
When that was done I disconnected the network again
...
I was then asked to enter Name for local account user.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,323
Well it's essentially impossible to discuss Microsoft being dicks without discussing the plethora of alternatives available. What I don't understand is why Windows users take such discussion so personally.
It's the same with Mac users in that people like to believe they made the best and final choice, and they don't wanna go and relearn everything they do with their computer.
If you must have Windows, just sign up for a Microsoft account, as that appears to be the direction Microsoft are headed.
You might as well because it's not like you'll get far using Windows without one. This is why I went Linux because I don't have to do what Microsoft wants.

Yeah it's not difficult nor has it ever been. What also has not changed are the minority of Linux fanatics on this forum who drop into every Windows thread just to exaggerate and intentionally misrepresent every perceived "flaw" in windows in order to make themselves feel better.
I will be the first to tell you what's wrong with Linux, and there's a lot wrong with Linux. The problems Linux doesn't have is forcing you to make an Ubuntu or Debian account just to log in. While you can avoid making a Microsoft account, you will be jumping through some serious hoops to do it. Microsoft is being actively hostile to their customers. They could easily not do this but they want to drive up analytics. I have no problem taking a dump on Linux, Microsoft, and especially Apple. The difference here is that Microsoft made a problem that was intentionally while on Linux it isn't intentional. Linux can't run Windows games is unintentional while Windows 11 refusing to install on a non-TPM2.0 system is intentional. Requiring Secure boot is intentional.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
11,043
You might as well because it's not like you'll get far using Windows without one.

I don't have a single computer that uses a Microsoft account and I have not been prevented from doing anything yet. Care to provide an example?

The problems Linux doesn't have is forcing you to make an Ubuntu or Debian account just to log in.

The two most popular versions of Linux (Android and Chrome OS) absolutely require an account.

While you can avoid making a Microsoft account, you will be jumping through some serious hoops to do it.

Not really.

Microsoft is being actively hostile to their customers. They could easily not do this but they want to drive up analytics.

I'm curious how Microsoft is "Hostile" to their customers for encouraging use of a Microsoft account? Do you consider Google, Apple, and others to also be "Hostile" for requiring the exact same thing? And while it's actually pretty easy to skip using a Microsoft account, try not using an account on a Google or Apple device and then tell me again which company is "hostile"?

Windows 11 refusing to install on a non-TPM2.0 system is intentional. Requiring Secure boot is intentional.

I'm not sure what those things have to do with the thread topic, but Microsoft has thus far not penalized anyone who bypasses those requirements, and bypassing them is easy. In fact Windows Update in Windows 11 will still find and install drivers automatically even for hardware that is so old it couldn't possibly have TPM, etc.

As much as I dislike the strict requirements, it's a direct result of people and even competing companies intentionally characterizing Windows as vulnerable and insecure. Then those same people complain when Microsoft gets a bit more strict. Can't have it both ways. TPM, Secure Boot, etc, ultimately WILL make many systems more secure. And again, if you really want Windows 11 on a system that doesn't meet the requirements there are about a dozen different ways to do it, all of which are still easier than installing Linux.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,318
Not true; regardless of what form the media exists on, you are still bound by the EULA. And the EULAs have been quite clear for literally decades: You own the right to use the software, as is, but ownership belongs to the creators.
That's not true. You own the software that you purchase. Multiple courts have explicitly ruled on this.

EULAs are typically ignorable, corporate propaganda, without any legal backing. They're just as if a car manufacturer were to claim to dictate to you how you may drive your own car after you've purchased it from a dealer, or if a shoe manufacturer told you where people who bought their shoes from a store may and may not walk with them. You have decision-making authority over that which you own. And you own the software that you purchase.

You can see the details about this topic here: You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,522
I don't have a single computer that uses a Microsoft account and I have not been prevented from doing anything yet. Care to provide an example?



The two most popular versions of Linux (Android and Chrome OS) absolutely require an account.



Not really.



I'm curious how Microsoft is "Hostile" to their customers for encouraging use of a Microsoft account? Do you consider Google, Apple, and others to also be "Hostile" for requiring the exact same thing? And while it's actually pretty easy to skip using a Microsoft account, try not using an account on a Google or Apple device and then tell me again which company is "hostile"?



