Windows 11 to release on Oct 5th, No Android App support at launch

[thewelshbrummie]

6 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

um. no.

Windows 8 was "Fuck desktops get a surface RT instead"

I never liked 8 or 8.1 on a desktop, its was a joy on my surface RT, though

Windows 8 definitely was Microsoft's attempt to directly compete with the iPad... on basically every device. Which made sense, as I could buy an app on Windows Phone or Desktop and if the app was in both stores I could run it on both with one purchase. 8 wasn't great on desktop. 8.1 really improved and made it reasonable to use on desktop. I used 10 in the same way, full screen start menu and as an app launcher. For games I find the start screen of 8/8.1/10 to be completely agnostic, doesn't matter if the game comes from Steam/EA/Microsoft itself, I can just pin it to the start menu and launch it and the game will run. I don't have to go to the correct store app to find it. The nice thing 10 really did was to change MS Store apps into being windowed like any other app, with the desktop returning to effectively the standard workspace vs the Win8/8.1 approach of treating the desktop as an app.

 

The Start menu is where Win 11 is a let-down for me. You can't pin anything like the number of apps or games to the start menu without having to scroll, and the complete removal of folders from the pinned app section is a pain (you can stack tiles on Win 10 into single level only folders which really helps). I generally like the other changes in 11 but the Start Menu is terrible when compared to what we've had before.

6 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Yet, people are calling the end of the world because their old system isn't compatible for it, and act as if on Oct 5h everyone on the planet will throw away their computers and buy a new one. Even its big features new Store, WSLg, and DirectStorage, are coming to Windows 10. Heck, DirectStorage isn't' even out for WIn11 yet, and we need games that will use it. Personally, I expect that by 2024-2025 Windows 11 will be worthwhile to upgrade. In the meantime, Windows 10 is supported until end of 2025. Most people would normally upgrade their system by then in any case.

The point you've missed is for people like myself who prefer to have the same OS on everything. Win 11 messes with that in long run, especially after Microsoft didn't make any corrections to the "Windows 10 is the last version of Windows" statement and implied that it was the general idea when Win 10 launched. I've made purchase decisions in part on the idea that there wasn't going to be a Windows 11 - most of my devices won't officially run it.

 

I'm in a position where my new desktop will take Windows 11 without issue. My laptop won't, despite coming with OG Windows 10. However my just turned 3 year old Surface Go only has another 4 years of support as it doesn't support Windows 11. The Surface RT I own will get OS support for another 2 years, or 11 total! Yet I'm supposed to accept that my Surface Go won't be secure after 7? I also have an Intel Compute Stick that also won't take Win 11 purchased 2 years ago, based on the Skylake m3. I'll have 6 years of supported use out of it - which is terrible compared to how Microsoft have done this in the past.

 

This is my problem. I can't think of a computer that only ever supported one version of Windows only but that Microsoft is completely happy doing that now. Remember that they weren't originally going to support Win 7/8 on Skylake and officially don't on Kaby Lake - so only versions of Windows 10 are officially supported on Kaby Lake CPUs, nothing before or after. That's not great imo.

 

I don't mind too much withthe laptop as it's not in great shape thanks to having travelled a massive distance (UK>Australia and back, UK>USA twice) but I always thought that should Microsoft release a replacement for 10, my laptop would support it. Since XP every version of Windows has had at least 10 years of security updates and every PC (certainly every desktop) has had driver support for at least 2 versions of Windows, for around 13 years of support total. That is why this stings, 7 years total for my Surface Go just isn't great in comparison imo.

 

As for Win 11 on my gaming rig I'll see how it plays out. I have a spare nvme drive so I'm trying it out natively on that. Apart from the Start Menu it's pretty nice, but I guess I'm happy to wait until Android support is sorted out as that's the only thing I can see that will interest me into upgrading. I'm certainly not in any rush.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A general point though, is that it's likely to hurt those who can't really afford upgrades the most...I would actually argue for the average user, modern CPU specs really haven't made much of a difference to daily driving use for quite some time now.

Yea I can see where you are coming from here but I still think it has no real effect though. Irrespective of Windows 11 requirements sticking both with the hardware they have and the current operating system they have is the most likely outcome. Many aren't simply happy to run with an OS out of support they can more often just not be aware at all.

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Computer sales are mostly I think being generated by business as well, as the cycle of hardware refreshes is a thing.

