Microsoft plans to remove official support for booting Windows 11 from HDD

[jobbautista9]

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/mi ... cs-by-2023

Very interesting. SSDs are definitely better at everything right now except cost. I don't think there is a good reason to avoid buying an SSD at the same capacity as your HDD if you can afford it, at least for desktop use. I've even migrated away from a 1TB HDD to a 1TB SSD when my former started showing signs of dying. However, this is going to be a PITA for developing countries, where laptops which only have HDDs are king.

Maybe Microsoft could stop giving licenses to OEMs in North America and Western Europe only? Most computers there should already have an SSD right now at least. Otherwise budget laptops in 2023 will just ship with a 128GB eMMC instead of a 1TB HDD, which would be horrible...

[Pentium4User]

OK, but this will affect only the sale of licenses, not the ability to boot from HDD?
I also heard that, but not that the support for booting from HDD will be removed.
PS: Writing this from a WD 80 GB IDE disk

[jobbautista9]

Yeah, only license selling right now. I should've clarified that from the very start...

Though it could still change in the future. There are two optional features that MS says requires an SSD for, and they can easily change that to required if they want to in 2023.

[Pentium4User]

Though it could still change in the future. There are two optional features that MS says requires an SSD for, and they can easily change that to required if they want to in 2023.

What are these?
I see completely no reason for that. The only effect of HDDs is that these applications might run slowly, but that's all.

[andyprough]

The last time I tried to boot Windows 10 from an hdd it took almost 20 minutes before the calls to the disk would calm down and the desktop was usable. Whereas on an ssd it took seconds. So, maybe this is a good thing?

Note - I'm not a Windows user, so maybe what I experienced was unusual. And the Windows 10 I used was cloned from an ssd over to an hdd, so maybe if you install directly to an hdd it runs better?

[jobbautista9]

What are these?

According to the same article, that would be DirectStorage and Windows Subsystem for Android.

I see completely no reason for that. The only effect of HDDs is that these applications might run slowly, but that's all.

Agreed.

[Night Wing]

@ jobbautista9

I clicked on the link your provided to read the article. Thanks for providing the link.

Getting rid of HDD's to rely only on SSD's "only" applies to WIndows PC's going forward to run Windows 11 sometime in 2023 (if I'm correct). This would not affect anyone wanting to install a linux distribution. I see no reason to switch away from HDD's to SDD's because, speaking just for myself, "Windows 11 does not excite me". Barf, yes. Excite, no.

I think this is just another old ploy from Microsoft to help out the hardware manufacturers (HP, Dell, Asus, etc) who install Windows 11 by default on them to sell newer computers.

It seems companies are always looking for new angle to get into people's wallets to fatten their corporate bottom line and Microsoft is one of the worst companies to do this and is probably "the worst'.

Off-topic:
On a sidenote. The Fedora linux distribution is trying to do away with the old legacy BIOS of the Windows 7 era to make a requirement to only be able to install a linux distribution using UEFI only and not legacy BIOS for "ALL" linux distributions. Of course, that was/is running into a "hurricane of opposition" from the many linux distributions who do not want to go along with that.

We had that discussion in the Mint forums, since I run linux Mint and there were many forum members who said that move for only UEFI was total "excrement" (for the want of a more distinctive description) and one of those naysayers who used that term on the Mint forums was me since I use legacy BIOS to install Mint.

I have covered my butt though just to be safe. I've replaced two of my desktop tower computers and added one more laptop and they all came with 64 bit Windows 8 which has both UEFI and legacy BIOS on the motherboard. I got these computers from people who come into the computer repair shop where I volunteer at since they want to "recycle" (dump/get rid of) their old 64 bit Windows 8 computers (desktop towers and laptops) to purchase newer 64 bit Windows 11 computers.

And a lot of these people dumping their old Windows 8 computers to be recycled do not realize they are dumping some "diamonds in the ruff" for people who are hunting for some very good computers to buy on the CHEAP to install a 64 bit linux distribution on. And I'm one of them.

[Moonraker]

I suppose microsoft telemetry informs microsoft as to the amount of HDD users.I gave up on windows years ago and i only use a linux distro which runs entirely in RAM from any media.

So windows 10 users will become the next generation stubborn old mules who will not update especially if they use HDD.
Look at the amount of xp users still extant in this world.

This kind of hostile action from big companies is the sort of attitude which creates rebellion.
Our way or the highway is a widescale motif of some of these big tech companies.