I'm not sure what those things have to do with the thread topic, but Microsoft has thus far not penalized anyone who bypasses those requirements, and bypassing them is easy. In fact Windows Update in Windows 11 will still find and install drivers automatically even for hardware that is so old it couldn't possibly have TPM, etc.

As much as I dislike the strict requirements, it's a direct result of people and even competing companies intentionally characterizing Windows as vulnerable and insecure. Then those same people complain when Microsoft gets a bit more strict. Can't have it both ways. TPM, Secure Boot, etc, ultimately WILL make many systems more secure. And again, if you really want Windows 11 on a system that doesn't meet the requirements there are about a dozen different ways to do it, all of which are still easier than installing Linux.

These comparisons are moot.

Android and Chrome are not traditional computer platforms. They are mobile, the gimped retarded step cousin of the computer world. As much as I dislike it, It is understood that you make some sacrifices in order to use those platforms instead of a "real" computer.

What Microsoft is doing is just plain evil. The PC is the platform that YOU own and YOU control what you are doing, and they are trying to change that to the detriment of just about everyone, even those who are willing to trade that for a modicum of convenience.

If they are going to try to turn the PC into just another half-retarded mobile piece of shit, then what is the point?
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3,161
That's not true. You own the software that you purchase. Multiple courts have explicitly ruled on this.
In the case of software such as Windows supplied on physical media, you own the physical media and a 'license' to use the software under the terms and limitations of the EULA. In the case of software such as Windows linked to a key, once again you only own a license to use the software under the terms and limitations of the EULA.

You do not own any software per se, Microsoft retains ownership of the software. In the case of a license to use the software, in the EU that holds value and I believe if you don't want Windows on your device you can be reimbursed a small amount for the license itself provided you definately revoke ownership of the license.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
2,012
That's not true. You own the software that you purchase. Multiple courts have explicitly ruled on this.

EULAs are typically ignorable, corporate propaganda, without any legal backing. They're just as if a car manufacturer were to claim to dictate to you how you may drive your own car after you've purchased it from a dealer, or if a shoe manufacturer told you where people who bought their shoes from a store may and may not walk with them. You have decision-making authority over that which you own. And you own the software that you purchase.

You can see the details about this topic here: You own the software that you purchase, and any claims otherwise are urban myth or corporate propaganda
Courts have routinely held EULA's are enforceable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-u...#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

Does vary by Circuit though, though at least two (the 7th and 8th) hold that software is licensed but not sold. Until the Supreme Court rules on the issue specifically, it's an open question.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,318
In the case of software such as Windows supplied on physical media, you own the physical media and a 'license' to use the software under the terms and limitations of the EULA. In the case of software such as Windows linked to a key, once again you only own a license to use the software under the terms and limitations of the EULA.

You do not own any software per se, Microsoft retains ownership of the software. In the case of a license to use the software, in the EU that holds value and I believe if you don't want Windows on your device you can be reimbursed a small amount for the license itself provided you definately revoke ownership of the license.
That's not the case. You own the copy of the software, regardless of the media that it's on or delivered through. This has been ruled on by the EU and Australia's highest courts, and it is codified in the International Classification of Goods and Services treaty, which the US, Canada, and I think all other Western states are signatory to.

I wrote this in the post that I linked to:

"When you read "this software is licensed, not sold" in a software EULA, whether it's for an OS like Windows 10, a game, or an application, "this software" refers to the software Intellectual Property and not the copy of that intellectual property that you've purchased via a software license. Software licenses and the instances of a software's intellectual property that they represent are indeed and obviously sold. Both of the following phrases are simultaneously true: This software (IP) is licensed, not sold; This software (instance / license) is sold, not licensed or leased."

When you buy a copy of Windows, the ownership of the copy you paid for transfer to you, and then you own that copy of the Windows software - just as if you buy a copy of a Honda Accord, you own that Honda Accord, but you don't own the Honda or Accord IPs and can't start mass-producing them.


The EU's Court of Justice ruled: "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer"

https://web.archive.org/web/2019080...ogs/eu-court-when-you-buy-software-you-own-it


Courts have routinely held EULA's are enforceable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-u...#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

Does vary by Circuit though, though at least two (the 7th and 8th) hold that software is licensed but not sold. Until the Supreme Court rules on the issue specifically, it's an open question.
In that Wikipedia page section, there are offered as many examples of license terms being rejected as there are being upheld - and one of the suggested examples of a license term being upheld isn't one. There are given only three examples of license terms being upheld that have links to go with them. And those were decided in 1996 (ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg), 1994 (Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc.), and 2005 (Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.) - times when the world and courts were much more tech naive and very much still fumbling around regarding how normal legal and ownership conventions translate to a digital media space.

