• tabular@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    To use Windows without a Microsoft account requires tech literacy these days, I thought. I would not be suprised if users didn’t choose to sync with a MS account but it’s doing it anyway, if that’s what MS want.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      If you sign in with a Microsoft account at all I don’t believe there’s the capability to opt out.

      I only use local accounts. I have never had a Microsoft account. I never will.

    • Feyd@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 days ago

      I’m not even sure if you can install without an MS account if you don’t use Rufus anymore. Rufus requires literacy for sure, and even if you can still do it without it is designed to make it impossible to know you can from within the installer itself.

      • conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Main issue with Rufus is secure boot unfortunately, otherwise Rufus is easy enough that I gave a couple “click here, then here, then here and here are some screenshots” to a friend they were able to navigate it just fine. At this point I swear Rufus is easier than using the official installer provided Secure Boot is off.

        • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Images patched by Rufus can definitely pass secureboot, as long the bootloader wasn’t touched. Secureboot only checks the signature of the bootloader, not every single file of the operating system, otherwise it will take hours to boot

          Plus Rufus touches some XML read by the installer, doesn’t crack the executables