Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Microsoft makes TPM issue worse: TPM 1.2 is actually NOT acceptable

gjsman
 Share

Summary

In an updated Microsoft document that previously listed hard floors and soft floors, Microsoft has clarified that TPM 1.2 is actually not acceptable in the soft floor and that everyone must, in fact, have TPM 2.0. So if you thought the requirement to have a TPM was bad before, the 1.2 version is actually not supported and Microsoft saying it was, according to them, was incorrect. (Bolded area by myself)

 

Quotes

Quote

There are new minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11. In order to run Windows 11, devices must meet the hardware specifications. Devices that do not meet the hardware requirements cannot be upgraded to Windows 11.

  • Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or System on a Chip (SoC)
  • RAM: 4 gigabyte (GB)
  • Storage: 64 GB or larger storage device
  • System firmware: Trusted Platform Module (TPM) version 2.0
  • Graphics card: Compatible with DirectX 12 or later with WDDM 2.0 driver

Note:

This article has been updated to correct the guidance around the TPM requirements for Windows 11. For more information, see the Windows 11 Specifications. To check the compatibility of your device with Windows 11, get the PC Health Tool from Upgrade to the New Windows 11 OS.

 

My thoughts

You thought the news that you must have a TPM was disruptive enough. Surprise - Microsoft was wrong in saying TPM 1.2 would be OK. You must have TPM 2.0 specifically. Fantastic.

 

Sources

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-does-away-with-soft-floor-updates-minimum-windows-11-specs-with-tpm-2-0-requirement/

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/windows-11/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, planned obsolescence.

Is it plugged in? Is it turned on? Are you sure? No, really. 

List of my systems:

Main PC:

Spoiler

HP z620 workstation, 2x Xeon e5-2690 v0, EVGA GTX 980 SC, 8x4gb DDR3-1333, 2x 2tb HDD, 1tb boot SATA SSD, Windows 10 Pro

Linux system:

Spoiler

ProDesk 600 g1 SFF, i5-4590, Quadro k620, 2x4gb DDR3-1333, 64gb boot SSD, 250gb storage HDD from the ewaste pile with many bad sectors, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS

XP system:

Spoiler

Compaq DC7600 SFF, Pentium 4 HT 631, MSI GT 210 passive, 2x512m DDR2-667, 80gb Spinmaster HDD

Testbench:

Spoiler

Optiplex 760 board, GameMax VP-600 PSU, 4x 64gb AliExpress SSD (Windows XP, Vista, 7, 10), 1tb HDD (storage)

(currently has a Core 2 Quad Q9550 and 4x2gb DDR2-800 but I change its config frequently)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

"LARRY?!?!"
"What? I thought TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0 were the same thing except one was newer than the other one!"

REFRESH BEFORE RESPOND, I EDITED MY POST

 

 

I challenge you! Break this encryption and you may find yourself in the possession of a certain NVMe SSD. Not sayin' which, but it's PCIe 3.0.

s9RwmgR+2NuMMwX0PongCveBrgUeNYfEAGTscszGq9A=

It's only AES128, won't be too hard to crack. Plus it's not like the key is someone's name, separated out into letters, which are converted to their corresponding 

numbers, which is then converted to base-3, which is then given 3 padding 0's so it's 16 characters long right?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gjsman said:

You have to admire how badly Microsoft is fumbling the Windows 11 announcement. 

Changing their story, absolutely. 

 

TPM requirements though.. I mean TPM has been a thing on hardware ~15 years IF your manufacturer decided to implement it. 

 

IMO the anger should be directed at hardware manufacturers who didn't see these security concerns coming and implement a TPM solution. 

 

5800x/3090

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the hell is this announcement so convoluted? The PC Health Check tool will tell you you can't run Windows 11 without telling you why. In order to enable TPM users have had to dig around in their BIOS to see if their CPU can do the TPM functionality or see if their motherboards have a TPM module/header. If their CPUs don't have that ability ppl now have to buy scalped TPM modules or buy new computers just to run Windows 11. 

 

Microsoft claimed that the majority of computers will be able to run Windows 11, but with the ever changing TPM requirements.....not looking like that's going to be true. 

