Preparing for Insider Preview Builds of Windows 11 - ***UPDATED 6/28***

Out of curiosity yesterday I installed the ISO found on the internet on an old laptop (an acer aspire 5542G) apart from the fact that the laptop being a 2005 has no TPM so I bypassed the problem, I must say that all in all it does not run badly , currently, however, Windows 11 is not usable for common use because on Windows 11 for example you cannot even install WinRar, they will probably have set that you can only install them from the Store. Don't worry I'm not using it every day I just wanted to try it in a hard drive I had in my hands (100gb) just to see if it went or not and I must say that despite the limitations that Microsoft has given everything works wonders except that currently it is not possible to install programs

Windows 11 is a very early pre-release version.

there are significant risks with running any pre-release software.

you should expect there to be bugs etc some of these bugs could cause data loss or make the system unstable or vulnerable.

However, to be clear, it is the automatic sample submission that is being erroneously turned off, and not real time protection.

the automatic sample submission helps Microsoft improve the protection going forward.

Windows Defender is still offering protection against malware.

Nobody is being forced to run windows 11 (now or when it is launched) windows 10 will continue to be supported until (at least) 2025.

hallo will my computer work for windows 11 wen i go to WindowsPCHealthCheckSetup it ses this instal is not supportede by this processor type i hope my computer will get windows 11 1 day

@Endwar:

Stop making false claims. I certainly DO NOT use a "pirated" version of Windows 11. I had a licenced version of Windows 10. I was on the Dev channel since long on 24 june, when Insider proposed to upgrade and test Windows 11.

Windows11 was loaded directly from the regular Windows Update, and it is activated with a genuine licence.

And yes, Windows 11 does not keep Windows Defender ON: it is always OFF at boot and must be reactivated AFTER boot and logon (really too late), but it runs after that (and will stop running on next reboot.

This just means that windows 11 DROPS basic security and is LESS protected than windows 10.

As well VBS, HVCI, MDAG, Credit Guard, Deve Guard, TPM2.0, were working at boot in windows 10 (without the alleged "performance" problems that Microsoft would like to publicly assert (this is false).

It's just the fact that Microsoft dropped the necesarry components that made all this work correctly, reliably, and even fast in Windows 10 (and still in the latest version of Windows Server), but no longer in Windows 11.

Such drop of support made Windows 11 no longer respect the specifications. In fact the problem lives in the new *preboot* UEFI loader (loaded even before selecting the OS to boot on or entering into UEFI BIOS parameters): it no longer works. And then the normal boot loader jsut assumes that the preboot environment made the correct settings, but it's wrong! It does no longer respects the UEFI bios settings (including security ones), and does no longer want to work with them: it boots now WITHOUT security (not even basic security), even though the PC was fully capable and had everything OK (as demosntratd in Windows 10 and Windows Server on the same machine).

What is working in the Server version, and Windows 10 for boot, Microsoft no longer wants to integrate it in Windows 11, for very strange "performance" reasons (not demonstrated at all), and disabling TPM, VHCI, VBS is absolutely not coming from incorrect settings, but just because Micrsosoft made FALSE assumptions by dropping necessary components and thinking that these minimum pieces of software needed for the configuration would no longer be needed at all, just because they were not necessary on newer generations of processors where all is preconfigured. The claim that theise components would have a performance is false: Microsoft compares the performance with or without HVCI/VBS and jsut found that with HVCI/VBS it was running a bit faster (but less securely), and so decided to only run windows 11 for best performance only (undemosntrated claim) ignoring all security considerations (with latest generations the performance claims are reversed: PCs run a bit faster without these components integrated in Windows 10 and Windows Server, but only affect the boot time (but changing it by some milliseconds) and absolutely not at runtime (or it is not visible when running on a PCU with more cores than what is required, more memory than what is required, and faster frquencies than what is required).

Microsoft jsut does not want to look for alternative solutions, it has just decided to stop any research for them and to ignore the technical specifications to find alternatives: Microsoft jsut chose to support very few options coming from a restricted set of manufacturers that just want to sell more hardware. It's jut a strategy to force users to buy new PCs (and new Windows licences at the same time).

