Microsoft officially announces Windows 11

[Insert_Nickname]

How is your Haswell system complaining? My VM says it won't install the new build in WU, when you click 'fix it', you get a dialog box that looks like the normal installer says that I'm missing TPM 2.0/Secure Boot. Is your Haswell doing that, or something more obnoxious outside WU too?

It's actually still on 10, after it got booted from the insider program when they changed to 11 builds on the dev channel.

I get a big dialogue box under Windows Update which reads something like "THIS PC DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 11. CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE" in Danish.

Just went in the UEFI on my main box to disable TPM. I don't want that system suddenly deciding installing 11 is a great idea.

This reminds me of the Windows 7 upgrade eligibility shocker (i.e. when they removed the ability to just insert a disc for Windows X-1 or X-2 to clean install Windows X on a blank drive using upgrade media and didn't tell anybody so people discovered this the day the retail upgrades shipped). I think we are in for some unpleasant (but expected by pessimists like me) surprises as we get closer to the final build. And while I know many people are convinced they wouldn't go as far as to block cumulative updates, given how they've explicitly refused to confirm that with every member of the tech media who has asked, I think some people could be in for a nasty surprise when the first CU rolls around in November or whenever.

I hope they are clever enough not to pull a stunt like that. If they do, there will suddenly be many insecure systems out there. Which is bad for everybody.

 

[Ajay]

I guess I need to read up on TPM 2.0 to find out if it will improve Windows security in any meaningful way. IHMO, between the size of the Windows code base, and the ignorance of most users - it won’t.

 

[VivienM]

I hope they are clever enough not to pull a stunt like that. If they do, there will suddenly be many insecure systems out there. Which is bad for everybody.

In all fairness, it won't be many - just whatever enthuasiasts somehow manage to get the new OS installed on unsupported hardware.

But I agree that it's a dangerous idea...

 

[mikeymikec]

MS is a for profit company. I think I’ve finally come to terms with the fact that they need to do what is most profitable for them, not what is most convenient for me.

I don't think it's most profitable for them to leave their customers guessing what might happen next. If you're the technical director of a x thousand PC user corporation and Microsoft gives you the impression that your next big platform upgrade stands a reasonable chance of blowing up in your face, that would give you pause before investing, wouldn't it.

A tech company like Microsoft's ultimate goal should be the mantra "no-one ever got fired for buying <insert our product here>". Instead we have Microsoft actively trying to render perfectly good hardware obsolete for no apparent reason, in 5 years' time we could have Windows 12 and the goalposts moved again (because the last two times they've been moved it made little sense), and overall I think we're seeing a toxic combination of Microsoft not having the foggiest idea what it's long-term plan is and the arrogance to think they can't go wrong (ie. they'll still have a ginormous user base).

Once upon a time we had a new OS approximately every three years: It worked; there wasn't an assumption that you had to be on the latest version of Windows, just not something terribly out of date. Eventually you'd have to upgrade, but then eventually you'd need a new PC, maybe the two will coincide.
Then came Windows 10: "the last version of Windows". Considering the complete paradigm change that was Windows 8 and the flop that was, the idea that MS would suddenly 'settle down' to one version of Windows despite acknowledging the changing hardware landscape in 2012 was a little absurd, but at least the idea that Win10 would be the last version of Windows was an encouraging notion of stability in the Windows market.

---

I just did some googling and it appears that my ASUS Z97 PRO GAMER board can only do TPM 1.2 with a separate module, so I guess it's not going to happen with my current PC.

 

[mikeymikec]

I hope they are clever enough not to pull a stunt like that. If they do, there will suddenly be many insecure systems out there. Which is bad for everybody.

Except for hardware manufacturers. Which is what some have surmised as being the reason for Win11's unusual system requirements.

 

[VivienM]

Once upon a time we had a new OS approximately every three years: It worked; there wasn't an assumption that you had to be on the latest version of Windows, just not something terribly out of date. Eventually you'd have to upgrade, but then eventually you'd need a new PC, maybe the two will coincide.
Then came Windows 10: "the last version of Windows". Considering the complete paradigm change that was Windows 8 and the flop that was, the idea that MS would suddenly 'settle down' to one version of Windows despite acknowledging the changing hardware landscape in 2012 was a little absurd, but at least the idea that Win10 would be the last version of Windows was an encouraging notion of stability in the Windows market.