However, each of those cases have additional aspects to them that make them not simply, or even at all about license agreements.

In ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (1996), someone took the contents of a CD he purchased and dumped them to his website, and then charged visitors for access to the content he dumped from a purchased CD. That's copyright infringement (he didn't own the IP and wasn't entitled to make or sell copies of it without permission from the copyright-holder). And it isn't copyright infringement on the basis that he agreed to a license, it's copyright infringement regardless of whether he agreed to a software license or not.

In Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc. (1994), the case had nothing to do with software licenses. It had to do with whether the defendant was licensed by Microsoft to be a distributor of Microsoft software. The court couldn't establish that there was ever a first sale of the allegedly resold copies of software, to establish that the first-sale doctrine would apply. The license in question there is a business license, a system-builder license, and not software licenses for individual copies of software.

In Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. (2005), it's about the right to refill with 3rd-party ink cartridges not purchased from Lexmark. That case is superseded by the US Supreme Court's 2017 ruling against Lexmark, in which the USSC ruled:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1189_ebfj.pdf

"A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose. As a result, even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear and enforceable under contract law, they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell. Pp. 5–13. (a) The Patent Act grants patentees the “right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling [their] invention.” 35 U. S. C. §154(a). For over 160 years, the doctrine of patent exhaustion has imposed a limit on that right to exclude: When a patentee sells an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the [patent] monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser."

Applying the US Supreme Court's reasoning to software would also mean that people own their purchased software. And the US Supreme Court said as much in a 2013 ruling, in which the USSC asserted that the first-sale doctrine necessarily applies to software regardless of whether it was purchases domestically or from a foreign market.


That Wikipedia page section on EULA enforceability should be updated to reflect what those cases were really about. That they are being listed as examples of EULAs being upheld speaks to a lack of solid examples of EULAs being upheld.


I've sometimes seen examples of Terms of Service being upheld by courts given as arguments of EULAs being enforceable. But I've noted the difference between an EULA and a ToS in the post that I linked to:

"An EULA and a Terms of Service (ToS) are not the same thing. An EULA purports to apply to a good you've purchased and own, to impose conditions on how you use your own property, and so is invalid. A Terms of Service applies to a service, owned by someone else, that you use via a subscription license or a free account, and so a ToS can be valid. Someone else isn't entitled to set terms for your usage of your own property, which is what an EULA tries to do. But they are entitled to set the terms over your usage of their own property, which is what a ToS aims to do. However, a ToS can still be invalid depending on what terms it claims. And if a ToS tries to add in conditions about your usage of your own property, such as software you've purchased or perhaps modification of your hardware, then at least that part of it is invalid. Just as how some perpetual-license software might include a component that requires a subscription-license for its typical usage (as with some MMOs), a software good that you own might have an online component to which a ToS applies for the sake of accessing 3rd-party servers, with those 3rd-party servers not being a part of your ownership of the base game software you purchased."

And:

"A perpetual license is a good and a product, and whenever a perpetual license is sold it undergoes transfer of ownership upon the point of sale. Whoever owns a perpetual license owns the instance of software it grants a right to use the intellectual property (IP) of. After the transfer of ownership of a perpetual licensed software, the seller of the license no longer holds any rightful say over anything regarding that non-reproduceable instance of software represented by its perpetual license. This legal fact is not always honoured by perpetual license software sellers (for example, Microsoft with Windows 10 automatic updates and data-harvesting) and it can take lawsuits to force software companies to comply with their legal and moral obligations and to respect the property of others and not violate that property, including software, system, and data property."
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,323
I don't have a single computer that uses a Microsoft account and I have not been prevented from doing anything yet. Care to provide an example?
The idea here is that Microsoft will make your Microsoft account part of your daily computing needs. If you want to buy something off the Microsoft store for example.
The two most popular versions of Linux (Android and Chrome OS) absolutely require an account.
Firstly, they're not your only choices. Windows doesn't have many other distros to use. Secondly Android doesn't require it, especially if you use lineageOS. ChromeOS is a mistake.
I'm curious how Microsoft is "Hostile" to their customers for encouraging use of a Microsoft account? Do you consider Google, Apple, and others to also be "Hostile" for requiring the exact same thing? And while it's actually pretty easy to skip using a Microsoft account, try not using an account on a Google or Apple device and then tell me again which company is "hostile"?
You seem to think 2 wrongs make a right. Just cause Google and Apple does this doesn't make it OK.
I'm not sure what those things have to do with the thread topic, but Microsoft has thus far not penalized anyone who bypasses those requirements, and bypassing them is easy. In fact Windows Update in Windows 11 will still find and install drivers automatically even for hardware that is so old it couldn't possibly have TPM, etc.
Then why even require it then? Also, how many people are going to know how to bypass it just like the requirement for Microsoft account?
TPM, Secure Boot, etc, ultimately WILL make many systems more secure. And again, if you really want Windows 11 on a system that doesn't meet the requirements there are about a dozen different ways to do it, all of which are still easier than installing Linux.
Wendell from Level1Techs doesn't agree. He thinks TPM is for copyright.

