Windows 11. Anyone going to install it? Plus discussion and observations, experience etc.

[melmerby]

14 hours ago, Ian J. said:

It should use no power at all if it's proper hibernation as the whole OS in memory is copied to disk and the computer should shut down completely. If it's still using some power then it's partial hibernation, so in that case it maybe hybrid sleep...?

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/shut-down-sleep-or-hibernate-your-pc-2941d165-7d0a-a5e8-c5ad-8c972e8e6eff

[Ian J.]

Interesting. Microsoft is in the proper sense wrong to say that. Hibernation should need no power at all, so if Windows is somehow using power in a hibernated state then there's arguably something wrong with how it's been implemented. But, I've used laptops on Windows 7 and not had any issues with restart from hibernated after the power's been turned off, so it could just be Microsoft gettings its words wrong.

 

It is true to say that all computers, when switched off, use power from their CMOS (or whatevert the current equivalent is) battery. But even that running out shouldn't prevent a hibernated computer from being restarted from hibernation as long as the BIOS settings are corrected appropriately before the start up.

[melmerby]

I'll have to try in on my desktops, which always get switched off after use.

e.g. Open some test spreadsheets/docs etc .> Hibernate > Switch off > Wait > Switch on and see if it recovers properly.

[melmerby]

Just tried it on this desktop. It is not available by default.

Therefore you have to activate Hibernate in the Power & Sleep menu so that it appears in the start menu/power.

 

I opened a spreadsheet & a graphics program and then hibernated the computer.

I then switched it off at the mains and left it for several hours.

On switching on it goes through a full re-boot, including having to enter your password (The computer is set so that it normally uses auto enter so it is quicker).

Once booted the two programs were there ready to carry on as I left them.

 

Conclusion.

Takes as long to start as a normal boot-up, so not as fast waking up as in sleep mode.

Having to enter the password, even though it is set for auto enter also adds a little time.

It is completely powered down, so doesn't use any power.

Edited September 5, 2021 by melmerby

[Ian J.]

Hibernation does have to go through the BIOS start up by necessity (the power's been turned off), however the Windows boot should hopefully just be a reload of the hibernated data back into memory and not be a full Windows boot. Having to re-enter a password on waking from hibernation is normal, and shouldn't really be something that can be auto entered. Linux Mint requires it after waking from hibernation.

[melmerby]

14 minutes ago, Ian J. said:

Hibernation does have to go through the BIOS start up by necessity (the power's been turned off), however the Windows boot should hopefully just be a reload of the hibernated data back into memory and not be a full Windows boot. Having to re-enter a password on waking from hibernation is normal, and shouldn't really be something that can be auto entered. Linux Mint requires it after waking from hibernation.

I probably wouldn't notice the difference as it is booting from a fast SSD and only takes about 20-25 secs anyway.

[trevora]

On 02/09/2021 at 16:39, melmerby said:

 

 

The only one that will be OK  with TPM 2.0 activated.

 

 

 

 

Please can anyone talk me step by step 

in activating TPM other half and i both have msi amd mother boards

if i plus module in pc will not boot tried changing settings and got mine to boot 

but doing TPM.cmd says cant find module

Trevora

[RFS]

1 hour ago, trevora said:

Please can anyone talk me step by step 

in activating TPM other half and i both have msi amd mother boards

if i plus module in pc will not boot tried changing settings and got mine to boot 

but doing TPM.cmd says cant find module

Trevora

 

Most PCs built in the last 3 years or so should support TPM via firmware rather than a discrete plug-in module on the motherboard. That's how mine work, but you have to enable these in the BIOS and the way you do that is going to be specific for the brand of motherboard you have. If you Google "msi motherboard tpm enable" you should find the answer to your problem.

 

The command you need is "tpm.msc" to check if it's enabled. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by RFS
Spelling

[Hroth]

I see Microsoft is running adverts for Win 11 on TV in the UK.

 

Unless a potential user gets it with a new PC, they might have a disappointing time upgrading from 10 if they've ignored system requirements.  I've not noticed any in the ads, unless there is small print at the bottom of the screen...

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, RFS said:

 

Most PCs built in the last 3 years or so should support TPM via firmware rather than a discrete plug-in module on the motherboard. That's how mine work, but you have to enable these in the BIOS and the way you do that is going to be specific for the brand of motherboard you have. If you Google "msi motherboard tpm enable" you should find the answer to your problem.

 

The command you need is "tpm.msc" to check if it's enabled. 

With AMD Ryzen and Intel recent processors it is in the chip itself:

 

If your machine does not have a dedicated TPM chip, your CPU may have an equivalent built in. Specifically, Intel integrates Platform Trust Technology (Intel PTT) in its modern processors, while AMD uses something called PSP fTPM. Many motherboard manufacturers disable these by default, but you can enable them from within your motherboard's BIOS. Every BIOS is different, so we would recommend reading your motherboard's manual first. For example, Gigabyte stored the AMD PSP fTPM setting under Advanced CPU Settings.