Yup, and once upon a time, this was related to how good your PC was. Depending on when you bought your PC and how good it was at the time, maybe you could upgrade from Windows X to X+2. Or maybe a lower end PC could only go to X+1 but didn't have anywhere near the RAM/CPU for X+2. Maybe a really high end PC could make it to X+3 though it would probably struggle with X+3 unless you had maxed out its RAM.
This all made sense, and generally it rewarded people with higher-end hardware. You had higher-end hardware? You can hand over your (CAD)$129/249 and buy the new version and run it on your hardware for a couple of years or until something else makes that hardware obsolete. You had low end hardware that was already struggling on your existing version of Windows? Ehh... not so much, time for a new machine.


Windows 11 blows all of that up with their age-based approach. Two-year-old N4050 with 4 gigs of RAM? Supported. Three or four year old i7 7700 with 64 gigs of RAM and TPM 2.0, e-waste.

And that is what is terrifying for future decision making. If I buy a new 12th gen Intel or 4th gen Ryzen to run 11 on, can I presume it will be supported in Windows 12? (If they pick the mid-point hardware between 11 and 12, as they appear to have done here, it might not be) If not, shouldn't I buy cheaper/lower-end hardware that will meet my needs for 3-5 years rather than try to anticipate my needs over a longer term period?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Except for hardware manufacturers. Which is what some have surmised as being the reason for Win11's unusual system requirements.

I'm inclined to agree with them. But then again, MS has tried, and so far failed, to make TPM a hard requirement since Vista. Why this complete 180 out of nowhere? Windows has always sold on being an open platform, so why this sudden change?

I can see how their approach makes sense for laptops, and corporate machines. I'm fine with that. I'd be perfectly fine with this if these requirements were for the Pro/Enterprise version, but they just don't make sense for a consumer version. Nobody I know uses Bitlocker or anything remotely TPM related outside of work.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nobody I know uses Bitlocker or anything remotely TPM related outside of work.

Probably some form of "Enhanced DRM" for streaming media content and games.

It might eliminate "password sharing" among users.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm inclined to agree with them. But then again, MS has tried, and so far failed, to make TPM a hard requirement since Vista. Why this complete 180 out of nowhere? Windows has always sold on being an open platform, so why this sudden change?

I can see how their approach makes sense for laptops, and corporate machines. I'm fine with that. I'd be perfectly fine with this if these requirements were for the Pro/Enterprise version, but they just don't make sense for a consumer version. Nobody I know uses Bitlocker or anything remotely TPM related outside of work.

I don't think it's a sudden change though. UEFI + secure boot was one change to raise the bar on alternate OS's, I think TPM might be the next one. Admittedly I know little about TPM, but I'm wondering if TPM can be used as part of a move to make Windows rental-only and make alternatives very difficult to practically use so MS can say "either you pay us or your PC is a brick".

I think the encrypted-by-default filesystem is part of the same move: dual-booting with an encrypted-by-default Windows C drive is only going to make dual-booters' lives harder.

Coming back to the rental point: I was thinking if Windows on a renting basis potentially opens the market up to competing operating systems (for example, I'd say I successfully persuade 8 out of 10 customers to stop renting Office 365 and move to standalone MSO or LibreOffice), which we can safely say is the opposite of what Microsoft would ever want to do. So, MS needs some insurance against that. It shouldn't be impossible to run alternative operating systems (because then comes a potential monopoly abuse charge), but it it made potentially defecting users' lives harder, that would make sense.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I don't think it's a sudden change though. UEFI + secure boot was one change to raise the bar on alternate OS's, I think TPM might be the next one. Admittedly I know little about TPM, but I'm wondering if TPM can be used as part of a move to make Windows rental-only and make alternatives very difficult to practically use so MS can say "either you pay us or your PC is a brick".

I think the encrypted-by-default filesystem is part of the same move: dual-booting with an encrypted-by-default Windows C drive is only going to make dual-booters' lives harder.

It's not what MS does doesn't make sense, it's that I dislike what it adds up to. Are we going the Apple route with a locked down platform? If so say it out loud, and let people decide if they're okay with it. None of the sneaking stuff in behind everyones back.

Personally, I'd have zero issues using Linux on my desktop. The only place where Windows really is required is gaming, and even that is getting better and better on Linux.