 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,522
"An EULA and a Terms of Service (ToS) are not the same thing. An EULA purports to apply to a good you've purchased and own, to impose conditions on how you use your own property, and so is invalid. A Terms of Service applies to a service, owned by someone else, that you use via a subscription license or a free account, and so a ToS can be valid. Someone else isn't entitled to set terms for your usage of your own property, which is what an EULA tries to do. But they are entitled to set the terms over your usage of their own property, which is what a ToS aims to do. However, a ToS can still be invalid depending on what terms it claims. And if a ToS tries to add in conditions about your usage of your own property, such as software you've purchased or perhaps modification of your hardware, then at least that part of it is invalid. Just as how some perpetual-license software might include a component that requires a subscription-license for its typical usage (as with some MMOs), a software good that you own might have an online component to which a ToS applies for the sake of accessing 3rd-party servers, with those 3rd-party servers not being a part of your ownership of the base game software you purchased."

And:

"A perpetual license is a good and a product, and whenever a perpetual license is sold it undergoes transfer of ownership upon the point of sale. Whoever owns a perpetual license owns the instance of software it grants a right to use the intellectual property (IP) of. After the transfer of ownership of a perpetual licensed software, the seller of the license no longer holds any rightful say over anything regarding that non-reproduceable instance of software represented by its perpetual license. This legal fact is not always honoured by perpetual license software sellers (for example, Microsoft with Windows 10 automatic updates and data-harvesting) and it can take lawsuits to force software companies to comply with their legal and moral obligations and to respect the property of others and not violate that property, including software, system, and data property."

Disagree with this. Your very premise, that you have bought something and thus own it, is flawed. What you do in when you say you have "purchased software" is you have purchased the right to use someone else's software. It's not them trying to tell you what to do with your proerty, because you don't own anything other than a "right to use".

Unless you have bought the actual IP rights to it, the only things you have bought are:
1.) An agreement that says you have been given the rights to use it; and
2.) The means through which you can install it and /or use it.

Physical or digital copies do not matter. This has always been the model for music, movies & TV shows, games and other software.

You've never owned anything other than the media, which is just a way of transporting the content to you.

For movies and TV shows the only thing you have bought is the the legal right to view the video content.
For music, the only thing you have bought is the legal right to listen to it.
For software and games, the only thing you have bought is the legal right to install and use/play them.

As an individual, purchasing games, software, movies, TV shows, music on any media or platform, physical or digital conveys no ownership what so ever of the content. Never has, never will.

Because of this an EULA should be completely enforceable, unless you get judges who don't understand technology.

No one is telling you how to use what you own, because you own nothing. You own the equivalent of a permission slip that says "I, the software developer allow this person to use this software, which I own". That is it.
 
Last edited:

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,318
Disagree with this. Your very premise, that you have bought something and thus own it, is flawed. What you do in when you say you have "purchased software" is you have purchased the right to use someone else's software. It's not them trying to tell you what to do with your proerty, because you don't own anything other than a "right to use".

Unless you have bought the actual IP rights to it, the only things you have bought are:
1.) An agreement that says you have been given the rights to use it; and
2.) The means through which you can install it and /or use it.

Physical or digital copies do not matter. This has always been the model for music, movies & TV shows, games and other software.

You've never owned anything other than the media, which is just a way of transporting the content to you.

