Microsoft makes things worse: Windows 11 upgrade video blasted as being "tone deaf"

[TetraSky]

13 minutes ago, James Evens said:

32 bit program support or 32 bit ISO?

Them removing 32 bit support would be stupid. 

32bit ISO. Users will still be able to run 32bit applications just as they are able to right now on Windows 10 64bit.

[YoungBlade]

21 minutes ago, James Evens said:

@TetraSkyIs there any real world downside to not support 32 bit processors?

Not sure if there where any 32 bit processors made in the last decade so maybe it is time to call it a day and isolate old 32 bit PCs from the network and continue using old, none updated OS.

For x86 processors, there really have not been any 32-bit ones in the last decade. And those that were made would not be able to comfortably run Windows 11 anyway. The latest Intel CPU not to have 64-bit support were some Intel Atom chips released in 2011. Those were single core, of course. Intel did have a few dual core chips released in 2006 that lacked 64-bit support, but I'd hate to be someone still trying to use one of those in 2021.

 

However, there have been plenty of ARM based 32-bit processors, some of which are still being actively manufactured. This would be the only real downside. So I do wonder if MS is going to offer a Windows 11 for ARM that supports 32-bit ARM processors...

 

If someone is desperate to get use from an old 32-bit computer, the best option out there is probably Debian Linux, which does still support them, and offers lightweight desktop environments than such a CPU could actually handle. (Although it only has i686 support, so Pentium III and older isn't a thing.)

[Jtalk4456]

3 hours ago, Pyxlwuff said:

Quote

In the video, Microsoft employee Aria states that it "sucks" that some people aren't equipped with eligible devices, but points out how great Windows 11's requirements will be for those who are eligible, when it comes to what those requirements mean for security, productivity, and the overall experience.

 

On top of the obligatory reminder that most computers have TPM and this isn't really a giant issue and Win 10 has been supporter for a long time, I'm gonna play devils advocate here. What was said is pretty accurate. For those without TPM, there will be some new features they don't have access too and some better security.

For those who CAN upgrade, lo and behold, they'll get an upgrade. The way it was said could be done a bit better from a customer service perspective, but overall it's a good response. Yeah it might suck for those left on 10, but the extra security and features come at a price of having up to date hardware to support it. 

[Chris Pratt]

3 hours ago, linkboy said:

TPM is only a part of it. 6th and 7th gen intel CPUs have TPM 2.0, but aren't eligible to upgrade to Windows 11 because of the VBS and HVCI requirements (for improvements in security) , even though the OS runs perfectly fine on the CPUs since MS isn't enforcing the CPU requirements during the beta period. 

 

People aren't going to go out and buy a new computer for Windows 11, they're going to stick with Windows 10, which makes the security improvements for Windows 11 pretty much useless.

I was specifically talking about the TPM portion of it being overblown, precisely because it's not an issue for hardware that's already supported (and a lot that actually isn't, as you mentioned).

 

However, there's something to cutting off older hardware as well. I do agree that Microsoft was a little over judicious about where they drew the line, but we're still talking about almost 10 year old hardware once Windows 10 goes EOL. It seems more unfair, simply because we had such a long period of stagnation with CPUs in particular. Something like even a 4th or 5th gen Intel is honestly still highly competitive in the grand scheme. However, if this was 10 years ago, no one would bat an eye with Microsoft not wanting to support Pentium. Decade+ hardware support is freaking hard, and virtually no one does it: certainly not Apple and certainly not any phone or tablet manufacturer.

[linkboy]

2 hours ago, StDragon said:

^THIS!

 

8th Gen Intel and Zen+ have MBEC / GMET for enhanced performance with HVCI requirements. It's optional with Windows 10 to have HVCI enabled, but Windows 11 makes it mandatory.

 

Windows 11 is about raising the bar in OS security, not performance.

What good is raising the bar for OS security if the vast majority of people aren't going to be able to upgrade their OS to take advantage of said security? More machines are going to be on Windows 10 then 11 for the conceivable future (and even after the Windows 10 reaches end of life). 

 

People aren't going to buy a new computer for Windows 11 if the existing one(s) they have works perfectly fine. 

 

Here's what Microsoft should be doing. 