Probably but also a little hard to say. Laptop sales have been the larger slice of PC sales for quite a while and that was before the big push for mobile workers etc so would have been quite a large share of retail consumers buying and I doubt that has changed much. Education also drives quite a bit of sales too, students at school and college/university. Here the govt gives $1000 for course related costs which you're aloud to spend on a computer so that's mostly commonly where it goes, it's a pretty nice way to get a decent laptop upgrade subsidized 

 

I would point towards Apple as an example of consumer sales being very strong, I would say a higher percentage of their sales is consumer rather than business than the other brands but they do also sell quite a bit less overall in total.

 

So if we're talking 300 million computers per year I would be quite comfortable to say 100 to 150 million of those are consumer sales and not business and pretty much all market analysts back this up with BYOD sales analysis data and business surveying. 

 

What I was more getting at is that it goes both ways, or many ways, but one thing it is not is Windows 11 being designed to increase PC sales. It is not simply enough to point to people that keep their computers a long time, that's well understood, where there is no good evidence is how that relates to Windows 11 hardware requirements. I'm not about to go upgrade me grandparents PC to Windows 11 which they got in like 2006-2010 even if it would run Windows 11 perfectly well and they don't need a new one either, not yet anyway.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I do think the cut support for older CPUs is because they want to drive hardware sales further. I mean, I think "they already sell well" doesn't disprove anything. That same argument could be used for things we already know have planned obsolescence, because apparently a company has never been interested in selling more products. 

And it just as equally applies to people like yourself claiming that it is for driving PC sales. You're going to need A LOT better arguments than people keeping devices a long time. I have no objections to people thinking this it's just that none of the reasons being given out are really all that convincing. I'm predicting status qou and nothing more or less than that.

 

I agree with all these types of points right up un till "and this is why Windows 11 was designed to increase PC sales". It's just this part I don't think is true.

 

We are dealing solely with Microsoft's Windows OEM revenue here, which they don't break down very well and give hard numbers to what this actually is and it's bundle in to overall Windows revenue which includes Commercial Windows licensing. With how much an OEM Windows license is compared to yearly Windows Volume license (which requires a base OEM license btw) I would have to say the majority of the Windows revenue comes from commercial licensing. Windows revenue isn't even a third of Microsoft's overall revenue anyway and growth wise it's extremely poor compared to their other business areas, Microsoft's business strategy is in completely different area right now.

 

So if it's got little to do with Microsoft's Windows revenue then I find it laughable that it's some kind of collusion or agreement with PC manufacturers to increase their sales, not only do they need no help in this area they aren't even able to sell more than what they do already.

[Master Disaster]

Its funny to read through 3 pages and seeing the sheer amount of "Android support was only shown as a selling point" comments...

 

Fun fact: MS don't really sell Windows to home users any more, sure they probably do still sell some but the vast majority of home users who are eligible to run 11 will get it as a free upgrade. The only people who are bulk buying Windows these days are OEMs and datacentres.

 

kinda hard to tout a feature as a selling point when the market you touted it at doesn't really buy the product anymore.

[RedRound2]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its funny to read through 3 pages and seeing the sheer amount of "Android support was only shown as a selling point" comments...

 

Fun fact: MS don't really sell Windows to home users any more, sure they probably do still sell some but the vast majority of home users who are eligible to run 11 will get it as a free upgrade. The only people who are bulk buying Windows these days are OEMs and datacentres.

 

kinda hard to tout a feature as a selling point when the market you touted it at doesn't really buy the product anymore.

That's true. People who are eligibile to upgrade have it as a free upgrade and doesn't really have the right to complain much. I for one, like Windows 11 and can't wait to upgrade (but then again I like all new OS releases and usually always gets hit with OCD if something isn't updated to the latest version)

 

Most of the distaste against Microsoft comes from the artifical limitations on older platforms and the general shoddy nature of Microsoft releases. But from an objective perspective it's a free upgrade and that's it

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Most of the distaste against Microsoft comes from the artifical limitations on older platforms and the general shoddy nature of Microsoft releases.

Not to mention shady practices....

[Blademaster91]

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Not to mention shady practices....

I think ads in windows 10, and pushing users to use Edge seems shady. I'd switch to Linux completely if it had better game compatibility, maybe Steam Deck could help with that, and with the prices of GPU's, console gaming makes more sense IMO.

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think ads in windows 10, and pushing users to use Edge seems shady.

