Multizone | All our technotes

This PC doesnt currently meet Windows 11 system requirements

So, I bought this total bargain Lenovo ThinkCentre 710q chiefly because it consumes low power, has all Lenovo's attention to detail for maintenance and spare part replacement, has a nice tiny form factor, and a reasonably modern architecture. The Think Centre supports secure boot, and has a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 2.0. This one came with a DVD rw drive but has a modest 8GB of memory and a 500GB drive. The 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-6400T 'Skylake' processor and the Intel HD 530 graphics are end of life. Nevertheless it is a relatively good specification. Sadly however, according to Microsoft's tools, the Lenovo ThinkCentre M710q appears to be unable to meet the minimum system requirements for Windows 11. Thats a shame, but all is not lost! Lets see what can be done to improve the usefulness of this machine.

TL:DR — Lenovo have always made high quality rugged expandable hardware, especially in the Think design range they acquired from IBM, who after all, invented the PC in the first place. These ThinkCentre 710q tiny workstations are low power workhorses so they don't cost a fortune to run and are cheaply and plentifully available now in the used marketplaces. They can be expanded to excellent maximum specification and in some cases beyond to deliver their full potential at low cost and are ideal for home/lab/small office use. Plenty of parts are available, mostly very easily user replacable with ease. It is as easy as can be to bypass the arbitrary restriction and allow the upgrade to Windows 11, or indeed to install Linux or whatever other OS you please.

Details

Last Updated: 27 June 2025

• Microsoft Windows: An Operating System
• Technology We Use: Devices and Tools Powering Everyday Life

Read more: Install Windows 11 on a ThinkCentre with unsupported processor chip

Secure File Sharing with FileCloud

FileCloud is powerful software, delivering a secure, enterprise-grade file sharing and content collaboration platform. The community edition provides an annual licence for 5 full accounts, with 10 external accounts. Community edition is self-hosted on your Windows or Linux servers or in your own account in a supported Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) provider. For our review we installed it in Amazon EC2, using Amazon S3 for storage, as well as on a local Linux server, using local storage, and on a local virtual machine, on an Intel based Mac, running VMware Fusion, with the Filecloud provided Ubuntu 22,04 virtual machine. You need to have a good knowledge of Linux, virtual machines and web applications to get Filecloud running well. 

Details

Last Updated: 05 March 2025

• Technology We Use: Devices and Tools Powering Everyday Life

Read more: FileCloud

Cassette tapes are a lost art. I haven't had a cassette player connected to my home audio system for decades. But I remember vividly the playlists on my mixtapes, and still today expect certain songs to appear after other songs when I hear them. Mixtapes also provide a snapshot of the music at the time, unlike our digital media services today.

Vintage cassette players and recorders, are expensive and full of compromises on eBay but seem to have a devoted following among collectors, vinyl enthusiasts, and music lovers. Analog audio has the hiss of tape. Remember the special grades of Tape? Like mighty TDK SA 90 which was the king of the blank audio cassette for years. TDK also made C-120s but they were prone to failure and best avoided. Everybody it seemed, made Cassette media, but it was always TDK for me if I could stretch to them.

In my other article on New Cassette recorders in 2024, I look at the only two, almost identical brand new decks you can buy (from Teac and TASCAM). Both have the exact same mechanism, and remote, with a few styling differences, notably – rack mount capability and one additional playback function on the TASCAM. In the end I decide to try a second hand deck to determine how much quality I can get out of it, and really whether I care enough to invest in this old but originally groundbreaking media. I'm still a sucker for TASCAM, the professional division of Teac, so I looked for a TASCAM 302 - one of the finest professional, rack mountable, dual cassette decks ever made.

TASCAM 302

TL:DR — If you have the means theres still a TASCAM Pro Audio and a Teac consumer cassette deck available in new condition with USB out from. But can you get similar quality out of a second hand TASCAM cassette deck?

