PC Gaming

Huh, neat. Thanks for the informative reply. My system is actually ancient at this point(gen4 intel cpu), i only use it to play games and youtube/movie, while i still able to run some game, it does feel aged. I guess it's really time to get it changed.

What I heard (on here, and I hope it's a vicious rumor) is that TPM 2.0 comes with backdoors accessible to Microsoft via the OS so that a significant chunk of the computer belongs to Big MS and not to the end user, and it will squeal and cause problems if the end user tries to take it back.

The whole point of TPM 1.0 hypothetically was to allow a larger secondary encryption key of a device to be accessible only by a small user-provided key (say a four-digit PIN), and requiring use of the key-query software to run to get the secondary key. A limited number of chances with longer delays with each wrong answer heightens security.

But this pissed off government law enforcement across the world, who want backdoors for when they want to crack the phone of a very important criminal.

It would be nice if Apple, Google and Microsoft had more respect for their end users than they do national and corporate institutions, but we know this isn't really the case, so it's at least plausible that TPMs 1.0 or 2.0 come pre-backdoored. It doesn't hurt that this is exactly what FBI and NSA want even though (Pre-9/11 and Pre-PATRIOT) NSA is supposed to be assuring that no-one, not even police can crack our secure communication protocols.

Despite efforts to look into it, I've yet to get an answer I can fully trust whether or not they are backdoored. But since Microsoft is notorious for exactly this kind of bullshit since the 1980s, I assume it's true that TPMs are backdoored until I find convincing information otherwise.

it's one of those things where it does legitimately improve security, but for them to require it the way they did when almost no hardware at the time has it is pretty transparent.

there are plenty of other hardware requirements that could improve security if they arbitrarily decided to require them. they did this for the rain you describe, but have the plausible deniability of saying that it's for security.

basically, the same bullshit line that's used to justify half of the bullshit unpopular changes that anyone pushes anywhere.

"it's for security" - no it's not, as a for profit company chances are pretty good we can prove you don't actually give a shit about customer date if we look close enough at your practices. it's for profit.

"it's for the environment" - admirable thought, too bad that's not profitable. I don't believe you mr. for profit company.

"for the kids"- it you have ever tried to talk to a parent after the subject of their kids safety comes up you'll see why they always do for this in. it's the deepest, most primal, and least logical part of our brain. most parents become slovering fucking cavemen the second you disagree with whatever they've been programmed to believe will protect their kids. it's just too easy to manipulate people with. if you say you're great to protect kids I'm instantly skeptical and need a lot of proof.

Specifically not massgravedotdev, and stay far away from 11 Enterprise IoT LTSC and the permanent activation. 👀