For movies and TV shows the only thing you have bought is the the legal right to view the video content.
For music, the only thing you have bought is the legal right to listen to it.
For software and games, the only thing you have bought is the legal right to install and use/play them.

As an individual, purchasing games, software, movies, TV shows, music on any media or platform, physical or digital conveys no ownership what so ever of the content. Never has, never will.

Because of this an EULA should be completely enforceable, unless you get judges who don't understand technology.

No one is telling you how to use what you own, because you own nothing. You own the equivalent of a permission slip that says "I, the software developer allow this person to use this software, which I own". That is it.
If you disagree with what I wrote, then you're just wrong. It's not my premise, it's the law and courts' premise.

This is already explained and shown in my previous post and in the larger LTT thread that I've linked to. You must have skipped over most of what I wrote, to read just the last two paragraphs while being unaware that the previous part of the post established that the matter of people owning their purchased software isn't an opinion, it's a legal fact.

The EU's Court of Justice ruled: "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer"

https://web.archive.org/web/2019080...ogs/eu-court-when-you-buy-software-you-own-it
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/docum...EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5213884
https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...rwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/

Purchasing software conveys the same ownership upon somebody that purchasing a book or movie in physical form, clothes, cars, etc, does: You own the instance of the item that you purchased. It's yours to decide what to do with. That doesn't convey ownership of the IP on you, but it does convey ownership of the copy of the non-reproduceable work onto you.

The 'you only purchase a right to use somebody else's software' concept is a myth, perpetuated by software publishers' EULAs which are little more than corporate fantasy and propaganda, and so are typically ignorable. What somebody writes in an EULA has absolutely no relevance to your ownership rights over your software, just as a car dealership calling you on your phone after you've outright purchased a car from their lot to tell you that they don't give you permission to drive over 50 KPH with it would be a crackpot and irrelevant to what you may or may not do with your own car.


I'm going to again quote from the larger LTT post I provided a link to:

  • A license is a right to use a property or intellectual property that belongs to somebody else. When you read "this software is licensed, not sold" in a software EULA, whether it's for an OS like Windows 10, a game, or an application, "this software" refers to the software Intellectual Property and not the copy of that intellectual property that you've purchased via a software license. Software licenses and the instances of a software's intellectual property that they represent are indeed and obviously sold. Both of the following phrases are simultaneously true: This software (IP) is licensed, not sold; This software (instance / license) is sold, not licensed or leased.

  • All the mass-produced items you've bought, including your clothing, your vehicles, your TV, your computer hardware, are licensed instances of the intellectual property (IP) for those things. When you purchase any of those things, you aren't purchasing the intellectual property (IP) and so you don't become entitled to mass-produce, to control marketing, to receive profits from exploiting the brands of any of those things, and you don't gain any ownership of the patents for the patented technology in those things. But you are purchasing a one-off copy of the IP of those things, and upon the point of sale of the instances of those IPs there is a transfer of ownership over those instances and you become the sole owner of that instance of that IP. This is exactly the same with software as it is with physical goods - you own your non-reproduceable instance and have full property rights over it.

There's an IP for whatever car model you own. You don't own the IP for your car model, or the Ford, Tesla, Honda, etc brand name. But you do own your car. There's an IP for the brand-name clothing that you own. You don't own the IP for the clothing, but you do own your items of clothing. There's an IP for the TV that you own. You don't own that IP, but you do own your TV. There's an IP for the software that you own. You don't own the IP for the software, but you do own your software.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,522
If you disagree with what I wrote, then you're just wrong. It's not my premise, it's the law and courts' premise.

This is already explained and shown in my previous post and in the larger LTT thread that I've linked to. You must have skipped over most of what I wrote, to read just the last two paragraphs while being unaware that the previous part of the post established that the matter of people owning their purchased software isn't an opinion, it's a legal fact.

The EU's Court of Justice ruled: "the copyright holder transfers the right of ownership of the copy of the computer program to his customer"

https://web.archive.org/web/2019080...ogs/eu-court-when-you-buy-software-you-own-it
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/docum...EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5213884
https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...rwise-are-urban-myth-or-corporate-propaganda/

Purchasing software conveys the same ownership upon somebody that purchasing a book or movie in physical form, clothes, cars, etc, does: You own the instance of the item that you purchased. It's yours to decide what to do with. That doesn't convey ownership of the IP on you, but it does convey ownership of the copy of the non-reproduceable work onto you.