That and their habit of sneaking in things under the rug hoping no-one will notice them.

 

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'd switch to Linux completely if it had better game compatibility

Its a bit off-topic but its quite good already:
https://www.protondb.com/

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

And it just as equally applies to people like yourself claiming that it is for driving PC sales. You're going to need A LOT better arguments than people keeping devices a long time. I have no objections to people thinking this it's just that none of the reasons being given out are really all that convincing. I'm predicting status qou and nothing more or less than that.

 

I agree with all these types of points right up un till "and this is why Windows 11 was designed to increase PC sales". It's just this part I don't think is true.

 

We are dealing solely with Microsoft's Windows OEM revenue here, which they don't break down very well and give hard numbers to what this actually is and it's bundle in to overall Windows revenue which includes Commercial Windows licensing. With how much an OEM Windows license is compared to yearly Windows Volume license (which requires a base OEM license btw) I would have to say the majority of the Windows revenue comes from commercial licensing. Windows revenue isn't even a third of Microsoft's overall revenue anyway and growth wise it's extremely poor compared to their other business areas, Microsoft's business strategy is in completely different area right now.

 

So if it's got little to do with Microsoft's Windows revenue then I find it laughable that it's some kind of collusion or agreement with PC manufacturers to increase their sales, not only do they need no help in this area they aren't even able to sell more than what they do already.

Well can you really blame me for assuming it is for monetary reasons they cut support? I really can't think of a single other reason for why they are cutting support. Absolutely zero, and I am really trying.

Make support easier? Can't be that because Windows isn't written for some specific CPUs. If it works on one CPU then it works on all, to some degree. In fact, Microsoft are actively having to dedicate manhours to making sure it DOESN'T work on certain CPUs. It would be cheaper for Microsoft to make it work on all CPUs than on a particular set of CPUs. Not only that, but they aren't cutting support for the things we do know have caused issues with Windows 10. Things like some networking components, some GPUs, etc. You know, things that actually require drivers (which are the cause of the issues). CPUs don't need drivers because they are generic by nature. 

 

It ensures a particular experience for users? That argument doesn't hold water either since they will allow it to work on for example some Atom processors, but not high end Ryzen processors. They allow it to work on low end i3 processors but not high end i7 processors from the year before.

 

What other reason could it be? You have to admit that cutting support for everything but really new computers will result in some increase in sales. There will be at least some people who will think "oh, my computer can't run Windows 11? I guess it's time to upgrade it".

 

There must be a reason why Microsoft made this change, and right now I can't find any. If you can't think of a reason for a change, but one of the "side effects" is that it might result in more sales, then chances are pretty high that that's the main reason for the change.

 

Also, you're once again resorting to the flawed logic that "sales are already good so why would they want more sales?". Of course they want more sales. Just because they can't keep up with demand doesn't mean things will stay the same forever. Why do you think they are rushing it out just in time for the holiday season? Because it has to do with sales. If it didn't have anything to do with sales like you claim, then why are Microsoft releasing it to begin with, and why are they rushing it out?

 

 

[KaitouX]

3 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

That's true. People who are eligibile to upgrade have it as a free upgrade and doesn't really have the right to complain much. I for one, like Windows 11 and can't wait to upgrade (but then again I like all new OS releases and usually always gets hit with OCD if something isn't updated to the latest version)

 

Most of the distaste against Microsoft comes from the artifical limitations on older platforms and the general shoddy nature of Microsoft releases. But from an objective perspective it's a free upgrade and that's it

One issue is that that free "upgrade" comes with the likely lack of support to the older version. And I personally don't see it as an upgrade, there are somethings nice things in general, but the UI in particular is a downgrade for me, along with more dumb things trying to force me to use Microsoft shitty applications.

 

 

I just hope Windows 10 also receives the necessary optimizations for the upcoming hybrid architectures from Intel and likely AMD.

 

bit off topic, but today Windows 10 blocked me from going to the desktop normally asking to set up Windows with the only options being "Next" and "Remind Me in 3 Days", and when I clicked next it asked to make Edge the default Browser, which I obviously declined, then it went to load the desktop. WTF is this? Did this happen to someone else here? The push for Edge everywhere in the settings was already annoying but this is another level.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

There must be a reason why Microsoft made this change, and right now I can't find any. If you can't think of a reason for a change, but one of the "side effects" is that it might result in more sales, then chances are pretty high that that's the main reason for the change.

