• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Microsoft officially announces Windows 11

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
mikeymikec said:
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.
Click to expand...

Increased revenue, mostly from home users through ads and app store cuts. Home users don't make them much money, neither do tech enthusiasts. The openish platform is why they had 90% marketshare in the first place but they've lost a lot of the home market of people who only had basic computing needs to mobile.

What OS is going to rush in and fill the void? They'll bleed "power users" a bit, but almost every major platform has been pissing on them nonstop for years now and there aren't that many of them to begin with compared to people who play some web games, facebook and do a little online banking.
 
So this is interesting - newest media coverage reports that people with unsupported CPUs are being told that they can proceed with an in-place upgrade if they accept a big gloomy message about how this is unsupported, they could be voiding their PC's warranty, they may not get updates, etc. Not sure what build's installer that is...
 
VivienM said:
So this is interesting - newest media coverage reports that people with unsupported CPUs are being told that they can proceed with an in-place upgrade if they accept a big gloomy message about how this is unsupported, they could be voiding their PC's warranty, they may not get updates, etc. Not sure what build's installer that is...
Click to expand...

Just saw that today. Honestly, I'm fine with having to accept a waiver for unsupported devices. I do my own support anyway, and I'm not about to begin to bother MS after 30 years of solving various Windows issues.

https://www.windowscentral.com/want...-pc-microsoft-may-ask-you-agree-special-terms

That is how things should have been handled from the start. If you want to run 11 on unsupported hardware or without TPM/Secure Boot, please accept that we do not provide any kind of support. Simple and easy to remember.
 
Insert_Nickname said:
Just saw that today. Honestly, I'm fine with having to accept a waiver for unsupported devices. I do my own support anyway, and I'm not about to begin to bother MS after 30 years of solving various Windows issues.

https://www.windowscentral.com/want...-pc-microsoft-may-ask-you-agree-special-terms

That is how things should have been handled from the start. If you want to run 11 on unsupported hardware or without TPM/Secure Boot, please accept that we do not provide any kind of support. Simple and easy to remember.
Click to expand...


Really, even if you don't get security updates?

article said:
Microsoft has been unclear regarding the state of security updates for those who jump to Windows 11 on unsupported devices.
Click to expand...

For me, at least 90% of the reason why I'd want to run a non-EOS version of Windows is for security updates. Otherwise I can make do with XP/Win7, maybe even Win10 when its time comes in 2025.
 
mikeymikec said:
Really, even if you don't get security updates?
Click to expand...

If that's the case it's certainly a non-starter. I do hope MS is clever enough not to do that.

mikeymikec said:
For me, at least 90% of the reason why I'd want to run a non-EOS version of Windows is for security updates. Otherwise I can make do with XP/Win7, maybe even Win10 when its time comes in 2025.
Click to expand...

Agree. As stated I keep several machine with various Windows versions around. Mainly for compatibility reasons. They're kept far from the internet for obvious reasons.

If push comes to shove, I could just as well run Linux on my main desktop. One more OS doesn't matter. It's more then capable of running 11, but I dislike being forced into doing things a certain way, and the possible (mis)uses of TPM.
 
If "unsupported hardware for Windows 11" == same shtick as Windows 7's, "unsupported hardware", where they actually BLOCKED UPDATES once they detected the updated DLLs that detected the unsupported hardware, then Windows 11 is going to be a sheet-show.
 
PingSpike said:
Increased revenue, mostly from home users through ads and app store cuts. Home users don't make them much money, neither do tech enthusiasts. The openish platform is why they had 90% marketshare in the first place but they've lost a lot of the home market of people who only had basic computing needs to mobile.

What OS is going to rush in and fill the void? They'll bleed "power users" a bit, but almost every major platform has been pissing on them nonstop for years now and there aren't that many of them to begin with compared to people who play some web games, facebook and do a little online banking.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth remembering the lessons of the past: For example, back in the eighties/nineties, computer platforms that failed to bridge the gap between home users and business users didn't gain a huge amount of traction. Windows did (eventually), and took that market by storm. One group of users can spur platform migrations, whether they're business users, gamers, enthusiasts, power users, whatever.

