mxnerd
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2007
- 6,635
- 1,043
- 126
It sounds like MS will actively block installations. Whether you can hack it to install anyway, and have no problems using 11 is another story.I'm pretty convinced that Win11 will probably install on most things that run Win10.
What won't work however is most of Microsofts security enhancements that are based on the newer requirements. That's why I think that they are saying other configurations are not supported. (Not supported has never meant "will absolutely not work at all on", it just means "don't complain to us if stuff doesn't work")
Anyway we'll see in half a year or so.
Ummm, they have a compatibility check tool that fails machines based on exactly the specs people are outraged about, including every pre-8th gen Intel CPU, every system with no enabled TPM, etc. Why would they do that if it was for new OEM systems only??Again, MS try to trick you. All those requirements are for new OEM machines.
![]()
Minimum hardware requirements
This topic defines the minimum hardware requirements for Windows 10 and all types of devices or computers designed for this release.docs.microsoft.com
View attachment 46321
That's what has me worried too. I can absolutely get it installed myself, but I can't really go around doing that for others, as then I'll be on the hook for support.It sounds like MS will actively block installations. Whether you can hack it to install anyway, and have no problems using 11 is another story.
It's not just the TPM, it's also the CPU requirement. There are plenty of eligible systems with TPMs that are getting caught by that CPU requirement.I'm hoping it fizzles out, based on the reaction everywhere. MS tried making TPM a requirement for Vista, then 8 and now 11. We'll see what comes out of it this time.
Try to convince you to buy a new system so MS & its partners can make a profit, make sense? I have reiterated many times, and you can view my past posts regarding Win 11 installation and requirements, and whether the compatibility check tool result is true or not.Ummm, they have a compatibility check tool that fails machines based on exactly the specs people are outraged about, including every pre-8th gen Intel CPU, every system with no enabled TPM, etc. Why would they do that if it was for new OEM systems only??
Maybe, maybe not. But I guess I don't see the advantage of wishful thinking? The more anger their PR team sees everywhere, the more likely it is that if the worst case scenario is right, they are going to change their mind. Whereas if people hope for the best and it turns out the worst is what ships at the end of the year, then... what?Try to convince you to buy a new system so MS & its partners can make a profit, make sense? I have reiterated many times, and you can view my past posts regarding Win 11 installation and requirements, and whether the compatibility check tool result is true or not.
Vista is extremely bad, because it's pathetic & painfully slow, and that's a fact. Whoever installed Vista all wanted to throw their machines out of the window.Maybe, maybe not. But I guess I don't see the advantage of wishful thinking? The more anger their PR team sees everywhere, the more likely it is that if the worst case scenario is right, they are going to change their mind. Whereas if people hope for the best and it turns out the worst is what ships at the end of the year, then... what?
Best case scenario, really, there's so much anger that they come out and say "oh no, you misunderstood us, this was only for new OEM systems, don't worry". Whether that is true or just a face saving move, who cares?
Also, it's like they learned nothing from the Vista debacle - a product that IMO wasn't even that bad on reasonably good hardware (but a disaster on more mediocre hardware), but its name became so absurdly toxic that people, both techies and non-techies, were telling each other to avoid Vista for reasons they couldn't even articulate. Microsoft needs to be scared that if they continue insulting enthusiasts with 6700Ks and 7700s while supporting N4000s with BS excuses, Windows 11 "ewaste edition" will be spoken about in the same way and 80% of the installed base of Windows PCs in 2025 will be Windows 10.
Again, MS try to trick you. All those requirements are for new OEM machines.
Main issue with Vista was... ahm... <insert expletive here> poor driver support. Then lack of RAM (painful with 512MB), disk caching making HDD sound like power-drills, and poor IGP performance*. Once cleared of those hurdles, Vista is indistinguishable from 7. In fact, 7 is more Vista SP3 then a new OS.Vista is extremely bad, because it's pathetic & painfully slow, and that's a fact. Whoever installed Vista all wanted to throw their machines out of the window.