The 'you only purchase a right to use somebody else's software' concept is a myth, perpetuated by software publishers' EULAs which are little more than corporate fantasy and propaganda, and so are typically ignorable. What somebody writes in an EULA has absolutely no relevance to your ownership rights over your software, just as a car dealership calling you on your phone after you've outright purchased a car from their lot to tell you that they don't give you permission to drive over 50 KPH with it would be a crackpot and irrelevant to what you may or may not do with your own car.


I'm going to again quote from the larger LTT post I provided a link to:

  • A license is a right to use a property or intellectual property that belongs to somebody else. When you read "this software is licensed, not sold" in a software EULA, whether it's for an OS like Windows 10, a game, or an application, "this software" refers to the software Intellectual Property and not the copy of that intellectual property that you've purchased via a software license. Software licenses and the instances of a software's intellectual property that they represent are indeed and obviously sold. Both of the following phrases are simultaneously true: This software (IP) is licensed, not sold; This software (instance / license) is sold, not licensed or leased.

  • All the mass-produced items you've bought, including your clothing, your vehicles, your TV, your computer hardware, are licensed instances of the intellectual property (IP) for those things. When you purchase any of those things, you aren't purchasing the intellectual property (IP) and so you don't become entitled to mass-produce, to control marketing, to receive profits from exploiting the brands of any of those things, and you don't gain any ownership of the patents for the patented technology in those things. But you are purchasing a one-off copy of the IP of those things, and upon the point of sale of the instances of those IPs there is a transfer of ownership over those instances and you become the sole owner of that instance of that IP. This is exactly the same with software as it is with physical goods - you own your non-reproduceable instance and have full property rights over it.

There's an IP for whatever car model you own. You don't own the IP for your car model, or the Ford, Tesla, Honda, etc brand name. But you do own your car. There's an IP for the brand-name clothing that you own. You don't own the IP for the clothing, but you do own your items of clothing. There's an IP for the TV that you own. You don't own that IP, but you do own your TV. There's an IP for the software that you own. You don't own the IP for the software, but you do own your software.

EU law is completely irrelevant to anywhere that is not in the the EU, it does not set precedent anywhere else, and it has no jurisdiction outside of its borders, so it can be completely and totally ignored anywhere and everywhere else. What the EU court of justice thinks is frankly completely and totally irrelevant. That, and they have a vested interest in countering the U.S. tech industry. They have been hostile to U.S. industry forever, and this is just another way for them to pervert the law in their favor. If I were them I would just have given the EU the middle finger and said "well I guess we aren't doing business there anymore", revoking all licenses sold in the EU (and taking steps to render them inoperable) and file a complaint with the WTO

It's simply another form of the low key trade war they have been waging on U.S. tech and IP for decades, those ungrateful bastards.

These are the same people who blame Google (not the content originator) for content they don't like, when Google is simply indexing what has been published.

Quite frankly the European Commission, and the European Court of Justice can go pound sand. They have absolutely no credibility what so ever when it comes to property rights.

When you pay for something what you are getting for it is entirely up to the seller. It's a form of contract. If EULA's are void then so are all contracts. You can either choose to accept the terms or you can choose to not partake. You can't just override the wishes of the seller and what they are intending to sell you.

What you are proposing is tantamount to entering into an agreement to rent a car and then proclaiming that in your opinion they have sold you the car and it is now yours and refusing to return it. It is so counter to any and all reason as to be absurd. Of course it came from the European Court of Justice....

No wonder Microsoft, Adobe and so many others are moving to terrible so scription models. They have been forced there by illogical and ethically improper bullshit like this.
 
Last edited:

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,318
EU law is completely irrelevant to anywhere that is not in the the EU, it does not set precedent anywhere else, and it has no jurisdiction outside of its borders, so it can be completely and totally ignored anywhere and everywhere else. What the EU court of justice thinks is frankly completely and totally irrelevant. That, and they have a vested interest in countering the U.S. tech industry. They have been hostile to U.S. industry forever, and this is just another way for them to pervert the law in their favor. If I were them I would just have given the EU the middle finger and said "well I guess we aren't doing business there anymore", revoking all licenses sold in the EU (and taking steps to render them inoperable) and file a complaint with the WTO

It's simply another form of the low key trade war they have been waging on U.S. tech and IP for decades, those ungrateful bastards.

These are the same people who blame Google (not the content originator) for content they don't like, when Google is simply indexing what has been published.