[Moonchild]

Neither DirectStorage (only used in conjunction with DirectX), nor running Android Apps (entirely optional and not used by most people) is a requirement for booting or using Windows 11, so to me this feels arbitrary for reasoning.

Also, i'm not entirely sure about where they would put the limitation. Are they going to limit it to NVMe? Because SATA SSDs are absolutely fine to boot from, as well. I'm running my system from one myself (Windows 10) and it's snappy and happy. And if SATA is allowed then SATA HDDs should also not be a restriction from a technical perspective.

I feel like we're missing a piece of the puzzle here. Does NVMe allow further lockdown restrictions than SATA? Or maybe they want to remove SATA support from the kernel?

[athenian200]

Well, I haven't booted Windows from a standard HDD since 2011. I've used an SSD for Windows boot in every PC I've owned since 2012. I get using a big old HDD for storage, but to actually boot Windows from it seems like a bad idea that would result in slowing down your computer dramatically. SSDs can make old computers feel fast because HDDs are a bottleneck.

I am actually thinking this could be related to deprecating SATA or not shipping it as a default part of Windows at some point. Newer power supplies are going to be 12VO, which is going to make SATA so impractical to use (due to requiring drives to be plugged into the motherboard for power). I'm pretty sure they didn't just make the decision to annoy the few people who still use an HDD as a boot drive...

[Moonchild]

Storage drives are pretty much all SATA. Enterprise storage SSDs are also SATA, not NVMe.
So I don't think deprecating SATA as a whole is on the agenda; that would not make any sense. But making it a loadable module or service, trying to cut it out of the kernel, I guess it could still make sense.

[WiseWolf]

Off-topic:
interesting...

I do admit, I hate planned obsolescence with a passion and I dislike having to use windows for anything...

That being said, as much as I dislike microsoft, etc...

regular hard drives, at one pont, back in the early 2010s, I remember hearing they were 2 to 3x faster...

I have no doubt, they have improved dramatically, way beyond even that... probably its more like 10x+

Also. HDD's overheat a hell of a lot... use more battery in general, although this could be due to overheating issues.

Long stoy short, this is one move from microsoft, that I amazingly, don't think is a huge issue about wirth regard to planned obsolescence, with only one caveat:

If microsoft removes support for the SATA SSDs or NAND SSDs, then it would be probably a bad sign.

Especially after they deprecated technology older than gen 8 intel and equivelant in amd, despite it being more than fast enough.

Some know I avoid windows like the plague and tend to only use it in, VMs if at all and with it disconnected from the internet, always, if needed, for old games unsupported by other options.

Still, even if you don't use it personally, alot of websites you use, will for some reason, have some computers used for working there.

Blows my mind, its like using the most basic form of glass to prevent someone from breaking into your house to rob you blind while your away...

If they don't get seen, it will be a mess...



Btw, not sure how much of this you all would consider on topic, there are parts on topic here, but just for the sake of sanity, will mark off topic in general...

That all being said, I am surprised to say this, but I completely agree with them wanting to deprecate HDDs... they are fire hazard and slow as molasses, inefficent, etc... many problems...

Yeesh, I agree with microsoft on something... what is the world coming to...

[nero355]

Microsoft forcing stuff on people once again while there is no logical reason to do so and people are perfectly fine with what they already have ?!

What else is new ??

I guess I could Copy -> Paste my other post here : viewtopic.php?p=229948#p229948

LOL!

[Moonchild]

I guess I could Copy -> Paste my other post here : viewtopic.php?p=229948#p229948

Please don't. And be aware that Windows is the OS of choice for the vast majority of users out there. A lot of that has to do with the QoL it offers that linux still doesn't have, and BSD is even worse in. So yeah, telling people they should be using either is kinda a moot point

[Mæstro]

While I do not regret having switched to Linux two years ago, I believe there are points to Windows’s credit. In the long term, I think that Windows versions keep better than any Linux distribution. There are still comfortable XP users two decades later. (The security hazard is beside my point.) How many Linux distributions have remained in use this long? I admit that how much of this is due to release habits or social factors beyond the OS itself is hard to say: how many have stayed with older Ubuntu LTS or Mint versions might offer some guide.