Then I'd point you to Microsoft statement on Windows 11 stability data from the Insider Program where older generation CPUs that lack their desired hardware features are, according to their data, less stable.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Also, you're once again resorting to the flawed logic that "sales are already good so why would they want more sales?". Of course they want more sales. Just because they can't keep up with demand doesn't mean things will stay the same forever. Why do you think they are rushing it out just in time for the holiday season? Because it has to do with sales. If it didn't have anything to do with sales like you claim, then why are Microsoft releasing it to begin with, and why are they rushing it out?

No it's not flawed, it's in fact vastly better logic than what you are using. My logic is using that data and looking at the industry and determining that there will be absolutely no change, prove me wrong or come up with better evidence as to why you think you are correct. All the points provided are really good arguments for the position that people will not be upgrading to Windows 11 or the Windows 11 uptake will be slow, not that Windows 11 will cause an increase in sale above any other release of a new version of Windows.

 

Like I'll acklowdge your opinion on this, I can see where you are coming from, I just don't agree with it.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

then why are Microsoft releasing it to begin with, and why are they rushing it out?

Who says they are? And if they are I would point to an agreement with Intel to have Windows ready for Alder Lake and that was chosen to be Windows 11.

[Lurick]

5 hours ago, thewelshbrummie said:

I'm in a position where my new desktop will take Windows 11 without issue. My laptop won't, despite coming with OG Windows 10. However my just turned 3 year old Surface Go only has another 4 years of support as it doesn't support Windows 11. The Surface RT I own will get OS support for another 2 years, or 11 total! Yet I'm supposed to accept that my Surface Go won't be secure after 7? I also have an Intel Compute Stick that also won't take Win 11 purchased 2 years ago, based on the Skylake m3. I'll have 6 years of supported use out of it - which is terrible compared to how Microsoft have done this in the past.

Microsoft NEVER made any official statement about this, ever. If you can find an OFFICIAL statement from them please post it but every time you dig into the statement it's nothing more than a comment made by one person unofficially off hand.

[WolframaticAlpha]

23 hours ago, Techstorm970 said:

 

*Windows 7 releases* "Fuck Apple!"

*Windows 8 releases* "Fuck mobile devices!"

*Windows 10 releases* "Fuck Apple!"

*Windows 11 releases* "Fuck everything!"

Some microsoft exec must have read about the steve jobs reality distortion field, misinterpreted it, and then told his employees "fuck reality".

 

 

And then the employees took him seriously.

[RedRound2]

1 hour ago, KaitouX said:

One issue is that that free "upgrade" comes with the likely lack of support to the older version. And I personally don't see it as an upgrade, there are somethings nice things in general, but the UI in particular is a downgrade for me, along with more dumb things trying to force me to use Microsoft shitty applications.

Could your repluse for the UI just based on the natural response of things just changing? I personally see it as a fresh coat of paint for a OS that has looked same for many years. And that's why im personally excited for it. And the changes themselves aren't too drastic, so I think most people will get used to it few days.

 

I ignore all of microsoft's application and the same is going to happen with teams.

 

And in regards to lack of support, that's actually one thing microsoft doesn't really have much control over. It's the applications and buisnesses that sorts of decides what remains compatible with windows 10. That's why Microsoft historically had such a hard time getting users to upgrade. And given how many devices are just going to be stuck at 10, Windows 10 is probably here to stay for these older computers for a long time, possibly even after 2025

1 hour ago, KaitouX said:

I just hope Windows 10 also receives the necessary optimizations for the upcoming hybrid architectures from Intel and likely AMD.

I doubt it. None of the newer hybrid architecture PC will come out of the box with Windows 10, so microsoft has no reason to bring those optimizations to 10.

If they did, that would allow people to downgrade and that wouldn't be in Microsoft's best interest

1 hour ago, KaitouX said:

bit off topic, but today Windows 10 blocked me from going to the desktop normally asking to set up Windows with the only options being "Next" and "Remind Me in 3 Days", and when I clicked next it asked to make Edge the default Browser, which I obviously declined, then it went to load the desktop. WTF is this? Did this happen to someone else here? The push for Edge everywhere in the settings was already annoying but this is another level.

Lol, I think I had a similar thing happen to me. I just saw some feature setup link on the Windows 10 setting header and it took me into this full screen setup wizard, which scared the shit out of

[Quackers101]

Just love a dose of phone malware on my main computer!