Coming back to the rental point: I was thinking if Windows on a renting basis potentially opens the market up to competing operating systems (for example, I'd say I successfully persuade 8 out of 10 customers to stop renting Office 365 and move to standalone MSO or LibreOffice), which we can safely say is the opposite of what Microsoft would ever want to do. So, MS needs some insurance against that. It shouldn't be impossible to run alternative operating systems (because then comes a potential monopoly abuse charge), but it it made potentially defecting users' lives harder, that would make sense.

To be fair, Office 365 is a reasonable deal for the cloud storage alone. IF you can use it. Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with recommending LibreOffice for casual usage. Or even just use the included Wordpad, it's not that bad as a basic text editor really.

 

[PingSpike]

People have been in pretty strong denial mode about Windows since 8 was released to be honest. No one wants to admit MS is boiling the frog trying to slowly transform it into a mobile style locked down OS. That is their overarching goal which is pretty plain to see. They might leave a backdoor for businesses to run legacy stuff but they'll get there with the home product.

They failed with their store (mostly because they heated the pot up way to fast) but its still there waiting for the right moment to turn up the heat.

I think the TPM will be a requirement to run certain software. Like some kinds of android apps (that's why the emulator is a feature), banking apps, streaming services and the like. Maybe games for their anticheat. And they'll have to run in the Windows store to take advantage of it.

 

[mikeymikec]

People have been in pretty strong denial mode about Windows since 8 was released to be honest. No one wants to admit MS is boiling the frog trying to slowly transform it into a mobile style locked down OS. That is their overarching goal which is pretty plain to see. They might leave a backdoor for businesses to run legacy stuff but they'll get there with the home product.

They failed with their store (mostly because they heated the pot up way to fast) but its still there waiting for the right moment to turn up the heat.

I think the TPM will be a requirement to run certain software. Like some kinds of android apps (that's why the emulator is a feature), banking apps, streaming services and the like. Maybe games for their anticheat. And they'll have to run in the Windows store to take advantage of it.

In your opinion, what's the desired result of all of this, as far as Microsoft is concerned? IMO if it's purely about locking down Windows and getting app store purchases, it leaves the market open for a more open competing OS.

Windows 10 S mode could be seen as a trial run by MS according to your theory, though they gave a very easy way out of it. For me having to install through the store would be an unquestionable show-stopper, there are plenty of apps that I use that I won't find through the store, e.g. all my old games, MS Access 2000, Office 2007, LibreOffice, Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird (though the first two might be available), print/scan software for my 2014 printer (interesting that HP has started unifying their installer with 'HP Smart' app which is available at the store. Print drivers are a common problem requiring typical installer access, and the amount of times I've been saved in my work by being able to install older OS drivers...

A lot of average users would be able to make do with what I'll refer to as 'S mode', but for someone in my line of work it's a supreme pain in the ass (no command prompt for example).

What about Adobe? Would MS want a slice of their cloud service action after mandating Store installer access? I wonder if a lot of software makers will start looking at Linux more seriously if MS decides to be a sufficient pain in the ass.

 

[dlerious]

I don't think it's most profitable for them to leave their customers guessing what might happen next. If you're the technical director of a x thousand PC user corporation and Microsoft gives you the impression that your next big platform upgrade stands a reasonable chance of blowing up in your face, that would give you pause before investing, wouldn't it.

Enterprise has a few additional things like Current Branch for Business (CBB) and Long Term Servicing Branch (LTSB). They also run test deployments before rolling out to production. If you're running LTSB, you can defer updates not related to security or fixes for 10 years.

 

[VivienM]

People have been in pretty strong denial mode about Windows since 8 was released to be honest. No one wants to admit MS is boiling the frog trying to slowly transform it into a mobile style locked down OS. That is their overarching goal which is pretty plain to see. They might leave a backdoor for businesses to run legacy stuff but they'll get there with the home product.

They failed with their store (mostly because they heated the pot up way to fast) but its still there waiting for the right moment to turn up the heat.

I think the TPM will be a requirement to run certain software. Like some kinds of android apps (that's why the emulator is a feature), banking apps, streaming services and the like. Maybe games for their anticheat. And they'll have to run in the Windows store to take advantage of it.

I think others, e.g. Valve, have largely agreed with that. I'm sure that's one reason they have spent so much effort trying to get more and more of the Steam library running on Linux.

But yes, I think you're right - Apple and their app store and their 30% cut have been a great inspiration. They tried with Windows 8 RT on ARM. They tried again with 10S on x64. And each time it's a complete flop, which means they go back to frog boiling.