More objective is how application software stays accessible to the layman. A Windows executable from 1996 will still run, whether in Wine or in Windows proper. Wild, free standing Linux software from 2006 or even 2016 seldom works with current distros. With Windows, there is no meddling with configuration, as one would need if compiling software for oneself from source after a distribution’s package manager shuts down. Linux support is a moving target, ironically like Google’s ever shifting standards. Developers, like those for ReactOS, have a much easier time tracking and supporting things.

※After speaking with a friend on the above, I could conclude that the special properties I had named above come mostly from how there are few Windows versions that exist to be targeted, not many Linux distros. (He had mentioned, however, that the fragmented nature of Linux software complicates things, if the reasons are beyond me.) I have also neglected cross-distro applications like those through Flatpak, for I do not use them myself. Nevertheless, I leave the above as food for thought.

[mtosev]

A simplistic program that I made with VB6 (which came out in 1998) still works even on Win 10. MS still includes msvbvm60.dll and other DLLs with Win 10. I remember testing my program on Win 95, 98, NT 4.0 and XP in 2004. My main OS back then was Win 2000 which I bought for cheap from a friend. He bought a genuine copy of Win 2000 and wanted to play games like Panzer general on it. I'm guessing he didn't come far considering that Panzer general is a DOS game and like other NT based OSes Win 2000 doesn't have the DOS subsystem like Win 9X/Me. It's quite amusing seeing that my crappy program from 2004 still works even with the newest version of Windows. I haven't modified the code since I compiled the program back in 2004. The installer correctly registers all the necessary DLLs and OCXs and everything just works. For fun I even tried installing VB 6 IDE on Win 10 and even that works without any problems.

[jobbautista9]

The ironic thing is that Linus Torvalds doesn't really intend for software on Linux to break that much between upgrades. He's infamous for his spicy enforcement of "not breaking userspace" in the kernel. Unfortunately the folks developing glibc doesn't seem to share his view...

[athenian200]

The ironic thing is that Linus Torvalds doesn't really intend for software on Linux to break that much between upgrades. He's infamous for his spicy enforcement of "not breaking userspace" in the kernel. Unfortunately the folks developing glibc doesn't seem to share his view...

Off-topic:
I think glibc is the thing that frustrates me the most about Linux. Solaris (and even the open-source illumos-gate derived from OpenSolaris) doesn't have this problem to the same extent either, and the reason is because the libc is developed and distributed alongside the kernel. Binaries compiled for Solaris ages ago will likely run on Solaris and its descendants today because it was designed from the ground up to make upwards compatibility of binaries with newer versions of the OS more of a priority, symbol versioning was planned carefully, etc.

BSD has this quality too, to be fair, but I don't like the BSD approach because they go way too far and integrate the userland with the core of the system without a clear boundary, imposing the attitudes/standards of the OS developers on every part of the system. I like the illumos-gate approach because it has a small core of base utilities like svcadm, libc, and kernel that you can build a "distrbution" around like Linux, has a clear separation between userland and the core like Linux, but also doesn't make the mistake Linux made of failing to recognize that things such as the libc and init system are essentially part of the OS and should be developed alongside it.

[Eduardo Lucas]

HDDs are still way way cheaper per GB in undeveloped countries. Microsoft is simlply shoving the apple agenda inside everyone's throats. This is one of the reasons i'm against the idea that we cannot use older operating systems (such as win7) because of a relative-subjectively high security risk. We cannot accept microsoft as the ones who have the absolute power to tightly decide on how and which Windows NT version we use.

[Moonchild]

"Safety and security" has been the de facto (and de facto accepted) reason for a lot of agenda-pushing the last decade.
Stringent security features most certainly have their merits - I'd be the last to say they do not, with my high-sec professional background. However, security needs to also be applied with measure; the right security for the right environment.
Secure boot? Absolutely fantastic feature! ... but only if you are trying to secure workstations in a managed environment where hostile use of internally connected computers is a considerable risk.
TPM? Great little piece of hardware to both provide a proper RNG and securely store non-exportable cryptographic keys. ... but only if you have a need for such secure, non-fungible storage tied to a piece of hardware. Does it have a practical use for home users? Absolutely not.
Further locking down what devices the OS can boot from? Once again, great if you want to avoid the use of externally connected storage on a protected PC in a secure environment, but pointless otherwise.

The same kind of reasoning is being used to try and go against people repairing their stuff. That's however a whole other chapter i don't want to break into here, but yeah "safety and security" ad nauseam to try and prevent you from using things you have bought and are supposed to own in the way you want to, even if it might not be "secure" for the most extreme environments.