[linkboy]

Xda is reporting that Microsoft is starting to remove computers with unsupported CPUs from the Insider Program.

[GoodBytes]

5 minutes ago, linkboy said:

Xda is reporting that Microsoft is starting to remove computers with unsupported CPUs from the Insider Program.

Confirmed on my Lumia 950XL which I installed Win11 on. My desktop (non-UEFI, so no SecureBoot, no TPM, has nothing), first gen Core i7, so obviously completely unsupported, even when Win10 was released, has yet this message.... but I'll seeing later today.

 

I'll be curious on my Surface Pro 3, which doesn't have the CPU, but has SecureBoot, and TPM 2.0

 

 

Based on that I'll do a write up under Win11 Insider thread

[HerrKaLeu]

12 hours ago, Kisai said:

Feature Parity with iOS/MacOS.

You mean iOS also supports android apps and that is why it is a "must have" feature for W11? 

12 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

• Development (Testing)
• Home automation apps
• Use phone only messaging apps with a physical keyboard
• Some apps are only on Android (or iOS) and don't have a web version.

I can see how whattsapp could work better on a PC if you use it a lot. But AFAIK whattsapp is tied to a phone number. So that may or may not work. But this is a policy decision by FB, and they could enable browser operation of whattsapp. I read whattsapp is considering to allow use without phone. 

 

Home automation, you mean someone keeps the PC running 24/7 to run the HVAC system or surveillance cameras?  But if it is a phone app, i assume it is severely limited due to the power requirements of the phone. A PC version could be much better due to the much larger power on a typical PC. and if you run your home HVAC or something else, I assume you want a dedicated machine anyway and that could have whatever OS the software needs. 

 

I see why users of this forum would see a good reason for Android support. But for the generic user (like me , it is a hard argument to make this is a killer feature.  

I for myself probably will use it if I build a new PC, but won't see a need to upgrade from W10 any time soon before W10 dies or MS forces an upgrade. Anyway, thanks for explaining. 

[linkboy]

30 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Confirmed on my Lumia 950XL which I installed Win11 on. My desktop (non-UEFI, so no SecureBoot, no TPM, has nothing), first gen Core i7, so obviously completely unsupported, even when Win10 was released, has yet this message.... but I'll seeing later today.

 

I'll be curious on my Surface Pro 3, which doesn't have the CPU, but has SecureBoot, and TPM 2.0

 

 

Based on that I'll do a write up under Win11 Insider thread

I just checked on my ThinkPad P50 with a 6700HQ Skylake CPU, which meets all of the requirements except for the CPU one, just has the "Your PC does not meet the minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11, and there may be issues and bugs that impact your experience" banner. 

 

This computer has actually ran better with Windows 11 then it ever did with 10 in the year I've had it. 

 

I'm going to be interested in seeing if a Thinkpad P51 with a 7800HQ will be supported and I might just pick up one of those and throw 11 on it. 

 

Those are starting to get into my price range (I try not go over $550/$600 for a computer since I don't really play many games, but I want good build quality, and some upgrade options, which is what drew me to the P50 in the first place). 

[KaitouX]

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Could your repluse for the UI just based on the natural response of things just changing? I personally see it as a fresh coat of paint for a OS that has looked same for many years. And that's why im personally excited for it. And the changes themselves aren't too drastic, so I think most people will get used to it few days.

 

I ignore all of microsoft's application and the same is going to happen with teams.

 

And in regards to lack of support, that's actually one thing microsoft doesn't really have much control over. It's the applications and buisnesses that sorts of decides what remains compatible with windows 10. That's why Microsoft historically had such a hard time getting users to upgrade. And given how many devices are just going to be stuck at 10, Windows 10 is probably here to stay for these older computers for a long time, possibly even after 2025

I doubt it. None of the newer hybrid architecture PC will come out of the box with Windows 10, so microsoft has no reason to bring those optimizations to 10.

If they did, that would allow people to downgrade and that wouldn't be in Microsoft's best interest

Lol, I think I had a similar thing happen to me. I just saw some feature setup link on the Windows 10 setting header and it took me into this full screen setup wizard, which scared the shit out of

Not really, I don't mind change itself, I have used multiple desktop environments on Linux without issues for the most part, only GNOME was really slow in my PC which made it really annoying to use. My issue is mostly with many menus requiring more clicks to get to, lack of customization and removal of features I liked for inferior solutions in my opinion, while bringing no improvements big enough to justify the downgrades for me. And the lack of improvements to the File Explorer is pretty disappointing but this isn't something I really expected to happen anyway.

