Fixed it. For anyone having similar issue and not wanting BitLocker on, then run Command Prompt as Admin and then type in the below and hit Enter:

manage-bde c: -off​

 

Hi @Bunford, I would leave BitLocker disabled, otherwise you will have problems restoring your backup.

How to Enable and Disable BitLocker with TPM in Windows
https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/...-disable-bitlocker-with-tpm-in-windows?lwp=rt

If you insist on using BitLocker, this article will help you.

Can I Clone BitLocker Encrypted Drive Without Disabling It? Yes! [3 Minutes Guide]
https://www.easeus.com/backup-utility/clone-bitlocker-encrypted-drive.html

 

The build I just finished was a WIN-10 22H2 Superlite GS ISO. As far as the "rhw upgrade roadmap" deal goes, not certain what you're getting at there. When I use an ISO for a build I have that ISO saved locally and use it as often as necessary. If need be after the initial install I'll apply the latest cumulative update and that's that. All autonomous updating is nixxed along with the all rest of the telemetry/data exchanging crap. There's no need to have an internet facing machine be allowed to whisper sweet nothings into mickeysoft's ear where/whenever it wants to.

As far as Win11 goes I will probably never run it. It's too backward incompatible for my use and the user interface is a POS. Most everything I had running on my internet facing machine with win-7 has transferred over to the new win10 build with minimal hassle. Win11 was a complete disaster in that regard.

As far as Bitlocker is concerned - just say NO. Turn that garbage OFF and leave it off. It may not be today or tomorrow but sooner or later that shit will bite you in the ass, guaranteed.

 

Last edited: Jan 24, 2025 at 10:41 PM

Thanks cos I wanna give it a go on new machine

 

For the upgrade roadmap, I am talking about how the updates work. So, I have just installed GS W11 24H2 U11 on my machine and everything works. When U12, U13, and even 25H2 and so on come out, what is the upgrade process, and is data safe for upgrade?

It never gave the option to enable BitLocker or not, which I found strange. However, I re-did the Rufus USB installer and specifically chose to disable BitLocker for another machine and it worked fine without BitLocker.

 

I cannot really speak to that because I do not believe it. I woke myself up a long while back and pulled myself out of all that upgrade/update ridiculousness. Therefore I do not support industry standard planned obsolescence. IF perchance I were to move a machine up to a newer OS I do not apply "upgrades", I rebuild the system with a fresh locally stored ISO. Needless to say I haven't used a OEM ISO for a build in years.

I use computers to get work done and found very early on in the cycle of "update tuesdays" that "updates and upgrades" are counter productive. The only thing that really benefits from updates/upgrades is the OEM. There have been very few actual 911 scenarios over the years where patches really needed to be applied. When they are needed, by law the patches must be made available for ALL affected OEM systems free of charge and they must be able to be applied offline as needed. Since there haven't been that many scenarios where really critical system threatening patches were required, this begs one to ponder what the fuck the rest of the garbage that changes hands every "update tuesday" actually consists of?

The best use of "bitlocker" is to disable it and remove all its binaries from the system.

 

Whilst I agree that updates are not always necessary, and see why it can be liberating to step out of the upgrade cycles, sometimes they are necessary.

As a recent example on both Intel and AMD side of things is how newer CPUs have their firmware managed via the microcode, and updates were necessary to control the heat, power usage, and resulting warping on the Intel CPUs, and similarly on the AMD side the recent 9000 series CPUs had issues relating to delayed queuing and incorrect core parking resulting in software like PACE iLok License Manager, UAD Spark, SoundToys etc not working. Therefore, sometimes updates are necessary, but if you have a working system you are happy with it's performance, then I can see why it might be nice to dodge those update nags.

 

Last edited: Jan 27, 2025 at 9:00 AM

There is a tool out there that switches how windows handles these security issues. It is called InSpectre. You can use that to switch of spectre protection in any windows. You don't have to freshly install. I turned it off too, because the security threat is not that big for for normal blokes. But it won't bring you huge performance steps. It helps on outdated cpus, but modern cpus don't benefit that much from turning it off. Bench it with cinebench to see the percentage. I guess you gain some percentage. And as far as I remember AMD does not have these issues as big as Intel has them. So you might gain even less there.
//edit// switching off protected memory gains more performance than spectre settings. Just have a look at windows security settings and Google what these do, a lot of them take some performance. But as I said, all that can be done in any windows at any time.

 

Last edited: Jan 26, 2025 at 2:37 PM

These sound like hardware issues that should be dealt with by the hardware/CPU OEM. Patches or fixes like this should not be emanating from mickeysoft. Patching the OS to make up for inadequacies of hardware seems backward to me. Simply avoiding the faulty hardware to begin with would be my fix for this issue. However, if and when a patch/update is needed then get it and apply it. I have no issue with that. But constant telemetry and updating of the OS is not needed and simply exists to benefit the oem not the end user.

 

True, but that would be the equivalent of resisting hardware upgrades. This is how CPUs work now, whether we like it or not. The microcode is normally baked into both motherboard BIOS updates as well as chipset and firmware software updates. I believe Intel 13, 14th, and current core Ultra Intel generations use this approach, at least, as well as the 7000 and 9000 AMD CPUs (not sure about the 5000 series).

If you were wanting to avoid the hardware, your are essentially deciding to stick with old hardware that will soon no longer be powerful enough to do what you need it to do, so it's kind of unavoidable.

I do always disable all of the telemetry stuff in Windows and have Windows Updates normally paused for extended periods to avoid updates as much as possible, but modern hardware (particularly CPUs and GPUs and their optimisation) is making it difficult to truly avoid any and all updates unfortunately, without the compromise of potential loss of performance/optimisation of the hardware you've paid for.