Quite frankly the European Commission, and the European Court of Justice can go pound sand. They have absolutely no credibility what so ever when it comes to property rights.

When you pay for something what you are getting for it is entirely up to the seller. It's a form of contract. If EULA's are void then so are all contracts. You can either choose to accept the terms or you can choose to not partake. You can't just override the wishes of the seller and what they are intending to sell you.
The EU contains a half-billion people. It is very relevant on that grounds, alone. But I mentioned EU, Australian, US, Canadian, UK, and other Western countries' law. It is the same everywhere in the West: when you purchase software, you own that software. So, I don't know why you're singling out the EU. Again, you must not have read most of the post of mine that you first responded to.

EULAs are not legal contracts. They're like corporate psyops. And when you buy something that has an EULA, you didn't agree to any EULA before buying it, and the transfer of ownership occurred upon the point of sale. So, any suggested license terms offered after that point are irrelevant and comparable to you selling something on eBay, and then after the fact of the sale, the transfer of money, and you shipping the item out, you send the buyer a message telling them that they aren't allowed to use the item between 1 and 3 PM on Thursdays. At that point, it's no longer your item to make any demands regarding.

What you are proposing is tantamount to entering into an agreement to rent a car and then proclaiming that in your opinion they have sold you the car and it is now yours and refusing to return it. It is so counter to any and all reason as to be absurd. Of course it came from the European Court of Justice....

No wonder Microsoft, Adobe and so many others are moving to terrible so scription models. They have been forced there by illogical and ethically improper bullshit like this.
No. What I've said, which is what the law says, is that when you agree to outright buy, not rent, a car, you then own that car and possess the rights that come with owning something. What you're proposing is akin to if a car salesman shouts at you as you're driving your newly-purchased car off the dealership lots some caveat that wasn't agreed to during the purchase, and so is irrelevant to your ownership over your car. The way that you've framed the process and conditions of buying software in your mind don't correspond to the actual process and conditions.

Companies were shifting to subscription-based models before the various court rulings on software ownership (and all those ruling did was affirm what the situation was all along, dispelling the built-on-nothing actually legal, pretentious publisher EULA fantasy). Corporations have never needed an excuse to be assholes. But it could be that some companies may be wanting to go to a subscription-based model to reduce the rights that people have over their own software. That's not a good reason, though. It probably would only confirm even more that they're dirt-bags who nobody should respect, because they don't respect other people.


I've sometimes wondered what the disposition is of a person who argues against their ownership rights concerning software they've paid for, as there is literally no benefit for companies and only disadvantage for the overwhelming majority of persons if people don't own their software. I imagine that people who are bothered by software ownership make and sell some software item, themselves, and they feed on the idea that they can control a whole bunch of people's software to feel powerful and important - meaning that it's about their egos and self-esteem. But the line of argument against software ownership is self-defeating for individuals and society.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,323
EU law is completely irrelevant to anywhere that is not in the the EU, it does not set precedent anywhere else, and it has no jurisdiction outside of its borders, so it can be completely and totally ignored anywhere and everywhere else.
Ok hold up here, because I don't think you understand how powerful the EU is. If the EU tells Microsoft to stop forcing people to use their web browser, then we Americans will also get that benefit because Microsoft isn't going to control who installs what version of Windows relevant to their country. Noticed that every website now wants you to accept their cookies? That's also from the EU since they've required this for a while. The thing you need to understand is that if the EU requires it then the rest of the world will probably get it because it's too difficult to determine who's in what country. The situation also works the other way if America passes a law that requires Microsoft to stop making it difficult for people to avoid making a Microsoft account when using Windows, then you bet that everyone in the world including the EU will not have to dig around to avoid making a Microsoft account. Which we should totally do but we're so far right that I'm surprised we haven't made a holiday to purge the unwanted with all the guns we simply refuse to part with.
It's simply another form of the low key trade war they have been waging on U.S. tech and IP for decades, those ungrateful bastards.
If you found out how much crap American companies are doing to make China happy, then you'd realize that these companies are about as American as the very computer you're using to post this. These companies will fuck you side ways if it meant getting in the Chinese market, because the only affiliation they have is money. They'll say they're American if it made them more money. Just like they'll say they're for LGBTQ because it also makes them more money.
When you pay for something what you are getting for it is entirely up to the seller. It's a form of contract. If EULA's are void then so are all contracts. You can either choose to accept the terms or you can choose to not partake. You can't just override the wishes of the seller and what they are intending to sell you.
EULA's are bullshit because they're totally unenforceable and most countries in the world have statutory law which overrides most of the agreements you will sign with these EULA's. EULAs do not trump law. EULA’s are considered “contracts of adhesion”, which means that you’re forced into agreement and no negotiation takes place. Nintendo can say you can't backup your game and run it in an emulator in their EULA, but if the law says you can then Nintendo can't do jack.
What you are proposing is tantamount to entering into an agreement to rent a car and then proclaiming that in your opinion they have sold you the car and it is now yours and refusing to return it. It is so counter to any and all reason as to be absurd. Of course it came from the European Court of Justice....
Physical goods do not obey the same laws that copyright media deals with. If you do not own the car then you do not have the right to use the car. I can't make a copy of the car and continue to use it like you can with software.
No wonder Microsoft, Adobe and so many others are moving to terrible so scription models. They have been forced there by illogical and ethically improper bullshit like this.
I would argue that subscription models are unethical improper bullshit. They're going subscription because they love money. Pools of money. That's why Microsoft released Office 2021 because nobody bought that Office 365 bullshit.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,318
Physical goods do not obey the same laws that copyright media deals with. If you do not own the car then you do not have the right to use the car. I can't make a copy of the car and continue to use it like you can with software.
I would say that physical goods don't follow the same physics as digital goods - in that, as you mention, it is easy to duplicate digital goods, and not so easy to duplicate physical ones. But the premise of software ownership rulings is that digital goods conform to the same laws / legal logic as physical goods: you buy it, you own it, you have ownership rights over it.

