Back in January Microsoft encrypted all my hard drives without saying anything. I was playing around with a dual boot yesterday and somehow aggravated Secureboot. So my C: panicked and required a 40 character key to unlock.
Your key is backed up to the Microsoft account associated with your install. Which is considerate to the hackers. (and saved me from a re-install) But if you've got an unactivated copy, local account, or don't know your M$ account credentials, your boned.
Control Panel > System Security > Bitlocker Encryption.
BTW, I was aware that M$ was doing this and even made fun of the effected users. Karma.
I don't know about that.
Dumb terminal concept was more what Chromebook was doing.
Microsoft is doing something even stupider.
I think they want you to only use Windows and pay for cloud storage.
By enforcing BitLocker and Secure Boot, they are trying to eliminate dual-booting (you don't need to dual-boot Windows/Linux anyway, as you can just use WSL2 /s).
By enforcing disk encryption, in general, they try to force the use of cloud storage, by making data recovery nearly impossible. Most people are probably too lazy to buy external storage, and manually copy their files over.
This guarantees 2 money streams. One from Windows's tracking/advertising and the other from OneDrive subscriptions.
Data recovery isn't impossible. You can easily back up the recovery key. This is just typical Microsoft shit design.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/back-up-your-bitlocker-recovery-key-e63607b4-77fb-4ad3-8022-d6dc428fbd0d
My parents wouldn't even notice that their computer decided to encrypt their files. And they will blame the service guy for not being able to recover their photos, in case of hardware failure.
Exactly, as I can just wipe the disc and install OpenBSD.
I mean, for a lot of people they're fine especially if they're priced appropriately. Especially with a lot more software as a service out there. My problem is that all of them have a built in drop dead date on when they're going to stop getting updates and there's not really a great option for the devices post ChromeOS.
ChromeOS certainly can be a good system. I still have my old CR-48 from when I got selected to test the OS and even when it was in its infancy, it was solid. I used it for a lot of my college career because it was better than my Asus eeePC which had Ubuntu on it.
I had an Intel Chromebox that I ran galliumOS on. The problem is locked bootloaders which should be illegal
If my Chromebook could run Linux or even pure Android, I'd probably use it way more often. But it being a locked down distro with android bolted on is useless to me.
It feels like the worst of both worlds. It's fine for people who use a laptop/OS as a bootloader to a web browser, its not fine for weirdos like me.
Funny thing is that a cheap netbook has stats that would be fine for anything we did in the 90's maybe even some games too
The Chromebook I have, is overall fine. It runs ChromeOS pretty well, and most web pages don't make me beg for more RAM or CPU. ChromeOS does a fine job, to the point I wonder if I ran Arch or something on it, it's a crapshoot.
I think most laptops these days, even the cheap ones, are probably fine when you run a light OS on em. I've used computers that were 10 years old and ran most things decently well.
I've got an entry level desktop from 2009 I'm gonna throw arch on and run some stuff