 

Require OEMs to ship new computers with the VBS/Hvci requirements enabled, but still allow people to upgrade if their computers meet the minimum requirements (minus the vbs/hvci requirements). As time moves on, people will upgrade their computers to newer ones that support the newer security requirements, or they'll upgrade their hardware, as people usually do, and they'll meet the requirements. 

 

This is something that should be introduced gradually, not kneecaping a bunch of perfectly fine computers that meet the general need of the average computer user. 

 

Microsoft themselves, right now, are still selling a $3500 computer that won't be able to run Windows 11. People bought that computer this year and Microsoft is already kneecaping it. That's ridiculous. 

 

We all know that if MS keeps these requirements, there's going to be patches or patches versions available within a few days of the OS dropping that will remove the requirements and people will use them. 

[linkboy]

3 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

I was specifically talking about the TPM portion of it being overblown, precisely because it's not an issue for hardware that's already supported (and a lot that actually isn't, as you mentioned).

 

However, there's something to cutting off older hardware as well. I do agree that Microsoft was a little over judicious about where they drew the line, but we're still talking about almost 10 year old hardware once Windows 10 goes EOL. It seems more unfair, simply because we had such a long period of stagnation with CPUs in particular. Something like even a 4th or 5th gen Intel is honestly still highly competitive in the grand scheme. However, if this was 10 years ago, no one would bat an eye with Microsoft not wanting to support Pentium. Decade+ hardware support is freaking hard, and virtually no one does it: certainly not Apple and certainly not any phone or tablet manufacturer.

 

Apple actually has pretty good legacy support. Monteray supports the following systems:

• MacBook: Early 2016 and newer
• MacBook Air: Early 2015 and newer
• MacBook Pro: Early 2015 and newer
• Mac Mini: Late 2014 and newer
• iMac: Late 2015 and newer
• iMac Pro: Late 2017
• Mac Pro: Late 2013 and newer

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Monterey

 

It's also not like we've seen radical improvements in CPU performance in over a decade, and I'm willing to bet we won't see a massive jump in the next few years either. 

 

For the vast majority of people, they're not going to notice the difference between Windows running on a 6th gen i7 or an 11th gen i7. 

 

My issue isn't with the security requirements, it's MS hardcapping them and then acting all shocked when people got pissed. 

 

It's like when they launched the Xbox One with the online requirements and then couldn't figure out why people were pissed. 

 

I'd be furious if I bought a Surface Studio 2 this year and found out that it couldn't be upgraded to the latest version of Windows.

[Chris Pratt]

3 minutes ago, linkboy said:

 

Apple actually has pretty good legacy support. Monteray supports the following systems:

• MacBook: Early 2016 and newer
• MacBook Air: Early 2015 and newer
• MacBook Pro: Early 2015 and newer
• Mac Mini: Late 2014 and newer
• iMac: Late 2015 and newer
• iMac Pro: Late 2017
• Mac Pro: Late 2013 and newer

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Monterey

 

It's also not like we've seen radical improvements in CPU performance in over a decade, and I'm willing to bet we won't see a massive jump in the next few years either. 

 

For the vast majority of people, they're not going to notice the difference between Windows running on a 6th gen i7 or an 11th gen i7. 

 

My issue isn't with the security requirements, it's MS hardcapping them and then acting all shocked when people got pissed. 

 

It's like when they launched the Xbox One with the online requirements and then couldn't figure out why people were pissed. 

 

I'd be furious if I bought a Surface Studio 2 this year and found out that it couldn't be upgraded to the latest version of Windows.

And that's still not over a decade, which was my point.

[linkboy]

25 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

And that's still not over a decade, which was my point.

It's still better then the three (Windows 11 CPU requirements) or 3 1/2 (Windows 10 EOL) that Microsoft is offering. 

 

I'd be less upset if Windows 11 was a new OS, but it's not. It's Windows 10, with a fresh coat of paint, enforcing some security requirements they've required on the server side for a few years now. 

 

 

[Chris Pratt]

9 minutes ago, linkboy said:

It's still better then the three (Windows 11 CPU requirements) or four (Windows 10 EOL) that Microsoft is offering. 

 

I'd be less upset if Windows 11 was a new OS, but it's not. It's Windows 10, with a fresh coat of paint, enforcing some security requirements they've required on the server side for a few years now. 

