D13H4RD

Yep, that's exactly the tweet I mentioned to you about.
 
If it's really simply a case of Microsoft just not wanting to support old stuff, then I fully expect them to change their tune eventually.
 
Just to dig in the point, this would mean that a Mac from 2013 would officially be supported for longer (with the 2-3 extra years of extended security patches) than a Windows machine on a 7th-gen Intel processor from 2017. Even with the 2025 support cutoff date for Windows 10, it would mean the system is officially supported for 8 years, compared with 10-11 years for that Mac with the extended security patch window. Granted, I don't think too many people out there are going to keep using the exact same computer for 8 years, let alone 10, but it's nonetheless interesting.

It's kinda funny, isn't it? 
 
That a MacBook from 2013, with extended security patch support, is supported for longer than a Windows laptop from 2017 with objectively better hardware. 
 
That fact alone might have Microsoft reconsider its decision. 

We'll see. 
 
Honestly, I bet my 2 cents that they'll reverse this requirement but keep the TPM 2.0 one after a while, if their metric turns out to be entirely "experience" based and has very little to do with security. 
 
But I'm sticking with my theory. 

To be honest, given the amount of flip flopping they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if any of this changed again. 
 
And I highly doubt there's a conspiracy to force users to upgrade, as much as my cynical side would love for it to be the case. 
 
My theory is that it's likely due to the hardware-level mitigations against exploits like Spectre and Meltdown, that are present in these newer CPUs. Given Microsoft has been trumpeting about beefed up security in 11, this seems plausible. Of course, this would be fantastic if Microsoft actually communicated this better, but like Mercedes and grid penalties in Austria, Microsoft and poor communication just looks like tradition. 

ASUS removed the webcams on some of their ROG products.

Apparently, according to some Microsoft department heads on Twitter, it's got nothing to do with security. 
 
It's about the "experience". 
 
Yeah, this will not go down well at all. 

The real problem here is Microsoft's flip-flops and poor communication over it.
 
Previously, it was said that even CPUs older than Kaby Lake/Zen 1 and TPMs that are version 1.2, while not officially supported, would work. Now, it's changed so that only TPMs version 2.0 or newer and CPUs that are Intel 8th-gen and Zen+ or newer would explicitly work, and anything older just wouldn't without messing about with the setup.
 
Problem is that there's no explanation as to why all of these requirements exist, especially the CPU requirement. What's the explicit reason that support for Intel 7th-gen and Ryzen 1st-gen are being cut? The poor level of communication surrounding all of this is baffling, and honestly doesn't bode well for the OS when it launches, if they can't actually decide on requirements at this stage.

I know a lot of people are understandably filled with rage over Microsoft's decision to only support CPUs that are part of Intel's 8th-gen/AMD's Ryzen 2nd gen family or newer for Windows 11, alongside a confirmation of sorts that the decision wasn't made with security in mind (despite the newer CPUs containing hardware-level mitigations for exploits such as Spectre). And I agree that it's a pile of bullshit. But I think people are really letting their anger get ahead of themselves.
 
Just because you won't get the latest and greatest OS at launch doesn't mean your system is a total brick. Let me repeat that;
Just because you won't get the latest and greatest OS at launch doesn't mean your system is a total brick.
 
Windows 10 is still officially supported with updates and security patches until 2025, so many systems will still be covered against many security holes during this period. And even when it's 2026, it's not like your entire system becomes worthless. All of your applications will still work, and your system will work in the same way as it usually has. You really don't need Windows 11, especially at launch. Given Microsoft's constant flip-flopping and even the heads of their own team scrambling for a response, it's almost certain that Windows 11 will be an absolute shitshow at launch, and will need months of big patches to really get it into a state where it's reliable enough for consumer use.
 
Who knows? Maybe Microsoft finally finds logic and actually learns to communicate better. We'll see...

I know a lot of people are understandably filled with rage over Microsoft's decision to only support CPUs that are part of Intel's 8th-gen/AMD's Ryzen 2nd gen family or newer for Windows 11, alongside a confirmation of sorts that the decision wasn't made with security in mind (despite the newer CPUs containing hardware-level mitigations for exploits such as Spectre). And I agree that it's a pile of bullshit. But I think people are really letting their anger get ahead of themselves.
 
Just because you won't get the latest and greatest OS at launch doesn't mean your system is a total brick. Let me repeat that;
Just because you won't get the latest and greatest OS at launch doesn't mean your system is a total brick.
 
Windows 10 is still officially supported with updates and security patches until 2025, so many systems will still be covered against many security holes during this period. And even when it's 2026, it's not like your entire system becomes worthless. All of your applications will still work, and your system will work in the same way as it usually has. You really don't need Windows 11, especially at launch. Given Microsoft's constant flip-flopping and even the heads of their own team scrambling for a response, it's almost certain that Windows 11 will be an absolute shitshow at launch, and will need months of big patches to really get it into a state where it's reliable enough for consumer use.
 
Who knows? Maybe Microsoft finally finds logic and actually learns to communicate better. We'll see...

Best shot is Bluestacks, I'm afraid.

Best shot is Bluestacks, I'm afraid.

It's bullshit but everyone needs to chill a bit. 
 
Just because your system doesn't support Windows 11 at launch doesn't mean it instantly becomes a damn brick. Everything, including all your applications, will still work as it always has, and you will still get updates and support until 2025. 
 