 

This is where mine was (Gigabyte AX370):

 

My MSI B350 AMD board has it in the "settings" menu.

Edited September 13, 2021 by melmerby

[GoingUnderground]

I've been a Windows user since Windows 286, and apart from Windows 386 and Vista, have used them all with very, very, very few problems on a variety of PCs over the years. But my desktop really is too old for 11, it's got an AMD Athlon 64 processor and runs 10 without any problems. But my wife has a Surface Pro 5 and despite having the requisite TPM module active, and meets all but one of the other requirements she can't upgrade because the missing requirement is the processor - it  isn't supported by 11 as it is one of the early 7th generation Intel ones. So we won't be going 11, but sticking with 10 because we have no choice short of buying new PCs. I'm a bit disappointed, but I'm not sure that we need 11 as its new features are of no interest to us.

 

But we won't be dashing out to buy a Crapple. I had the misfortune of having to use one at the weekend to help out a friend and I found it to the be the most infuriating and least intuitive product that I've ever used.

Edited September 13, 2021 by GoingUnderground

[melmerby]

5 minutes ago, GoingUnderground said:

I've been a Windows user since Windows 286, and apart from Windows 386 and Vista, have used them all with very, very, very few problems on a variety of PCs over the years. But my desktop really is too old for 11, it's got an AMD Athlon 64 processor and runs 10 without any problems. But my wife has a Surface Pro 5 and despite having the requisite TPM module active, and meets all but one of the other requirements she can't upgrade because the missing requirement is the processor - it  isn't supported by 11 as it is one of the early 7th generation Intel ones. So we won't be going 11, but sticking with 10 because we have no choice short of buying new PCs. I'm a bit disappointed, but I'm not sure that we need 11 as its new features are of no interest to us.

What are Windows 286 & 386? I've never heard of them.

 

I started with 3.1+ DOS5 (OK system) , upgraded the DOS to ver 6.2, then onto Windows 95 (Rubbish OS) , Windows 98 (Better), Windows XP (Good), Win 7, Win 10.

Apart from Win 95, which spent most of it's time crashing, all have been OK to various degrees.

Various processors: started with Intel 486, then several different Pentium & Cyrix 586 processors, AMD Athlons, Intel Corei7s & lately 3 different AMD Ryzens

[Steamport Southport]

That's going back to the early days of high street available PCs I believe. 

 

My dad had an Amstrad that ran 286 ISTR. Late 1980s/early 1990s.

 

https://winworldpc.com/product/windows-20/windows-286

 

 

 

Jason

[Michael Hodgson]

286 and 386 were short names for the Intel processor 80286 and 80386 chips, refinements of the 8086.

The IBM PC was based on the 8088, another member of the 8086 family.

 

Most early PCs ran under MS-DOS, and the early versions of WIndows were an add-on to DOS. 

Windows only gained its widespread use from Version 3.0 onwards.

[melmerby]

8 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

286 and 386 were short names for the Intel processor 80286 and 80386 chips, refinements of the 8086.

The IBM PC was based on the 8088, another member of the 8086 family.

 

Most early PCs ran under MS-DOS, and the early versions of WIndows were an add-on to DOS. 

Windows only gained its widespread use from Version 3.0 onwards.

Yes, I know that but hadn't heard of the Windows versions with those names.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Yes, I know that but hadn't heard of the Windows versions with those names.

I think we just called it Windows until 3.0 came along, but it didn't really matter as most people were just using DOS until then.

[Hroth]

Win286/386 was a development of Win 3.11, running on top of MSDOS. They were an interim version of Windows to allow 286 or 386/486 processors to run in their most efficient configuration.  I think that when running Win386 you started under DOS, which then was completely displaced when you ran Win. They were rendered obsolete when Windows 95 displaced them.

 

As I remember, the difference between Windows on 286 and 386 processors was due to operating modes on the chips.  The Intel 80286 had an incomplete memory access architecture, so essentially wasn't much more than a faster 8086/8, though it could address more than the 1Mb of its older siblings (16Mb?), but there was probably still some degree of memory paging. The 80386 chip could engage a flat memory mode that directly addressed all the installed memory without paging.

 

Win286 was also appropriate for older systems using the 8086/8 processors.

 

So "Win286" was for paged memory Intel chips and "Win386" was for flat memory Intel chips.

 

Something like that, anyway!

 

 

[Hroth]

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

I started with 3.1+ DOS5 (OK system) , upgraded the DOS to ver 6.2, then onto Windows 95 (Rubbish OS) , Windows 98 (Better), Windows XP (Good), Win 7, Win 10.