 

 

Two things:

 

1. Like I said, 8th gen is a little stringent. I could see adding 6th and 7th gen as a totally acceptable compromise.

 

2. It's not just about the security. That's the stated reason, but there's much more to it than that. Any hardware you officially support, you own. Every update needs to be tested, every new feature must work across the board.

 

While the whole last Windows ever thing didn't work out for Windows 10, the design philosophy Microsoft took to Windows has. It is and will continue to be iterative. Windows 11 may mostly be a "coat of paint" (although there are documented deeper features), but that's the baseline. Where they take Windows 11 over the course of the next 10 years of its life is going to be dictated by the baggage they hitch to it at the beginning. They can't just release an update in a few years that orphans hardware they said they would support.

 

That's in fact the reason why it's Windows 11 in the first place and not just another Windows 10 update. It allows them to re-zero on the supported hardware.

 

[LAwLz]

My issue with this entire thing isn't the system requirements. It's Microsoft complete and utter lack of transparency for WHY the system requirements are the way they are. 

 

If there is a legitimate technical (technical reasons are the only legitimate reasons in my mind) then tell us. If there isn't a technical reason for the requirements then just come out and tell us "sorry but we want you to buy a new pc so we make more money". 

[YoungBlade]

4 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

2. It's not just about the security. That's the stated reason, but there's much more to it than that. Any hardware you officially support, you own. Every update needs to be tested, every new feature must work across the board.

Yes, any hardware you officially support, but I don't think users of old Sandy Bridge systems are expecting official Microsoft support, they just want the ability to upgrade to Windows 11. If Microsoft was just planning to not make the upgrade automatic on systems older than 2017, that's fine. The problem is that it's looking like at best you'll have to jump through hoops to get an old computer to work, and at worst, Microsoft will find a way to artificially lock out such systems.

 

This isn't like when you try to launch a new game and it fails to work because your CPU or GPU doesn't have the right features - that's understandable. This is like when a game maker decides to code the game to not work if it detects a piece of old hardware, even if that hardware is perfectly capable of running it. I don't know any other way to put it: that's a dick move.

 

Decisions like this are why I've resolved to never run Windows again on my laptops. If you aren't gaming (or using other specialized software) Linux is just better in every way, because it doesn't do things like that. It's my computer. I should be allowed to do what I want with it. Linux lets me use my computer how I want, while Windows 10 fights me on that at every step. I'm not even allowed to use my preferred browser without every second Windows Update generating a stupid "please try Edge" pop-up, which I thought was the sort of thing found to be illegal in US vs MS, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

It looks like Windows 11 will be even worse than Windows 10 in regards to user freedom, which is just sad. It makes me miss Windows 8, which is something I honestly didn't expect...

[linkboy]

53 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

My issue with this entire thing isn't the system requirements. It's Microsoft complete and utter lack of transparency for WHY the system requirements are the way they are. 

 

If there is a legitimate technical (technical reasons are the only legitimate reasons in my mind) then tell us. If there isn't a technical reason for the requirements then just come out and tell us "sorry but we want you to buy a new pc so we make more money". 

This is my issue as well. 

 

I don't even think it's a "we want you to buy a new "sorry but we want you to buy a new pc so we make more money" since MS is still selling the $3,500 Surface Studio 2, which isn't supported due to its 7th gen i7 processor. 

 

It really does remind me of the whole issue with the Xbox One and it's online requirements at E3. 

 

They were so totally blindsided at the reaction to that, and had no clue that people would be pissed. Major Nelson and Don Mattrick were try to salvage that disaster that was tone deaf as hell.

 

The windows team was totally blindsided by the reaction they got to the system requirements. I really do think they just expected people to just go, OK, sounds good, just like MS expected people to just go, OK, with the Xbox One requirements and they were blindsided when people called them on both situations. 

 

MS can scream security all they want, but the fact that the OS is running perfectly fine on older hardware (if runs beautifully on my P50) is going to make people call BS on whatever MS says. 

 

You only get one chance to make a good first impression, and MS fumbled that in amazing fashion. 

 

That's the narrative that Windows 11 will carry, and there's nothing MS can do to change it, just like the stigma the Xbox One carried through its life. 