They may change their bullshit requirements as the anger grows closer to release, but if Microsoft stubbornly insists, it's not like your system immediately becomes useless. Heck my phone still runs on Android 9, when Android 12 is a thing, yet I'm able to do pretty much everything that I need my phone for. 
 
Just. Calm. Down. 

It's bullshit but everyone needs to chill a bit. 
 
Just because your system doesn't support Windows 11 at launch doesn't mean it instantly becomes a damn brick. Everything, including all your applications, will still work as it always has, and you will still get updates and support until 2025. 
 
They may change their bullshit requirements as the anger grows closer to release, but if Microsoft stubbornly insists, it's not like your system immediately becomes useless. Heck my phone still runs on Android 9, when Android 12 is a thing, yet I'm able to do pretty much everything that I need my phone for. 
 
Just. Calm. Down. 

The thing is that the always-online feature on the Xbox One never really had benefits, at least at that period. It came with far too many downsides for pretty much no return.
 
The TPM debacle at least has some advantages, notably better security. The main problem is that Microsoft has been very poorly communicating about the whole thing.

To be honest, given the amount of flip flopping they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if any of this changed again. 
 
And I highly doubt there's a conspiracy to force users to upgrade, as much as my cynical side would love for it to be the case. 
 
My theory is that it's likely due to the hardware-level mitigations against exploits like Spectre and Meltdown, that are present in these newer CPUs. Given Microsoft has been trumpeting about beefed up security in 11, this seems plausible. Of course, this would be fantastic if Microsoft actually communicated this better, but like Mercedes and grid penalties in Austria, Microsoft and poor communication just looks like tradition. 

Windows 10 is still supported up until 2025. Assuming you've bought a Kaby Lake device in 2017, it'd be 8 years old by the time support for Windows 10 is dropped. 
 
You'll have upgraded before the time anyhow. It's not like they're forcing you to upgrade, so this FUD is unwarranted. 

Honestly, I'm just as baffled as you are. This is confusing, as if it needs to be even more so.. 

Apparently, according to some Microsoft department heads on Twitter, it's got nothing to do with security. 
 
It's about the "experience". 
 
Yeah, this will not go down well at all. 

Apparently, according to some Microsoft department heads on Twitter, it's got nothing to do with security. 
 
It's about the "experience". 
 
Yeah, this will not go down well at all. 

It's kinda funny, isn't it? 
 
That a MacBook from 2013, with extended security patch support, is supported for longer than a Windows laptop from 2017 with objectively better hardware. 
 
That fact alone might have Microsoft reconsider its decision. 

Funny thing is that a lot of the people buying them probably don't even need one in the first place.
 
Many modern systems have a firmware-level TPM that's usually disabled by default in the BIOS for custom-built machines. It's a simple toggle assuming you're on GPT and in UEFI mode.
 
As for laptops, many of them should have it enabled. My Lenovo Yoga Slim 7i has everything enabled from the factory, from the TPM to the secure boot feature.

To be honest, given the amount of flip flopping they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if any of this changed again. 
 
And I highly doubt there's a conspiracy to force users to upgrade, as much as my cynical side would love for it to be the case. 
 
My theory is that it's likely due to the hardware-level mitigations against exploits like Spectre and Meltdown, that are present in these newer CPUs. Given Microsoft has been trumpeting about beefed up security in 11, this seems plausible. Of course, this would be fantastic if Microsoft actually communicated this better, but like Mercedes and grid penalties in Austria, Microsoft and poor communication just looks like tradition. 

To be honest, given the amount of flip flopping they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if any of this changed again. 
 
And I highly doubt there's a conspiracy to force users to upgrade, as much as my cynical side would love for it to be the case. 
 
My theory is that it's likely due to the hardware-level mitigations against exploits like Spectre and Meltdown, that are present in these newer CPUs. Given Microsoft has been trumpeting about beefed up security in 11, this seems plausible. Of course, this would be fantastic if Microsoft actually communicated this better, but like Mercedes and grid penalties in Austria, Microsoft and poor communication just looks like tradition. 

To be honest, given the amount of flip flopping they've been doing lately, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if any of this changed again. 
 
And I highly doubt there's a conspiracy to force users to upgrade, as much as my cynical side would love for it to be the case. 
 
My theory is that it's likely due to the hardware-level mitigations against exploits like Spectre and Meltdown, that are present in these newer CPUs. Given Microsoft has been trumpeting about beefed up security in 11, this seems plausible. Of course, this would be fantastic if Microsoft actually communicated this better, but like Mercedes and grid penalties in Austria, Microsoft and poor communication just looks like tradition. 

The real problem here is Microsoft's flip-flops and poor communication over it.
 
Previously, it was said that even CPUs older than Kaby Lake/Zen 1 and TPMs that are version 1.2, while not officially supported, would work. Now, it's changed so that only TPMs version 2.0 or newer and CPUs that are Intel 8th-gen and Zen+ or newer would explicitly work, and anything older just wouldn't without messing about with the setup.
 
Problem is that there's no explanation as to why all of these requirements exist, especially the CPU requirement. What's the explicit reason that support for Intel 7th-gen and Ryzen 1st-gen are being cut? The poor level of communication surrounding all of this is baffling, and honestly doesn't bode well for the OS when it launches, if they can't actually decide on requirements at this stage.