Details

Last Updated: 01 July 2025

• Vintage Software
• Vintage Computer Hardware: Glimpse into heritage technology

Read more: Tascam 302 Professional level Compact Cassette Deck

Microsoft's decision to sunset Windows Subsystem for Android (WSA) and, with it, the Amazon Appstore on Windows 11, is now fully in the rear-view mirror. Support ended on March 5, 2025, and as of 2026 the dust has well and truly settled. What remains is a clear-eyed post-mortem on one of the more ambitious — and ultimately ill-fated — cross-platform experiments in recent Windows history, and a practical guide to where Windows users who want Android apps should turn today.

In this article we examine the background to that decision, the reasons it was always likely to happen, what it meant for users and developers at the time, and — crucially — what the realistic options look like now that the project is definitively gone.

TL;DR: Microsoft threw in the towel. If you want seamless Android on a computing device, a Chromebook or an Android tablet remains the cleanest path. If you are a developer who needs to test Android apps on a desktop, Android Studio's built-in emulator — regularly updated by Google and now running Android 15 — is the right tool.

{ToC}

Why the sunset of Windows Subsystem for Android was always coming

Microsoft's decision to end WSA surprised some commentators, but the warning signs had been accumulating for well over a year before the announcement. The project had its public preview in February 2022, followed by a series of roughly bimonthly releases through to June 2023 — and then nothing. No release for the remainder of Microsoft's financial year. In any large technology organisation, a project that goes quiet across an entire fiscal year is rarely being quietly perfected; it is being quietly wound down.

There is also a historical precedent that should have given anyone watching pause. BlackBerry integrated Android APIs and delivered the Amazon Appstore inside BlackBerry 10 as a late-stage attempt to rescue a dying platform. The parallels are uncomfortable: a proprietary platform, a third-party app store standing in for Google Play, and a fundamental unwillingness — or inability — to licence the Google services that make Android apps actually work for mainstream users. BlackBerry World failed. The Amazon Appstore on BlackBerry 10 failed. The entire BlackBerry OS failed. WSA followed a structurally identical path on a much larger platform.

The sheer scale of engineering effort involved in keeping WSA current was also unsustainable without a clear commercial return. The January 2023 release note "Windows Subsystem for Android updated to Android 13" sounds innocuous, but migrating an entire virtualised Android stack to a new major OS version — with all the build, integration, and hardware compatibility testing that entails — is a significant undertaking. Doing that work indefinitely for a product with limited adoption and no viable path to Google Play is a hard case to make in any budget cycle.

What was the Windows Subsystem for Android?

What it was and how it worked

Windows Subsystem for Android, introduced in 2022, was Microsoft's attempt to bridge the Windows and Android ecosystems. At its core it was a virtual machine running the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), packaged for the Microsoft Store and front-ended with the Amazon Appstore as the mechanism for installing apps. It was not an emulator in the traditional sense — it ran Android natively inside a Hyper-V container — but it was also not a full Android environment in any way a mainstream user would recognise.

The development drew on the success of Windows Subsystem for Linux, which had proven that running a foreign OS environment inside Windows could be genuinely useful. WSA aimed for a similar outcome with Android. The competitive pressure was real: Apple Silicon Macs had been running iOS and iPadOS apps natively from the App Store since late 2020, and Chromebooks had offered seamless Google Play integration for years. Microsoft's mobile app story on Windows had been weak since the collapse of Windows Phone, and WSA was the attempt to address that gap.

What it could and could not do

At the point of the end-of-life announcement, WSA had reached Android 13 and supported a reasonable range of hardware features. Camera, microphone, Wi-Fi, location, multitouch, multi-monitor output, picture-in-picture, and Widevine L3 DRM were all functional. However, Bluetooth, USB, Android widgets, hardware DRM, quick tiles, and seamless file transfer were either absent or incomplete. The roadmap items — file transfer, shortcuts, local network access by default — were never delivered.

More importantly, none of that feature work addressed the fundamental problem: without Google Play Services, the majority of Android apps that mainstream users actually want either would not install, would not function correctly, or would lack push notifications entirely. The feature table on the GitHub repository was impressive in places, but it was a table of work done on the wrong problem.