 

  

Laptop: 2019 16" MacBook Pro i7, 512GB, 5300M 4GB, 16GB DDR4 | Phone: iPhone 13 Pro Max 128GB | Wearables: Apple Watch SE | CPU: R5 2600 | Mobo: ASRock B450M Pro4 | RAM: 16GB 2666 | GPU: ASRock RX 5700 8GB | Case: Apple PowerMac G5 | OS: Win 10 | Storage: 480GB PNY SSD & 2TB WD Green HDD | PSU: Corsair CX600M | Display: Dell 27 Gaming Monitor S2719DGF 1440p @155Hz, Dell UZ2215H 21.5" 1080p, ViewSonic VX2450wm-LED 23.6" 1080p | Cooling: Wraith Prism | Keyboard: G610 Orion Cherry MX Brown | Mouse: G303 | Audio: Audio Technica ATH-M50X & Blue Snowball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like Microsoft is forcing TPM 2.0 in order to get people to replace their PCs, Intel 7th gen and Ryzen 1000 series are still powerful CPUs.

Hopefully the workaround for secureboot and TPM works in the release version, but its still going to be a complete nightmare for anyone in IT managing hardware that isn't recent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rickeo said:

TPM requirements though.. I mean TPM has been a thing on hardware ~15 years IF your manufacturer decided to implement it. 

 

IMO the anger should be directed at hardware manufacturers who didn't see these security concerns coming and implement a TPM solution. 

Incorrect. Microsoft only began requiring TPM in mid-2016. The spec, before any hardware was finished, was created in 2009. Blame Microsoft for not requiring it earlier. Also blame Microsoft for not requiring motherboard manufacturers to name it consistently or enable it by default up unto this day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, gjsman said:

Incorrect. Microsoft only began requiring TPM in mid-2016. The spec, before any hardware was finished, was created in 2009. Blame Microsoft for not requiring it earlier. 

I'm not sure where you're getting your information but Apple, as one example, was shipping TPM functionality on their first Intel Mac's in 2006. 

 

Regardless, should TPM been a requirement earlier, we'd be having this same conversation back then. It has to happen at some point, its going to upset people regardless.

5800x/3090

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rickeo said:

TPM requirements though.. I mean TPM has been a thing on hardware ~15 years IF your manufacturer decided to implement it. 

 

IMO the anger should be directed at hardware manufacturers who didn't see these security concerns coming and implement a TPM solution. 

 

Virtual TPM could be run at the software level without the need for a hardware-based TPM chip, I am thinking that it wasn't seen as a necessity by hardware manufacturers in the past. I think that a lot of systems are going to stick with running Windows 10 because of the new requirements going into Windows 11. 

 

17 minutes ago, demonix00 said:

Welcome to windows eWaste where it only runs on hardware that is considered really recent.

Yeah, this could be a more significant problem because so many users that really want Windows 11 are going to have to throw away their existing computers.

Hope this information post was helpful  ?,

        @Boomwebsearch 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I'll just hope Leeeeenux will work with the two capture cards I want for my current system + a P400 for H.264 encoding. Once the ol' OptiPlex is done being the daily it was going to get turned into a dedicated capture bitch, but I sure as fuck don't plan on running Windows 10 until support for it dies now.

Main rig on profile

Zephyrus - Windows 7 side rig

Spoiler

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (undervolted to 1.26v w/ CM 212 EVO), 2x4GB Samsung 1600MHz CL11, Asus M4A77TD, 240GB Kingston UV400, 1TB Toshiba 2.5", EVGA GTX 960 SC, Enthoo Pro, Corsair CX750M, Gigabyte GC-WB867D-I w/ Centrino 6300, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Mac Mini (Late 2014)

Spoiler

Intel Core i5 4278U, 8GB RAM, 250GB Samsung 840 EVO, macOS 12.1 Monterey, using it with a ViewSonic VX2748

Consoles: Softmodded 1.4 Xbox w/ 500GB HDD, Xbox 360 Elite 120GB Falcon, XB1X 1TB, PS1 1001, PS2 Slim 70000 w/ FreeMcBoot, PS4 Pro 7015B 2TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, rickeo said:

I'm not sure where you're getting your information but Apple, as one example, was shipping TPM functionality on their first Intel Mac's in 2006. 

 

I was incorrect as for when TPM came out, but it is true that Microsoft only began requiring it in mid-2016. Also, you are incorrect apparently and Apple has not shipped Macs with TPMs since 2006, and the Macs that had TPMs didn't have drivers to actually use them but I could be incorrect on that.

 

All around though this stinks on Microsoft's part. They could have required TPMs a decade earlier. They could have required motherboard manufacturers to call it the same name instead of seemingly having a different name in the UEFI Settings for each manufacturer with some calling it TPM, fTPM, PTT, or something else, and don't get it confused with CSM. They could have required manufacturers to have it enabled by default, which they still don't require right now. 