The really sad part is that I wouldn't even be surprised if that was the case. Not anymore.Not saying this holds water, but the conspiracy theory take I've seen is that because AMD licensed their Zen1 design to china (which only has TPM 1.2), if Microsoft makes TPM 2.0 a hard requirement it forces china to remain on depreciated windows versions, or use their own operating systems, or buy a LOT of replacement hardware from the west (since I don't believe any domestic Chinese silicon currently supports anything beyond TPM 1.2).
I would hope this isn't the only reason, but it wouldn't shock me if this along with the DRM and anti-windows piracy theories are the reason for the TPM 2.0 requirement we're hearing from Microsoft now.
Funny, I didn't have that experience, but I was running Vista on good hardware. I had it on, hmm... an E6600 with 2 gigs of RAM, then 3 gigs of RAM, then reinstalled to go 64-bit and went to 8 gigs of RAM with a 7900 GT, it was tight with 2 gigs of RAM but otherwise worked fine. (Oh, and the first time I tried it, it crashed a lot due to a bad video card, but the card also caused crashes in games in XP. Replacing the card fixed that). I ran the betas on my old 1.9GHz P4 willamette with a 1 gig of RDRAM, an ATI AIW 9800, worked great for a beta that I wasn't using seriously, I presumed the RAM would have been a big issue for serious issue.Vista is extremely bad, because it's pathetic & painfully slow, and that's a fact. Whoever installed Vista all wanted to throw their machines out of the window.
Well, let me ask this - all the off-lease refurb desktops on the market right now are Skylakes or Kaby Lakes. Is it a coincidence that they dropped those systems? I'm sure plenty of people who would otherwise have set up their grandmothers with one of those are now going to be thinking 'grrrr, this thing is going to need replacement in 3 years'.There are some users claimed their 2 years old won't even past the test. So MS just want to upset all those users? I don't think so.
And the BS about the logo program where they had TWO Vista-ready logo programs and somehow accepted i915 graphics in the lower category, I think as a personal favour to Intel. (I feel like emails and documents about that decision came out in later litigation about it) But everybody knew that the DWM and new graphics engine couldn't run on an i915.Main issue with Vista was... ahm... <insert expletive here> poor driver support. Then lack of RAM (painful with 512MB), disk caching making HDD sound like power-drills, and poor IGP performance*. Once cleared of those hurdles, Vista is indistinguishable from 7. In fact, 7 is more Vista SP3 then a new OS.
To be fair, dev builds have a history of allowing non-supported hardware to run them without issue, but upon retail release, it might not be so forgiving.The most funny thing is the Heath Check tool claimed that my Dell 4th gen CPU i5 4570 (TPM 1.2) PC can't run Windows 11 while I ran the tool inside Windows 11
I don't like the touchy feelie look that I've seen so far-- even in the face of an improvement men would like , that it is" faster". The campaign is all feminine in fact, with floating whimsey curtains, soft beautiful colours and not a hard edge in sight.This is not a Bill Gates project.Announcement:
Upgrade to the New Windows 11 OS | Microsoft
Looks good, and apparently they said this which is good news:
"As Microsoft Chief Product Officer Panos Panay noted in today’s announcement, the overall idea behind the design is to make you feel “an incredible sense of calm,” but at the same time, the Windows team has also worked to make it a lot faster. Windows Updates, for example, are supposed to be 40 percent faster, but Panay also noted that starting up your machine and even browsing should feel much faster."
Yup. Which is silly - if they wanted revenue, why not go back to charging for upgrades like they used to?I think I'm beginning to see the reason why MS is really doing this: Money, profit! They only charge for new Windows licenses, not for upgrades. The majority of PC users have systems older than Intel Core gen 8 and Ryzen 2000 series. So there is no profit from them. Users who upgrade to new machines will have to buy a Win 11 license.
Sadly for me, this is the first I've heard of MBR2GPT. It wasn't that bad for me, as I have a backup of that drive. Thanks for the info though!Me too. All I did was run MBR2GPT and switched the BIOS over without reinstalling.
That explanation doesn't fit with the situation IMO because Win11 apparently will get feature updates every year that it's supported, seemingly. What's the point in that if profit is the goal?I think I'm beginning to see the reason why MS is really doing this: Money, profit! They only charge for new Windows licenses, not for upgrades.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Info Windows 11 22H2: How to get Microsoft's latest OS update and what's coming next | Operating Systems | 6 |