[Salv8 (sam)]

3 hours ago, TetraSky said:

We have people with 10 year old machines today complaining about this. Their computers will be 15 years old. It's time for an upgrade at that point. Sorry not sorry.

and there are people who fucking can't upgrade due to reasons beyond their control.

it's unfair to them that their computer can run 10 and not 11 even though it's just 10 with a lick of paint.

they don't have that option, they don't have the money to buy a new computer.

and before you say 'BuT lInUx', guess what, most people aren't us, if something goes wrong in a linux install, it's up to the user to figure it out, most linux distros don't have inbuilt troubleshooting tools for the user to easily diagnose issues, if it breaks the user is expected to fix it.
people want to use shit they are familiar with, not a new bloody distro that has the ability to break if ya look at it wrong.

i have friends who have no option but to keep using their computer from 2010 that they got on gumtree for $100 5 years ago, the fact microshit rode in and said 'no windows 10.1 for you!' is fucking bullshit, who are they to assume that this person has the option to upgrade, who are they to assume that they can fucking afford a new computer that has bullshit requirements. if 10 can fucking run on a core2quad so can 11.

with more people becoming unemployed and being unable to upgrade to stay safe we need software that can run on MORE devices, not less.
it's intentional planned obsolecence and you can't convince me otherwise.

[Chris Pratt]

51 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Yes, any hardware you officially support, but I don't think users of old Sandy Bridge systems are expecting official Microsoft support, they just want the ability to upgrade to Windows 11. If Microsoft was just planning to not make the upgrade automatic on systems older than 2017, that's fine. The problem is that it's looking like at best you'll have to jump through hoops to get an old computer to work, and at worst, Microsoft will find a way to artificially lock out such systems.

 

This isn't like when you try to launch a new game and it fails to work because your CPU or GPU doesn't have the right features - that's understandable. This is like when a game maker decides to code the game to not work if it detects a piece of old hardware, even if that hardware is perfectly capable of running it. I don't know any other way to put it: that's a dick move.

 

Decisions like this are why I've resolved to never run Windows again on my laptops. If you aren't gaming (or using other specialized software) Linux is just better in every way, because it doesn't do things like that. It's my computer. I should be allowed to do what I want with it. Linux lets me use my computer how I want, while Windows 10 fights me on that at every step. I'm not even allowed to use my preferred browser without every second Windows Update generating a stupid "please try Edge" pop-up, which I thought was the sort of thing found to be illegal in US vs MS, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

It looks like Windows 11 will be even worse than Windows 10 in regards to user freedom, which is just sad. It makes me miss Windows 8, which is something I honestly didn't expect...

I don't know. Maybe I'm just happily living in the walled garden. I've never felt like Windows was infringing on my freedoms though. Would I prefer not to be prompted to use Edge/Bing/whatever? Sure, but Microsoft is no different than anyone else there. I actually do choose to use Edge, and Google constantly prompts me to switch to Chrome.

 

Linux is always held up as the shining example of perfection, but my personal experience has been anything but. It's not worse than Windows by any measure, but the issues are just different, not non-existent. I've ran Mac OS, Linux, and Windows at various times and nothing has ever worked better for both my work and play than Windows. To each his own, though.

 

Back to the central issue, there was been no indication that the experience with Windows 11 will be anything different than what you described, though. I believe there was an issue bypassing the hardware check on the unofficial ISO, but that's prerelease, and early prerelease at that, since even the first alpha out of the dev ring had massive changes. The Windows 10 installer lets you bypass the hardware check, and there's no reason to believe that Windows 11 won't do the same.

 

All we're talking about is official support here. If you want to go Wild West and run it on a Core 2 Duo or something, go for it. That's all on you at that point, though.

 

[samcool55]

I am mainly salty about the fact my r5 1600 will be useless.

i know I still have 4 years to go but even then I REALLY doubt if it won't be enough for some daily use.

If you just wanna browse the web, watch youtube video's and other basic stuff, a 6-core is probably still more than enough in 4 years.

But nope, I will either have to sneak my way around the minefield or go linux..

 

Also, why is that TPM suddenly so important? It goes completely to waste on home systems right now anyway because there's no use for it, so it makes sense nobody cared about them on the consumer side. I mean bitlocker on windows 10 Home? Not available...

 

 

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, linkboy said:

What good is raising the bar for OS security if the vast majority of people aren't going to be able to upgrade their OS to take advantage of said security? More machines are going to be on Windows 10 then 11 for the conceivable future (and even after the Windows 10 reaches end of life). 