And just as with physical goods, buying and owning a digital good doesn't confer any ownership over the IP which the digital good is a one-off / non-reproduceable copy and instance of. The IP is like the template and printing machine for the instances made from the IP. People own their purchased instances, but they don't own the IP - and so they may not exploit the qualities of the IP, which include reproduction rights, rights to the brand, and distribution rights outside of reselling the one instance that a person purchased and owns.
 

LigTasm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
5,383
Well they finally got me. Trying to get my Acer craptop running to I can datalog some stuff on the car (I had stolen the m.2 for a different machine) and Windows 11 will not install at all without internet. I specifically removed the wifi card and it just grays the options to advance out, literally won't let you do anything - if I give it internet it wants to verify my phone number. So now I have to go the long way around, install Windows 10 and then upgrade which will take about 2.5 centuries with how slow this thing is.

The reason I need Windows 11 on it is that Acer does not provide drivers for 10 even though it came with 10 S mode on it. If I don't have drivers, nothing works at all from function keys to touchpad. Microsuck doesn't have any generics that run this proprietary stuff. This Acer and MS combo dicked me down today, and not in a good way.
 

pendragon1

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
41,903
Well they finally got me. Trying to get my Acer craptop running to I can datalog some stuff on the car (I had stolen the m.2 for a different machine) and Windows 11 will not install at all without internet. I specifically removed the wifi card and it just grays the options to advance out, literally won't let you do anything - if I give it internet it wants to verify my phone number. So now I have to go the long way around, install Windows 10 and then upgrade which will take about 2.5 centuries with how slow this thing is.

The reason I need Windows 11 on it is that Acer does not provide drivers for 10 even though it came with 10 S mode on it. If I don't have drivers, nothing works at all from function keys to touchpad. Microsuck doesn't have any generics that run this proprietary stuff. This Acer and MS combo dicked me down today, and not in a good way.
i just did an install of 11pro on thursday and i still had the join domain option that lets you create a local account (used the newest media creation tool). are you on home? 'cause home's been like that for at least a year...
 

LigTasm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
5,383
i just did an install of 11pro on thursday and i still had the join domain option that lets you create a local account (used the newest media creation tool). are you on home? 'cause home's been like that for at least a year...

Yeah its like hardware locked to home. It won't even give me the option to pick the version even though I know the ISO can do it, I've used it many times and selected Pro.
 

pendragon1

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
41,903
Yeah its like hardware locked to home. It won't even give me the option to pick the version even though I know the ISO can do it, I've used it many times and selected Pro.
if you have a pro key you can embed it into the install usb and it should use that first. create a text file called "PID", put it in \sources and add this:
[PID]
Value=XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXX <--your key obviously
 
Top