 

I don't blame the manufacturers as much as I blame Microsoft for not laying any groundwork for us system builders to be ready. They could have looked in 2016, figured TPM 2.0 would be important in the future, and told motherboard makers to have it enabled out of the box because we might use it in the future and because we're requiring it everywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, JustAnotherOverClocker said:

so does this change the CPU requirements as well?

Doesn't appear so. They still have the separate page with every SKU of supported CPUs AFAIK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, gjsman said:

Doesn't appear so. They still have the separate page with every SKU of supported CPUs AFAIK.

This is so frustrating, there was another post indicating that the soft floor allowed cpus such as the i7-6700k and i7-7700k. But now that's questionable. This is an absolutely unacceptable clusterfuck from a large company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JustAnotherOverClocker said:

This is so frustrating, there was another post indicating that the soft floor allowed cpus such as the i7-6700k and i7-7700k. But now that's questionable. This is an absolutely unacceptable clusterfuck from a large company.

Take this for what it's worth, but the leaked dev version ran (in a VM) perfectly fine on my system, an twin Xeon Ivybridge Xeon e5-2643v2 workstation

So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Guess I'll just hope Leeeeenux will work with the two capture cards I want for my current system

If the devs on *nix are smart, they are watching this Charlie Foxtrot unfold with great interest, and will pick up the ball since MS doesn't seem interested in supporting "older" hardware.

So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can fuck right off so far beyond our universe science has yet to come up with a term for just how far they can fuck right off. 

 

TPM in Home should be optional!

PC - NZXT H510 Elite, Ryzen 5600, 16GB DDR3200 2x8GB, EVGA 3070 FTW3 Ultra, Asus VG278HQ 165hz,

 

Mac - 1.4ghz i5, 4GB DDR3 1600mhz, Intel HD 5000.  x2

 

Endlessly wishing for a BBQ in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope repackers get hold of the .iso images when 11 launches and create custom installers which bypass the bullshit of Microshaft. 

PC - NZXT H510 Elite, Ryzen 5600, 16GB DDR3200 2x8GB, EVGA 3070 FTW3 Ultra, Asus VG278HQ 165hz,

 

Mac - 1.4ghz i5, 4GB DDR3 1600mhz, Intel HD 5000.  x2

 

Endlessly wishing for a BBQ in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tieox said:

They can fuck right off so far beyond our universe science has yet to come up with a term for just how far they can fuck right off. 

 

TPM in Home should be optional!

They need to be a bit more transparent on it's benefits. If this means BitLocker encryption enabled by default on all machines, then I'm all in for it. 

AMD FX™ 6300 @ 4.20 GHz | ASUS M5A97 R2.0 | Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 2GB OC | 24GB Kingston DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB WD Green 1.5TB | Antec 300 | ASUS Xonar DG | CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo | OCZ 600W | Windows 10 Pro

Sony MDR-V250 | GNT-500 | Logitech G610 Orion Brown | Logitech G402 | Samsung C27JG5 

Intel Core™ i7-7600U | Seagate 500GB HDD | 16GB DDR4 | Windows 10 Enterprise | HP EliteBook 850 G4

Intel Core™ i5-8520U | WD Blue M.2 250GB | 1TB Seagate FireCuda | 8GB DDR4 | Windows 11 Home | ASUS Vivobook 15 

Intel Core™ i7-3520M | GT 630M | 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO 250GB | macOS Catalina  Lenovo IdeaPad P580

iPhone 12 Mini (iOS 14.8.1) | iPhone XR (iOS 14.8.1) |  iPad Mini (iOS 9.3.5) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

They need to be a bit more transparent on it's benefits. If this means BitLocker encryption enabled by default on all machines, then I'm all in for it. 

I wish. But it appears BitLocker will remain a Pro-only feature. Microsoft Devs said the TPM requirement enables "future scenarios" apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

They need to be a bit more transparent on it's benefits. If this means BitLocker encryption enabled by default on all machines, then I'm all in for it. 

Make it an option, make it one you have to read and agree to the risks you take not having a TPM 2.0 module installed, but gatekeeping the OS because of it is stupid.  

 

Repackers will make .iso images available that has this bypassed and many peeps will use it to fix ma/pa computers once Win10 is done in '25.

PC - NZXT H510 Elite, Ryzen 5600, 16GB DDR3200 2x8GB, EVGA 3070 FTW3 Ultra, Asus VG278HQ 165hz,

 

Mac - 1.4ghz i5, 4GB DDR3 1600mhz, Intel HD 5000.  x2

 

Endlessly wishing for a BBQ in space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tieox said:

Repackers will make .iso images available that has this bypassed and many peeps will use it to fix ma/pa computers once Win10 is done in '25.

And we'll once again have a proliferation of malware-infested ISOs. Fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×