 

People aren't going to buy a new computer for Windows 11 if the existing one(s) they have works perfectly fine. 

 

Here's what Microsoft should be doing. 

 

Require OEMs to ship new computers with the VBS/Hvci requirements enabled, but still allow people to upgrade if their computers meet the minimum requirements (minus the vbs/hvci requirements). As time moves on, people will upgrade their computers to newer ones that support the newer security requirements, or they'll upgrade their hardware, as people usually do, and they'll meet the requirements. 

 

This is something that should be introduced gradually, not kneecaping a bunch of perfectly fine computers that meet the general need of the average computer user. 

7th gen Intel systems were shipped in 3rd quarter of 2016. Windows 10 EOL date is Oct 14, 2025. So even if you can't upgrade to Windows 11, you still get 9 YEARS of useful life out of the system running Windows 10 with security updates. And while you could run them past that time, I wouldn't recommend it; I'd look into replacing the hardware at that point anyways in terms of reliability (warranty), performance, and security features.

8th gen Intel systems were shipped in 3rd quarter of 2017. So by now most newer PCs and laptops within the last three (soon to be four) years will be eligible for Windows 11.

As for shipping VBS/HVCI enabled by default, Core Isolation is enabled on system starting with builds 1809 and if they meet the HW requirements. If you had a prior build installed, you have to manually enable it yourself.

 

So, is MS kneecapping? Yes, yes they are. But I think it's justifiable. But the problem here bad PR in communications and lack of transparency as to the justifications behind it. But purely from a cyber security aspect of things, I agree with Microsoft's position at a technical aspect even if they're botching the whole PR behind it.

[Vishera]

Quote

"tone deaf"

Microsoft's second name since  Windows 8 was released.

 

They pretty much act according to their "divine" vision of how Windows should be.

[TetraSky]

35 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

I am mainly salty about the fact my r5 1600 will be useless.

It won't be "useless". You can still use Windows 10 even after the EOL.

People seems to think EOL means the OS just bricks itself or something.

You simply won't receive new security update and there will be a notice that you will more than likely be able to dismiss saying it's time to upgrade. Nothing will prevent you from still using it until games, softwares and what not finally drops support for the OS itself. Which should take a while for most of them. It's mostly new driver support that will hit the highway first.

 

But chances are, they will still release said security updates, either for enterprise or for Windows 11, that are compatible with Windows 10 and someone will port them over for the public to use. The same way XP was still updated and got an unofficial Service Pack 4 and how even Windows 7 gets updated once in a while still

https://www.techradar.com/news/if-youre-still-using-windows-7-download-this-patch-now
https://blog.0patch.com/2019/09/keeping-windows-7-and-windows-server.html

 

And then, you can also just use Pop OS or some other "gaming" flavored Linux distro and be more than happy with that.

Yes it sucks. But keep in mind that your computer will be around 9 years old by the time Windows 10 reach EOL. Which is already a long time all things considered when it comes to computers. Even more so considering CPU tech is FINALLY moving forward rapidly these days and won't stagnate at 5~10% IPC boost per generations for 10 years like it previously did before first gen Ryzen.

 

Also you could probably get a dirt cheap second or third gen ryzen in a few years from now if you wanted to, just to get that Win11 compatibility.

[Pyxlwuff]

48 minutes ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

and there are people who fucking can't upgrade due to reasons beyond their control.

it's unfair to them that their computer can run 10 and not 11 even though it's just 10 with a lick of paint.

they don't have that option, they don't have the money to buy a new computer.

and before you say 'BuT lInUx', guess what, most people aren't us, if something goes wrong in a linux install, it's up to the user to figure it out, most linux distros don't have inbuilt troubleshooting tools for the user to easily diagnose issues, if it breaks the user is expected to fix it.
people want to use shit they are familiar with, not a new bloody distro that has the ability to break if ya look at it wrong.

i have friends who have no option but to keep using their computer from 2010 that they got on gumtree for $100 5 years ago, the fact microshit rode in and said 'no windows 10.1 for you!' is fucking bullshit, who are they to assume that this person has the option to upgrade, who are they to assume that they can fucking afford a new computer that has bullshit requirements. if 10 can fucking run on a core2quad so can 11.

with more people becoming unemployed and being unable to upgrade to stay safe we need software that can run on MORE devices, not less.
it's intentional planned obsolecence and you can't convince me otherwise.