 

[VivienM]

I think the encrypted-by-default filesystem is part of the same move: dual-booting with an encrypted-by-default Windows C drive is only going to make dual-booters' lives harder.

And push you to OneDrive - in lots of circumstances where things are screwed up, you won't be able to just fire up a bootable Linux thing, grab the files off the problematic drive, copy to external media, done. So that means you need BitLocker-friendly, i.e. Microsoft-powered, tools to try and get at that data... or you just avoid the risk by using OneDrive.

I will note one other thing, too - just was involved at work in the replacement of a Surface. Device is completely unserviceable - if the screen is cracked, congratulations, you get a new device and since the storage is soldered/glued/something you can't even try to move the drive over. (They since launched an enterprise version of the Surface Pro 7 with removable SSDs) And they don't give you any data migration tool to move your Windows install - the expectation, according to their own documentation, is that your data is on OneDrive and you reinstall your software on the replacement device.

 

[Ajay]

Probably some form of "Enhanced DRM" for streaming media content and games.

It might eliminate "password sharing" among users.

Well, TPM can actually work as application DRM (*cough* Office 365 *cough*).

To be fair, Office 365 is a reasonable deal for the cloud storage alone. IF you can use it. Otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with recommending LibreOffice for casual usage. Or even just use the included Wordpad, it's not that bad as a basic text editor really.

My brother's law firm uses it - works well for him (uh, not HIS law firm, he works in IT for them). Anyway, the 'Open' system approach is sort of killing MS when it comes to Professional apps on Windows, in terms of locking them down, so they and MS partners can prevent hacked software from being used. Also, it can be part of the solution toward making business desktop much more secure, at least in large and mid-sized companies, or smaller companies willing to hire better IT for securing intellectual property. If Windows and the accompanying apps, web browser and email can be made more secure using TPM encryption and Key generation - the corporate IT infrastructure can be made more difficult to hack (that's always the game, nothing is un-hackable; unless it's not connected to the internet).

I don't think it's a sudden change though. UEFI + secure boot was one change to raise the bar on alternate OS's, I think TPM might be the next one. Admittedly I know little about TPM, but I'm wondering if TPM can be used as part of a move to make Windows rental-only and make alternatives very difficult to practically use so MS can say "either you pay us or your PC is a brick".

I think the encrypted-by-default filesystem is part of the same move: dual-booting with an encrypted-by-default Windows C drive is only going to make dual-booters' lives harder.

Coming back to the rental point: I was thinking if Windows on a renting basis potentially opens the market up to competing operating systems (for example, I'd say I successfully persuade 8 out of 10 customers to stop renting Office 365 and move to standalone MSO or LibreOffice), which we can safely say is the opposite of what Microsoft would ever want to do. So, MS needs some insurance against that. It shouldn't be impossible to run alternative operating systems (because then comes a potential monopoly abuse charge), but it it made potentially defecting users' lives harder, that would make sense.

Linux supports TPM 2.0. For dual boot folks, a separate SSD/M.2 drive would solve that problem. Install Linux first with GRUB or just use the BIOS boot option.

---------------

As far as home users - I'm not sure what they are going to do. There could be some sort of concessions made for Win11 Home. Not sure how that would work.

 

[VivienM]

Enterprise has a few additional things like Current Branch for Business (CBB) and Long Term Servicing Branch (LTSB). They also run test deployments before rolling out to production. If you're running LTSB, you can defer updates not related to security or fixes for 10 years.

And that's fantastic for frog boiling, isn't it? Let CBB/LTSB keep running random things, while slowly restricting what everybody else can run until your Windows PC is basically an Xbox with a keyboard and mouse.

 

[VivienM]

As far as home users - I'm not sure what they are going to do. There could be some sort of concessions made for Win11 Home. Not sure how that would work.

Home users are expected to waltz down to worst buy, pick up a new PC that's probably slower than their existing one (lots of people are like 'oh I don't do much, I don't need fancy' and end up with the totally junky processors), and be somewhat unhappy with its performance from the day they unbox it.

(In reality, if they do that... the computer they buy afterwards will be a Mac. Because, well, Macs are a lot better performing than the low end junk at WB)

I've had this conversation with someone at work. Fellow had a nice quad-core (I think) laptop, 12 gigs of RAM, IIRC. Out of warranty so it was maybe 4 years old. He was looking at replacing it with something dramatically worse from WB that he thought would be good enough. I talked him into i) replacing the battery (this was a Dell with a non-removable battery) and ii) replacing the loose/moody power jack and now that laptop is running again I think for like CA$170 and 30 minutes with a screwdriver. But WB is out there luring people into buying new PCs worse than their old ones...