I also ignore them, but the excessive push for them still gets annoying.

I meant support in the Windows updates side, like direct storage, better hybrid CPUs scheduler, better HDR support. Some of them will be supported on Windows 10, the issue is how well.

While I'm sure they are going to take their sweet time, they might eventually add the improved scheduler for Windows 10. If they don't, that's only another reason to abandon Windows for me, in this case hopefully Microsoft mess up enough to motivate a higher number of users to Linux and force Adobe and other companies to support it properly.

[wanderingfool2]

48 minutes ago, HerrKaLeu said:

I see why users of this forum would see a good reason for Android support. But for the generic user (like me , it is a hard argument to make this is a killer feature.  

I for myself probably will use it if I build a new PC, but won't see a need to upgrade from W10 any time soon before W10 dies or MS forces an upgrade. Anyway, thanks for explaining. 

In this day and age, more and more things are moving away from PC versions and just having a web interface or app as your only option...with the PC version being toned down, or given a lot less support (in my opinion).

 

A real-world example would be that Nest (doorbell camera) would be a lot easier on the PC as well...because my phone is sometimes in another room.

Fit-bit is another example, setting it up for someone who doesn't really use their phone...the PC app is terrible (and while it paired it didn't work)

 

While it isn't a huge selling point for me...I actually do appreciate it being an option.

 

 

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, HerrKaLeu said:

I can see how whattsapp could work better on a PC if you use it a lot. But AFAIK whattsapp is tied to a phone number. So that may or may not work. But this is a policy decision by FB, and they could enable browser operation of whattsapp. I read whattsapp is considering to allow use without phone. 

Typing is easier with a keyboard, then on a phone. So, you can register your account on your phone and use the app on your PC (unless of course your PC has an LTE/5G modem, and you have a SIM card in with an associated phone number and assuming WSA has direct support/access for it on day 1). IN teh case of WhatsApp there is a desktop app, but the phone needs to be connected via Bluetooth, and be nearby for it to work. Not all desktops have Bluetooth, and if your phone is somewhere else, then you'll need to bring it close, and the experience is not really smooth in my experience (but could be my Bluetooth USB module that I use on my desktop). Regardless, some apps don't have a desktop app or web version at all.

 

 

2 hours ago, HerrKaLeu said:

Home automation, you mean someone keeps the PC running 24/7 to run the HVAC system or surveillance cameras?  But if it is a phone app, i assume it is severely limited due to the power requirements of the phone. A PC version could be much better due to the much larger power on a typical PC. and if you run your home HVAC or something else, I assume you want a dedicated machine anyway and that could have whatever OS the software needs. 

Lutron Caseta and the many smart home apps for the army of smart switch that exists.

 

2 hours ago, HerrKaLeu said:

I see why users of this forum would see a good reason for Android support. But for the generic user (like me , it is a hard argument to make this is a killer feature.  

I for myself probably will use it if I build a new PC, but won't see a need to upgrade from W10 any time soon before W10 dies or MS forces an upgrade. Anyway, thanks for explaining. 

It's not a killer feature. It is just a nice feature to have, which could be practical. That is all.

The issue is that for ages, for many people in the world, their PC IS their smartphone. These are the people they can easily justify buying a premium phone every 3 or years, because it is their PC.  They have none at home (or they do, but it is their age-old thing, probably shared by many members of the family). So, app developers, don't bother with a Windows version of their apps and the web version, if any, is nothing more than a second or even third-class citizen "Oh yea, we have our web app to update, for our 3 users on 10 million, that we need to update because marketing dept see it as advantage over our competitor that the consumer sees... yay /s". And most of these web apps aren't even PWA.

 

Now the market is changing / has changed. We will see how it will last. Maybe now that more people got new PCs, working from home is a thing for huge number of people, maybe having a web version of their app or even a native Windows app would be more of as a selling point to users as they won't need to have their phone next to them, they'll just get their app notification from the OS and be able to interact with the apps, fully featured, on their desktop. Or maybe, next month, we are back to the old ways, or no one would care, and people are fine having their phone next to them. 