This is exactly the situation I'm in right now which is why I have such strong opinions over MS' deliberate kneecapping of perfectly capable machines. As a student about to enter university in the UK, how do they expect me, let alone many millions of people who would've been displaced because of the current economic situation be able to go "lol ok" and roll up to their local PC store to buy a "compatible" machine? My school that I just left is in no better position as well, still using HP Compaq's from the Core 2 era. Chances are there are many businesses and schools that'll suddenly have incompatible hardware where security and staying up to date is very much a high priority, and i'm not sure many places will have the budget to get brand new machines that are "compatible" by the time Windows 10 officially reaches EOL.

 

While chances are i'll be able to get round to doing a full spec replacement in the next couple years with an actual income or so, I can't say the same for others who will find themselves in this situation suddenly thrown to the side with perfectly good hardware.

[That Franc]

10 hours ago, Pyxlwuff said:

While it's fine for those who are able to get a TPM module for their machine or have an OEM pre-built that has it already, for those who custom-build with perfectly capable machines, who until recently had never heard of such a chip which is suddenly being scalped for hundreds of dollars it's a massive kick in the stomach.

 

I am still pretty sure firmware TPM, abbreviated fTPM, is an option on most reasonably modern machines, and it's accepted by Windows 11 on the same terms as physical TPM chips.

 

For older machines - well, luckily this time around Microsoft is not only not forcing you to upgrade, they give a chance to downgrade should you upgrade and not like it.

 

I think for this round they are being substantially more ethical, all things considered. Besides, you know just as well as myself that most people that are complaining about it right now would just keep on rocking their Windows 7 installs anyway =P

[That Franc]

Also hey, the argument in favour of Linux is the strongest it's ever been!

Between all these new exciting Debian clones coming out and the Gabe Gear sporting an Arch install for gaming of all things, there's now a ridiculously low amount of reasons not to ditch Microsoft entirely.

[Pyxlwuff]

13 minutes ago, That Franc said:

I am still pretty sure firmware TPM, abbreviated fTPM, is an option on most reasonably modern machines, and it's accepted by Windows 11 on the same terms as physical TPM chips.

 

The initial announcement was still quite the mess as very few people knew what it was before then let alone how to turn it on. While that ship has sailed the rest of the compatibility discussion / mess is still a big issue imo

 

7 minutes ago, That Franc said:

Also hey, the argument in favour of Linux is the strongest it's ever been!

 

Yeah true lol

I was running 11 in a KVM with GPU Passthrough before but a bug with Ubuntu 20.04's sound drivers has unfortunately pushed me back to the windows side for now until the 22.04 LTS or so

[linkboy]

4 hours ago, StDragon said:

7th gen Intel systems were shipped in 3rd quarter of 2016. Windows 10 EOL date is Oct 14, 2025. So even if you can't upgrade to Windows 11, you still get 9 YEARS of useful life out of the system running Windows 10 with security updates. And while you could run them past that time, I wouldn't recommend it; I'd look into replacing the hardware at that point anyways in terms of reliability (warranty), performance, and security features.

8th gen Intel systems were shipped in 3rd quarter of 2017. So by now most newer PCs and laptops within the last three (soon to be four) years will be eligible for Windows 11.

As for shipping VBS/HVCI enabled by default, Core Isolation is enabled on system starting with builds 1809 and if they meet the HW requirements. If you had a prior build installed, you have to manually enable it yourself.

 

So, is MS kneecapping? Yes, yes they are. But I think it's justifiable. But the problem here bad PR in communications and lack of transparency as to the justifications behind it. But purely from a cyber security aspect of things, I agree with Microsoft's position at a technical aspect even if they're botching the whole PR behind it.

Microsoft is, right now, selling a computer (Surface Studio 2)with a 7th gen Intel chip for $3,500.

 

Sure, it's a computer for a specific user, but people have bought this computer in 2020 and 2021 and Microsoft is telling these people that their computer that they just bought new isn't eligible to upgrade to the latest version of Windows. That's ridiculous, no matter how MS tries to justify it. 

 

It's not just an issue of the age of the processor. Systems with older processors are being still being new sold in markets around the world (especially in poorer markets). People in these markets also hold onto their computers longer because they straight up can't afford to replace it. 