The Google Play problem — the real reason WSA failed

Every post-mortem of WSA eventually arrives at the same place: Google Play and Google Play Services. Android may be open source through AOSP, but Google licences Play Services and the Play Store under strict criteria that require device manufacturers to pre-install a defined suite of Google applications. This is a deliberate and effective control point over the Android ecosystem, and it is one that Microsoft was never going to satisfy on its own platform.

The BlackBerry comparison is instructive here. BlackBerry's management reportedly could not accept the requirement to ship Gmail, Google Maps, Google Calendar, and the full suite of Google applications pre-installed on their devices as a condition of Play Services licencing. Without that agreement, BlackBerry could not offer a credible Android experience. Microsoft faced an identical structural problem — and the idea of Google effectively mandating which applications ship on Windows devices was never a negotiation that was going to conclude happily for either party.

Google walked away from the table. Without Play Services there was no path to the apps people actually wanted, and without those apps there was no adoption case to sustain the project.

This was confirmed shortly after the end-of-life announcement by what appeared to be a Microsoft product manager on 𝕏, and subsequently reported by 9to5Google. The absence of Google Play Services was not a technical oversight or a future roadmap item — it was a commercial and political dead end that had been apparent from the beginning.

Amazon's Fire OS is the only meaningful example of an AOSP-derived platform succeeding without Google Play, and that success is built on a very specific foundation: cheap, subsidised tablets sold primarily as consumption devices for Amazon's own content ecosystem — Prime Video, Kindle, Amazon Music. There was never a realistic version of that dynamic applying to Windows 11 desktops and laptops. The Amazon Appstore on WSA had no equivalent gravitational pull.

Sideloading apps via Android Debug Bridge (ADB) was technically possible but was aimed squarely at developers and hobbyists. It was never going to drive mainstream adoption, and Microsoft treated it as such — barely acknowledged in official documentation and unsupported in any practical sense for ordinary users.

Where things stand in 2026

With WSA gone and the March 2025 support deadline now passed, the question for anyone who was using it — or who is arriving at this article wondering what their options are — is what actually works today.

The honest answer is that nothing on Windows has filled the gap WSA left, because the gap WSA left was never as large as the project's ambition suggested. The users who genuinely needed to run Android apps on Windows were always a relatively small population, and most of them have migrated to one of three paths.

For end users who want Android apps as part of their daily computing life, a Chromebook remains the most coherent answer. Google Play integration on ChromeOS is mature, well-maintained, and covers the overwhelming majority of Android apps. Chromebook hardware in 2026 spans a wide range of price points and form factors, and the platform has continued to receive investment from Google in ways that WSA never received from Microsoft. For users who are already in the Android ecosystem — with a Pixel phone or a Samsung Galaxy device — the continuity between phone and Chromebook is natural.

For developers, Android Studio from Google is the current standard. The built-in emulator now runs Android 15, is regularly updated alongside new Android releases, and supports the full range of Google Play Services in a way that WSA never could. It runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux. It is not a consumer product, but developers who were using WSA for testing were already operating in developer territory — Android Studio is simply the correct tool for that job, and it has been for years.

There is also a renewed conversation in 2026 around whether Microsoft will make another attempt at Android integration, particularly given the continued growth of ARM-based Windows devices and the Surface Pro line. The architectural alignment between modern Windows on ARM and Android on ARM makes the technical case more interesting than it was in 2022. But any future attempt would face the same fundamental commercial obstacle: Google Play Services licencing. Until that negotiation changes — and there is no current indication that it will — any WSA successor would be building on the same broken foundation.

Impact on users and developers

Users

The population of users who relied on WSA was always limited by the Amazon Appstore's catalogue. Without Google Play Services, apps requiring push notifications, Google Maps integration, Google Sign-In, or Firebase-based features either failed silently or required significant workarounds. The apps that worked well on WSA tended to be games and simple utilities — a narrow slice of what most people actually use Android for.