Apart from Win 95, which spent most of it's time crashing, all have been OK to various degrees.

 

You forgot the amazingly bad Windows ME (Millenium Edition), which surfaced between 98 and XP.

 

Windows 95 wasn't that bad, it suffered from not having native support for various new technologies that were becoming important around then, like the Internet and CD drives.  Crashes were mainly due to buggy drivers. a later version of 95 sorted these problems out and it ended up as a reasonable OS, just before Win 98 emerged.  Win 8 and Vista (or was it Vista and Win 8?) were also problematic versions.

 

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

 

 

Windows 95 wasn't that bad, it suffered from not having native support for various new technologies that were becoming important around then, like the Internet and CD drives.  Crashes 

 

I had a CD drive with my 486 based Win 3.1 PC, it was driven by an interface on the soundblaster card, I had no problems with it. IIRC the soundcard drivers included the CD interface.

My first version of Coreldraw (3) from 1992 came with a CD, which was how it was installed. There were also floppies, 30 of them, for those that didn't have a CD drive.

It came with an instruction manual and clipart index books as well as the coffee table style gallery book which showed you what was possible. You don't get that these days!

 

I've still got the clipart book as much still pertains to current versions, there is just a lot more of it.

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, Hroth said:

Win286/386 was a development of Win 3.11, running on top of MSDOS. They were an interim version of Windows to allow 286 or 386/486 processors to run in their most efficient configuration.  I think that when running Win386 you started under DOS, which then was completely displaced when you ran Win. They were rendered obsolete when Windows 95 displaced them.

Wasn't Windows 95 running on top of DOS (so really a DOS application)? I thought that it was the NT branch that ditched DOS, from which current versions (XP onwards) are ultimately derived.

[Michael Hodgson]

NT and XP were far better than 95/98. 

It tended to be used by businesses whilst 95/98 seemed to be aimed more at private individuals 

[Hroth]

Just think, Win 95 was a quarter of a century ago.....

 

I think it appeared that the computer booted into Windows 95, but started from an invisible dos loader. This may have become more integrated by Windows 98 and by Windows XP, there was a switch to the Windows NT underpinnings, which explains the stability of XP.

 

I was mainly concentrating on the route of the consumer versions.  Windows NT and Windows 2000 were the business facing operating systems and tended to be more robust. Microsoft then "merged" the product lines so that there was just one current product name but different levels within the product.

[GoingUnderground]

16 hours ago, melmerby said:

What are Windows 286 & 386? I've never heard of them.

 

I started with 3.1+ DOS5 (OK system) , upgraded the DOS to ver 6.2, then onto Windows 95 (Rubbish OS) , Windows 98 (Better), Windows XP (Good), Win 7, Win 10.

Apart from Win 95, which spent most of it's time crashing, all have been OK to various degrees.

Various processors: started with Intel 486, then several different Pentium & Cyrix 586 processors, AMD Athlons, Intel Corei7s & lately 3 different AMD Ryzens

Windows 286 and 386 were versions of Windows 2 released in 1987 to exploit the greater capabilities of the Intel 286 and 386 processors. The firm kitted us out with Honeywell 286 powered laptops back in 1987, and we junked the Apple 3s and IIcs that we'd been using up to then. I did have a copy of Windows 286 on the laptop, but it wasn't that special, and we used Informix Smart, a suite of MS Office like programs, which allowed you to shell out to DOS and run another of the Smart programs. So I didn't make a lot of use of Windows 286. My boss's secretary's desktop did have Windows 386 so that it could receive files transmitted from our branch offices whilst she was doing other things, and that was worth having.

 

If you have a look at Wikipedia you'll find the history of Windows which mentions Windows 286 and 386.

[melmerby]

13 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

 

I think it appeared that the computer booted into Windows 95, but started from an invisible dos loader. This may have become more integrated by Windows 98 and by Windows XP, there was a switch to the Windows NT underpinnings, which explains the stability of XP.

 

 

Win 95 was built on the back of DOS7, however IIRC Win98 used NT as a starting point (i.e. no seperate DOS system)

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, GoingUnderground said:

 

 

If you have a look at Wikipedia you'll find the history of Windows which mentions Windows 286 and 386.

Just looked them up.

 

Where I worked, early on we had a couple of IBMs which were IIRC 8086 based (and DOS only), we also had some Apples (IIe?) and a "Pear", a couple with a massive (physically) 10 or 20MB hard disk connected, we also had Pets, BBC Bs & Masters, Nascoms and various HP technical computers. Quite a mixed bag.

You can gather it wasn't an office type environment. Computers were bought for specific tasks and didn't need to talk to each other.