 

My entire issue with this situation isn't the security requirements, I'm in support of that, it's the hard cap.

 

Yes, Windows 10 is being supported until 2025, but the newer requirements for Windows 11 can only work if people are upgrading to the OS. If more people are staying on Windows 10 (which will happen due if 11's requirements hold), then the security requirements aren't applying to the vast majority of people. 

 

The adoption rate of Windows 11 is going to be behind Windows 10 for years. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 still has a higher adoption rate in 2025 then Windows 11.

 

That's going to be a problem for Microsoft since the security requirements they're pushing for aren't being taken advantage of by the bulk of their OS users. 

 

What are they going to do if there are more users on 10 then 11 come 2025. Are they still going to cut off support, or are they going to extend it. If they extend it, then that's just going to extend the issue. If they cut off support, they're going to piss people off. 

 

I get what Microsoft is trying to do, I just don't think it's the right time to implement something like this, with economies worldwide being what they are, and chip shortages due the pandemic being an issue for the next few years. 

 

The absolute last situation Microsoft wants to find themselves in is a Windows 7/Windows 10 situation again. They're going to want people on the new OS. If 10 still has a bigger install base four years after 11 is released, that's a major issue for Microsoft. 

 

That's the issue they found themselves in with 7 and 10 and why they were so gung-ho about getting everybody on 10.

 

 

[GoodBytes]

6 hours ago, linkboy said:

This is my issue as well. 

 

I don't even think it's a "we want you to buy a new "sorry but we want you to buy a new pc so we make more money" since MS is still selling the $3,500 Surface Studio 2, which isn't supported due to its 7th gen i7 processor. 

 

It really does remind me of the whole issue with the Xbox One and it's online requirements at E3. 

 

They were so totally blindsided at the reaction to that, and had no clue that people would be pissed. Major Nelson and Don Mattrick were try to salvage that disaster that was tone deaf as hell.

 

The windows team was totally blindsided by the reaction they got to the system requirements. I really do think they just expected people to just go, OK, sounds good, just like MS expected people to just go, OK, with the Xbox One requirements and they were blindsided when people called them on both situations. 

 

MS can scream security all they want, but the fact that the OS is running perfectly fine on older hardware (if runs beautifully on my P50) is going to make people call BS on whatever MS says. 

 

You only get one chance to make a good first impression, and MS fumbled that in amazing fashion. 

 

That's the narrative that Windows 11 will carry, and there's nothing MS can do to change it, just like the stigma the Xbox One carried through its life. 

• Virtualisation-Based Security
• Hypervisor-Protected Code Integrity check,
• Control-flow Enforcement.

These are the security technologies that Windows 11 uses on the CPU side.

On 8th gen Intel CPUs and newer and Zen 2 and newer, you have hardware inside which is dedicated to handle the task, so no performance impact (or minimal) occurs. Older CPUs don't. The security systems will still work... however, has a performance impact, which could be notable, all depending on the CPU performance you have. This impact could be really minor, but for you, for your level of standards, it might be "OMG I can't use my system anymore!!!" So, it's off the list.

 

I am no security experts; I don't know if the firmware level security features are less secure for the user than a CPU with the dedicated hardware to perform the task. That could also play a role.

 

But anyway, Microsoft has chosen to avoid a Vista. 

So, I think, Microsoft aims the following:

• System performance must remain the same from Windows 10 (so the CPU needs to have those security hardware enhancement in them)
• Ensured full driver and BIOS/UEFI support from manufactures for all parts (All hardware that the user have will have not only Windows 11 drivers using the latest driver model, but also be properly supported with bug fixes and performance improvements)

This is Microsoft decision. They decided, to have a good image of its OS over usage.

Windows 10 will be supported until 2025 if no extension are done. Microsoft already confirmed that Direct Storage feature will be coming to Windows 10 as well. It won't be a Win11 exclusive feature. 

[WolframaticAlpha]

9 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Not really. At release...

8.0 was bad

8.1 was arguably good

10 was bad

So W11 'should' be good if that cycle was a thing

 

The more MS put these silly restrictions in and the more they turn their OS into a software bundle of unwanted/needed programs and features...and advertisements...the more they will push people to other OS platforms, and the more likely scenario ..to 'acquire' a custom W10/11 OS 'elsewhere'.

7 good

8.x bad

10 mediocre-good

11 - bad