Those users have now had well over a year since the March 2025 deadline to find alternatives. For most, the transition was not as painful as the headlines at the time suggested, precisely because the dependency was shallower than it appeared.

Developers

Developers who invested in WSA-specific compatibility work should have deprecated that code well before the March 2025 deadline — and most sensible teams did. Any code paths added specifically to handle the WSA environment, or to work around the absence of Google Play Services in that context, are now dead weight. The distribution channel no longer exists.

The broader lesson for developers is one that was already well understood but bears repeating: building for a platform whose commercial viability depends on a licencing agreement between two large companies that have competing interests is a significant risk. The Amazon Appstore on Windows was always contingent on a set of relationships that were never stable.

Industry response and what it revealed

The tech press response to the WSA shutdown was consistent: near-universal identification of Google Play Services as the core problem, with secondary commentary on Microsoft's pattern of launching and then abandoning platform experiments. That pattern — from Windows Phone to Cortana to Mixer to WSA — is a recurring theme in how Microsoft's ambitions in consumer and platform spaces tend to resolve.

Apple and Google were not materially affected. Apple Silicon Macs continue to run iOS and iPadOS apps from the App Store with no friction. ChromeOS continues to offer Google Play. Neither platform had to do anything differently as a result of WSA's closure — they were already further ahead than WSA ever managed to get.

What the episode did usefully illustrate is the degree to which Google's control over the Android ecosystem extends beyond the open-source layer. AOSP is genuinely open. But AOSP without Play Services is, for most users and most apps, not Android in any meaningful sense. That distinction matters for anyone evaluating Android-adjacent platforms — whether that is a future Microsoft product, a new Chinese device manufacturer, or an open-source Android fork.

Conclusion

Microsoft's Windows Subsystem for Android was a technically ambitious project that ran into a commercially immovable obstacle. The engineering work was real and in places impressive — running Android 13 inside a Windows virtual machine with camera, GPS, multitouch, and DRM support is not trivial. But the project was solving the wrong problem. The question was never whether Android could run on Windows. The question was whether the apps people actually use — the ones built on Google Play Services — could run on Windows without Google's participation. They could not, and Google was not going to participate on terms acceptable to Microsoft.

The cautionary note here is not unique to Microsoft. Large technology companies regularly invest in platform experiments that are structurally dependent on cooperation from a competitor who has no incentive to cooperate. The business case for WSA presumably rested on revenue from the Amazon Appstore, but that revenue potential was always capped by the Appstore's catalogue, which was always capped by the absence of Google Play Services. The ceiling was visible from the beginning.

Stopping a project that has no viable path forward is the right call, even when the sunk cost is significant. What is harder to defend is starting a project of this scale without resolving the central commercial dependency first. That is the real lesson of WSA — and it applies well beyond this particular episode.

Details

Last Updated: 05 June 2026

File Sharing securely with external users and with adequate governance is hard. You might think you can just easily mandate a file sharing Software as a Service (SaaS) platform as part of your productivity suite, (Google Workspace has Google Drive, Microsoft 365 has Microsoft OneDrive, Apple has iCloud or there's always a third party SaaS like the venerable DropBox), but hold on before you do so. In exchange for a simple user experience you give up control over your data hosting to the cloud service provider. That might be fine for your organisation, and it is for a lot of organisations, but for some data workloads with sensitive, private or privileged data it could well not be acceptable.

{ToC}

Five reasons why a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform might fail your organisations criteria for secure file sharing technology

There are probably more but here are five:

1. Firstly, SaaS providers might be required to give access to their data to other agencies by regulation or for other reasons although like DropBox they may appear to be transparent about it.
2. Secondly, they might index your content as Windows does if you let it by enabling "Cloud content search", leading to the potential for serving information in search results to users who should not be able to see it.
3. Thirdly, your SaaS provider might harvest the data for use in training a large language model (LLM) for Artificial Intelligence (AI), with the resulting risk posited by Google in "Privacy Considerations in Large Language Models" that training data appears in output or could be subject to a training data extraction attack.
4. Fourthly, they might change their terms and conditions or like Skiff be acquired and shut down.
5. In extreme cases, (looking at you, Amazon Drive), they may just throw in the towel and cease operating the service altogether.