 

[Ajay]

Home users are expected to waltz down to worst buy, pick up a new PC that's probably slower than their existing one (lots of people are like 'oh I don't do much, I don't need fancy' and end up with the totally junky processors), and be somewhat unhappy with its performance from the day they unbox it.

(In reality, if they do that... the computer they buy afterwards will be a Mac. Because, well, Macs are a lot better performing than the low end junk at WB)

I've had this conversation with someone at work. Fellow had a nice quad-core (I think) laptop, 12 gigs of RAM, IIRC. Out of warranty so it was maybe 4 years old. He was looking at replacing it with something dramatically worse from WB that he thought would be good enough. I talked him into i) replacing the battery (this was a Dell with a non-removable battery) and ii) replacing the loose/moody power jack and now that laptop is running again I think for like CA$170 and 30 minutes with a screwdriver. But WB is out there luring people into buying new PCs worse than their old ones...

Well, there is no solution for that. My family has to IT guys in it. Heck, I offer to build one for them, that just need to cover my costs (and I used to have spare GFX, RAM and PSUs for them). Those who take our advice by nice computers that last. Those who don't - well, what can we do. This is the way of the world. People should just by Macs (though they aren't perfect) - but, them winders machines are only 400 bucks!

 

[VivienM]

Those who take our advice by nice computers that last. Those who don't - well, what can we do. This is the way of the world. People should just by Macs (though they aren't perfect) - but, them winders machines are only 400 bucks!

Correction: those who bought "nice computers" in 2018 or earlier get told that their computers don't meet Microsoft's security and reliability expectations for Windows 11, while the $400 machines from Worst Buy do. So no, the nice computers don't last anymore (well, okay, the nice computers will make it to 2025 and still be healthy enough to download the last Windows 10 cumulative update. The $400 machines with Windows 11 on their eMMC storage will probably be in some e-waste dump overseas.).

(And yes, at this point, my recommendation to just about anybody for personal use is Macs. In part because of Apple's support network - you can send someone with a broken Mac to the Apple store and they will be treated fairly. There isn't really any equivalent for consumer Windows laptops - geek squad and the rest are dishonest highway robbers, and where else is there to take an out of warranty (or even in-warranty) sad Windows computer?)

 

[Ajay]

Correction: those who bought "nice computers" in 2018 or earlier get told that their computers don't meet Microsoft's security and reliability expectations for Windows 11, while the $400 machines from Worst Buy do. So no, the nice computers don't last anymore (well, okay, the nice computers will make it to 2025 and still be healthy enough to download the last Windows 10 cumulative update. The $400 machines with Windows 11 on their eMMC storage will probably be in some e-waste dump overseas.).

(And yes, at this point, my recommendation to just about anybody for personal use is Macs. In part because of Apple's support network - you can send someone with a broken Mac to the Apple store and they will be treated fairly. There isn't really any equivalent for consumer Windows laptops - geek squad and the rest are dishonest highway robbers, and where else is there to take an out of warranty (or even in-warranty) sad Windows computer?)

Okay, this is what I was missing. TPM 2.0 wasn't installed on motherboards till 2019? Well, that sucks. As I understand it, these modules can be bought; which motherboards support the correct connector for TPM 2.0 modules is a mystery to me so far. I thought people were upset about 6 yo+ systems didn't support it. 3 yo systems is a different story, IMHO. Something isn't right here. Even MS wouldn't be asking businesses to dump their 5 year old systems in the trash bin and upgrade for Win11; because they won't. I wonder if this is just a case of the 'Dev' build being tied to TPM 2.0 because MS needs a lot of feedback on the OS and software that make use of TPM?

 

[VivienM]

Okay, this is what I was missing. TPM 2.0 wasn't installed on motherboards till 2019? Well, that sucks. As I understand it, these modules can be bought; which motherboards support the correct connector for TPM 2.0 modules is a mystery to me so far. I thought people were upset about 6 yo+ systems didn't support it. 3 yo systems is a different story, IMHO. Something isn't right here. Even MS wouldn't be asking businesses to dump their 5 year old systems in the trash bin and upgrade for Win11; because they won't. I wonder if this is just a case of the 'Dev' build being tied to TPM 2.0 because MS needs a lot of feedback on the OS and software that make use of TPM?