 

At a personal level, I find checking my phone breaks my flows, so I would like a desktop app, ideally. But this is just me. And I am assuming that the market won't change, so having Android app support on the desktop, for me, is a nice advantage (assuming it work well enough)

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, linkboy said:

I just checked on my ThinkPad P50 with a 6700HQ Skylake CPU, which meets all of the requirements except for the CPU one, just has the "Your PC does not meet the minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11, and there may be issues and bugs that impact your experience" banner. 

 

This computer has actually ran better with Windows 11 then it ever did with 10 in the year I've had it. 

 

I'm going to be interested in seeing if a Thinkpad P51 with a 7800HQ will be supported and I might just pick up one of those and throw 11 on it. 

 

Those are starting to get into my price range (I try not go over $550/$600 for a computer since I don't really play many games, but I want good build quality, and some upgrade options, which is what drew me to the P50 in the first place). 

Same on my SP3, but I always got this message since day 1.
 

 

On my desktop, the message has not changed since day 1, at least not yet:

As it states: "Your device MAY continue to receive Insider Preview Builds until Windows 11 is generally available , at which time it is RECOMMENDED to clean install to Windows 10"

 

On my Lumia 950XL I used to have the message of my desktop... but now it shows the following:

As you can see, it rejects me from the Insider program.

Now the only difference I can pinpoint (assuming my desktop remains in the Insider Program, at least until Win11 is released), is that my Lumia 950XL has gotten its share of BSODs (about once or twice a week), while my desktop had none so far (I did have a BSOD issue under Win10 latest Insider Build before Windows 11, which was corrupting the OS at each reboot, making the situation worse and worse. Which I pinpoint to be my network adapter. I am using a USB 3.0 to 1 Gbps LAN adapter, and disabled my Ethernet controller from teh BSOD as a workarround solution to avoid this BSOD which forced an actual wipe and re-installs of the OS to solve..., so I guess I saved myself from that, if it had any implication in the decision of Windows Insider kick-out process).

 

Now, for me, the Lumia 950XL running Windows 11 (10 before) project, was more for fun. I setup MagicMirror and use it as a second monitor, as I don't have one, to see my upcoming meetings, and act as a remote control for Spotify. Just a side, fun and educational project. Nothing more. Due to the BSODs I already planned to revert back to WIn10 for... less BSODs experience (yea, still happened, due to lack of any 'non-hacked up based on early engineering drivers that was somehow found')

[Not_A_Spider]

App support is the only reason I was considering windows 11 for my tablet, RIP the dream.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Then I'd point you to Microsoft statement on Windows 11 stability data from the Insider Program where older generation CPUs that lack their desired hardware features are, according to their data, less stable.

1) Source?

2) Microsoft published the specifications before they started the Insider Program, so it seems weird for them to justify their requirements with evidence gathered after the announcement. Self fulfilling prophesy? A blatant lie? Who knows.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

No it's not flawed, it's in fact vastly better logic than what you are using. My logic is using that data and looking at the industry and determining that there will be absolutely no change, prove me wrong or come up with better evidence as to why you think you are correct. All the points provided are really good arguments for the position that people will not be upgrading to Windows 11 or the Windows 11 uptake will be slow, not that Windows 11 will cause an increase in sale above any other release of a new version of Windows.

 

Like I'll acklowdge your opinion on this, I can see where you are coming from, I just don't agree with it.

Let me ask you this then.

Do you think that raising hardware requirements has zero impact on the amount of hardware sales? Do you not think that when for example Samsung drops support for their phones, that leads to more hardware sales? Do you not think that companies are interested in having more customers if they already have what you deem is "enough customers" already?

 

Facts are facts. Microsoft has spent time and effort actively blocking people from upgrading to Windows 11. There has to be some reason for it. I can't find any reason for this change other than it might increase sales by pushing some users that were on the fence about upgrading their old PCs over that fence. That's it. No other argument makes sense to me.

 

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Who says they are? And if they are I would point to an agreement with Intel to have Windows ready for Alder Lake and that was chosen to be Windows 11.

If you don't think this is rushed then you clearly haven't used the insider builds. They are very buggy and lack features Microsoft have already said are coming.

If it isn't rushed then they wouldn't have to say that they won't be able to ship it with the features promised.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

2) Microsoft published the specifications before they started the Insider Program, so it seems weird for them to justify their requirements with evidence gathered after the announcement. Self fulfilling prophesy? A blatant lie? Who knows.

„I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.“

—  Winston S. Churchill