Evaluating secure file sharing against an information security policy framework

Recently, we conducted an evaluation of secure file sharing technology for suitability for sharing securely with users both internal and external to an organisation in a regulated market sector. This was an interesting exercise, which made us spend further time thinking about the issues around secure sharing of company information in the cloud, and the almost automatic use these days of the technologies tied to an organisations business cloud software provider. The criteria we set were informed by our own information security policy framework as we look to become ISO27001 certified.  

Information Security Criteria

Whatever system is chosen must preserve information security. It should ensure that access to the system is only given to the right people, to the right data, and at the right time.

• Access Control – Measures to control who can access the data and what actions they can perform.
• Authentication – Authentication, authorisation and revocation mechanisms strong enough to verify the identity of users accessing the service.
• Auditing and Logging – Detailed logs of all activities and accesses to the data, allowing for accountability and traceability.
• Incident Response – Procedures to respond and mitigate changes, continuity, disaster, security incidents or breaches.
• Data Encryption – Encryption to protect data from unauthorized access.
• Data Integrity – Maintenance and assurance of data over its entire life-cycle.
• Data Deletion and Disposal – Supports procedures for securely deleting and disposing of data when it is no longer needed.
• Data Governance – Policies and procedures for the proper management and use of data within the organization.
• Data Classification – Data classification based on its sensitivity.
• Network Security – Prevention of unauthorized access and protection against external threats.
• Vendor Risk Management – Assessment and management of security risks associated with third-party vendors or partners involved in the data sharing process.
• User Training and Awareness – Education available to users about security best practices to help prevent security incidents.
• Secure Development Lifecycle – Security in the software development process must be respected.
• Security Monitoring – Tools and processes for continuous monitoring of the service and its environment for potential security issues.
• Compliance and Regulatory Requirements – Ensure that the service complies with relevant laws, regulations, and industry standards.

Functionality and ease of use

Functionality and ease of use only matters if the information security criteria are met. 

• Ease of use – There should be a fully featured web App, Windows, Mac desktop drive/volume level support is desirable, folder level support acceptable. iOS and Android Apps are highly desirable.
• Functionality – Branded Portal, Let's Encrypt SSL support, Custom URL, Shared Files and Folders, (password protection, public, time timited), Unlimited storage. Comprehensive email notifications. 

No system guarantees everything in an information security policy

This exercise is not about criticising systems that cannot guarantee total  compliance with information security policies. None are perfect, It is more to show that if information security cannot be guaranteed then the risks should be quantified, written down, subject to regular review and accepted by the executive management of the business. 

TL:DR: Operating system vendor solutions and well known SaaS services cannot easily be made to satisfy all of these conditions. The only way to guarantee compliance with strict information security policies is to self host with a technology and platform that enables you to encrypt your data in transit and at rest. You have to have the keys to the kingdom!

Details

Last Updated: 05 March 2025

• Technology Strategy

Read more: Secure file sharing information security policy framework

An Overview

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a buzzword that seems to pop up everywhere these days. From virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa to self-driving cars and recommendation algorithms on streaming platforms, AI is making significant strides in transforming how we live and work. But what exactly is AI? What are its various forms? How is it shaping our future? In this article, we will delve into the world of AI, its subfields, benefits, limitations, and the ethical concerns surrounding this rapidly developing technology.

AI refers to the capability of machines to perform tasks that traditionally require human intelligence. This includes activities like speech and image recognition, decision-making, and language translation. One of the primary goals of AI research is to develop systems that can learn from experience, adapt to new inputs, and perform tasks quickly and accurately.

TL:DR – AI is upon us. This is a primer.

Details

Last Updated: 19 February 2025

• Artificial intelligence (AI)

Read more: Understanding Artificial Intelligence