This is not about TPM 2.0 anymore. It was only about TPM 2.0 for about a day, really, until word came out of the processor age requirement. They added a hard check for 8th-gen and newer Intel CPUs and 2nd-gen Ryzens and above. And they have made that check harder as the betas went on. And they have said that, even if you can install it manually (i.e. clean install from ISO, no in-place upgrade) on those unsupported processors, you "may not" get security/cumulative updates. And almost guaranteed you won't get in-place feature updates because that mechanism definitely implements the new requirements.

So, let's be clear - Ryzen 2000 launched in April 2018. 8th gen Intel launched in August 2017. (And presumably systems with the older CPUs were in the supply chain and being sold for at least a year after that.) Their installer has code to refuse to install on every CPU older than that, regardless of TPM 2.0 or any other published requirement.

That's why I've been so angry - my i7 7700 with 64 gigs of RAM, the built-in on-CPU TPM 2.0, is not supported. And Microsoft's PR team defiantly confirms that for "security and reliability reasons" they don't intend to.

So yes, you could have bought a flagship Ryzen system in March 2018, and no Windows 11 for you. You could have gotten a good deal on a 7xxx Intel system at Christmas 2017 or spring 2018, never imagining that 7xxx vs 8xxx made a material difference so why not save some $$$$, and no Windows 11 for you. You get Windows 10 security updates until 2025 and then it's either e-waste or Linux I guess.

 

[Ajay]

@VivienM Okay, thanks. Apparently, I keep losing the script . Apologies for that. I really don't understand why all 'Skylake' derivatives wouldn't be covered.

Here is an article indicating that there may be a way out of your conundrum: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-is-iss...support-windows-11-on-unsupported-intel-cpus/

Asus is in the process of testing and validating BIOS updates for dozens of older motherboards based on Intel's 200-series and 100-series chipsets, that would allow users to run Windows 11 on a system with an unsupported CPU. So if you're sitting pretty on a 6th generation Skylake or 7th generation Kaby Lake processor, there's hope yet.

I'm sure that other board vendors are working on similar workarounds. MS may not care about breaking older, but very recent hardware - but the motherboard vendors are far less eager to screw over their loyal customer base.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm sure that other board vendors are working on similar workarounds. MS may not care about breaking older, but very recent hardware - but the motherboard vendors are far less eager to screw over their loyal customer base.

I'm honestly not sure if that's going to help (mobo vendors adding "support" for Windows 11), if MS is doing a CPUID and a hard check for CPUs <= their baseline. Personally, I think that's a shame.

The ONLY reason that I could reasonably think of them doing this, is to REMOVE Meltdown/Spectre workarounds and kernel modifications, to return full performance to code and I/O subsystems, and they've specced the minimum CPU limits to allow that to be "safe". Well, until the next Intel CPU errata disclosure, that is. I give them a week's leeway.

Seriously, though, if MS follows through with this, there's going to be a lot more new MacOS users, than Windows 11 users. Just sayin'.

 

[VivienM]

Here is an article indicating that there may be a way out of your conundrum: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-is-iss...support-windows-11-on-unsupported-intel-cpus/

I'm sure that other board vendors are working on similar workarounds. MS may not care about breaking older, but very recent hardware - but the motherboard vendors are far less eager to screw over their loyal customer base.

Asus & co. thought, like you did, that the issue was only TPM 2.0, so they are rolling out BIOS upgrades that set the proper defaults for enabling the in-CPU TPM 2.0 and secure boot.

Nothing they can do about the hard processor age check.

So basically, MS left them holding the bag and looking like idiots - they thought "okay, we need to change our BIOS defaults so our loyal enthusiast clients can run Windows 11, no problem", then Microsoft added another requirement.

(Frankly, I think the hard processor age check was invented later. Wouldn't surprise me if Asus & co. had, under NDA, some information about the TPM 2.0 requirement for a while before all this went public, but never imagined that any processor age requirement would actually be backed up by any code.)

And yes, I'm sure the motherboard vendors are unhappy - one additional reason, I think they, just like the GPU vendors, very much rely on there being a used market for older good stuff to sell new pricy stuff to enthusiasts. e.g. it is easier to sell a new motherboard for $300 to someone who can sell their 2-3 year old old motherboard for $125-150 or give it to their brother or whatever.