The performance claims are wrong anyway: Microsoft compares things that are NOT comparable. And has silently decided to longer support the hardwares on which they provided a WHQL certification (which was actually never assessed seriously but just based on what manufacturers claimed in their own selftests: those manufacturers, notably CPU foundries, just did not want to work with Microsoft and support Windows 11 as well). They want jsut users to be sticked on windows 10 or Windows Server and then want Microsoft to claim that these PCs MUST NOT be made compatible with Windows 11. There's NO assesment at all: I've run the latest ADK, and every test demonstrate that the PC has ALL the necessary features. Only manufacturers DO NOT WANT to let us to run Win11 with these CPUs, and they even want Microsoft to make these PCs unprotected: Microsoft listened only manufacturers, not the end users at all, and not any competitor that could propose things that CPU foundries DO NOT want to continue to support in Windows.

The situation is clear now: users will have to use another hypervisor, and will need to run windows 11 in a VM (have you seen that these new requirements are NOT requirements and that Microsoft will continue supporting Windows 11 in a VM?).

Here again this is a commercial tactic: Microsoft wants to sell cloud-based solutions (in Azure, or with its partners).

So what is the alternative: install Windows Server on the same PCs (or vmWare or Citrix or Oracle/Redhat/Ubuntu hypervisors on top of Linux), and have Windows 10 or Windows 11 booting on them. This leaves lot of consumers beside (and with now a premature deadline: those PCs MUST die in 4 years because Microsoft will want to kill Windows 10, without any viable alternative).

And this is not justified at all by need of security: of course increasing security has some impact on performances, but not at all what Microsoft claimed: msot PCS are largely fast enough to support the features and the impact on performance for the same set of basic features decreases over time, because there are new optimizations, or better programming: the research does not stop there, only the first version implemening these features may be a bit slower. But Microsoft must be ready to listen for alternatives (even those coming from competitors, instead of just focusing on what the original manufacturers want to claim, without providing ANY evidence of an impossibility).

Lot of companies are working on viortualization, there are many alternatives (and notably many made for use in Linux) and developed by research tems worldwide.

There are solutions appearing, as demosntrated with what was initially designed to fight the Heartbleed problem (e.G. with the initial "retpoline" mitigation that was developed rapidly and had some noticeable performance problems, only experience on servers, but not really by endusers, an this problem is now over). New security problems will continue to happen and will not be avoided just by these requirements, simply because Microsoft does not really asses it, but just makes assumptions. In reality the "WHQL certification" logo is just fake: manufacturers continue to do what they want, because they want us to buy again new hardwares (at growing prices, because they also do not provide enough quantities: there's a large shortage on these CPUs, chipsets supporting them, suitable RAM modules). This strategy is also WASTEFUL. And it leaves billions of users worldwide without a solution for long. Microsoft will reopen the digital fracture.

Now it's time for Microsoft to leave other providers build and support Windows on their alternatively hypervisors.

But for most end users at home or in small business, the only viable strategy is to zap Windows as the core OS and go to Linux (on which they will run Windows in a VM if they still need Windows for their apps). There are already excellent Linux distributions (like Fedora, CentOS, AlmaLinux, OracleLinux), and even for non-geeks like Ubuntu and LinuxMint) which are fully capable of running Windows; more advanced users already use other hypervisors than Hyper-V (including Microsoft itself for its Azure-based farms!).

And if you don't need the Windows API for apps (because most of your work is done now in a web browser and can be done as well on Android or iOS mobiles, and because you can as well play now many games on Linux if not using game consoles) installing Linux has never been so easy (and it is easier now than Windows, simpler to manage and maintain, and has better long term support). Excellent desktop environments and excellent browsers are available and fully compatible (even Microsoft Edge is available on Linux!) and with much more design options (and better security as well).

But users that don't want to pay the price required by Microsoft will have several choices: going with Apple (and buy everything at the mximum price every 3 years, like what Microsoft dreams to do), or go with cloud-based solutions (and use basic tablets), or go to Linux. The windows option offers much less alternatives and much less stability (even when compared to Apple offers).

When you look into the Feedback Hub enough people posted already. Windows Defender is running but there is a problem for many people where on every restart of the system "Automatic transmission of examples" is disabled again, me included.