If for example a techie prefers a given platform, they'll encourage their family and friends to go down that route. Partly because word-of-mouth recommendations carry the most weight, and partly because techies tend to provide tech support. MS should be wary about crapping on a given group, let alone multiple groups at once.
 
Last edited:
mikeymikec said:
I think it's worth remembering the lessons of the past: For example, back in the eighties/nineties, computer platforms that failed to bridge the gap between home users and business users didn't gain a huge amount of traction. Windows did (eventually), and took that market by storm. One group of users can spur platform migrations, whether they're business users, gamers, enthusiasts, power users, whatever.

If for example a techie prefers a given platform, they'll encourage their family and friends to go down that route. Partly because word-of-mouth recommendations carry the most weight, and partly because techies tend to provide tech support. MS should be wary about crapping on a given group, let alone multiple groups at once.
Click to expand...

That may well come to pass. But I've seen nothing to suggest gamers, enthusiasts and even power users have really started to leave Windows in any great numbers. They've started to whine a lot and I see those whiners threatening "If they keep this up I'll switch" but most people just use Windows and put up with it in the end. After all, all other platforms are still more locked down than Windows 11 will be unless you want to learn linux.

FWIW I think it won't work how they want. Microsoft had a pretty healthy 25% desktop marketshare with IE. Then they introduced Edge and said IE was going away. It seems everyone just decided to switch to the most popular browser, Chrome at that point. I think if they degrade things to iOS/Android level walled garden they'll find people will just switch to those platforms as they're more established.
 
Insert_Nickname said:
Just saw that today. Honestly, I'm fine with having to accept a waiver for unsupported devices. I do my own support anyway, and I'm not about to begin to bother MS after 30 years of solving various Windows issues.

https://www.windowscentral.com/want...-pc-microsoft-may-ask-you-agree-special-terms

That is how things should have been handled from the start. If you want to run 11 on unsupported hardware or without TPM/Secure Boot, please accept that we do not provide any kind of support. Simple and easy to remember.
Click to expand...

My question is what unsupported machines get this option - is this only for older CPUs? TPM 1.2s? Non-secure boot?

We will have to see what the final build is like, but certainly the newest insider builds now take the view that TPM 2.0/secure boot is required in a VM. No crazy waiver thing like this. Interestingly... and I don't know if it would be different in bare metal... it doesn't mention the MBR partition table (explicitly) or the i5 4790 that the hypervisor is fully revealing.

Note, too, that the new PC health check displays a too-old CPU in a different colour than a non-TPM 2.0, non-secure boot, etc., all of which share the same colour. So I wonder if the big scary waiver is only for TPM-2.0 equipped, secure boot-compatible, etc. systems with processors too old.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Possibly that was a concession from Microsoft towards the mobo makers that released BIOS updates for "Windows 11 compatibility", back when current info suggested that the only thing that was needed, was to enable fTPM.
Click to expand...

I wonder...

I just ran the installer in Windows 10 from the 22000.194 ISO that some people claim is final. Hard fail on both a TPM 1.2/unsupported CPU system and my i7 7700. The 7700 just says this processor is not supported just like we had understood for months it would say. None of that scary waiver language here.

I wonder if the scary waiver language is only if you boot from the installer. Not going to try that for a while.
 
Now experimenting with the installer booted on a Sandy Bridge laptop with UEFI, no Secure Boot, TPM maybe 1.2. Put the three bypass registry keys and it appears to proceed fine (I made it to the partition screen), but, of course, you can't do an upgrade install while booting from a disc. Still haven't managed to trigger the 'you will void your warranty, we don't support this, etc.' screen.
 
I received an Email for MS yesterday on the Window 11 upgrade (RTM announcement). The link on requirements still listed UEFI bios with Secure Boot enabled and TPM 2.0 required. Nothing on a CPU architecture cut off.
 
Ajay said:
I received an Email for MS yesterday on the Window 11 upgrade (RTM announcement). The link on requirements still listed UEFI bios with Secure Boot enabled and TPM 2.0 required. Nothing on a CPU architecture cut off.
Click to expand...

I can tell you the installer of 22000.194 tells me, trying to do an in-place upgrade, that my i7 7700 is not supported.

(But it doesn't say that on my no-TPM 1.2/no-secure boot laptop. It's like it's a separate check - first it does the TPM/secure boot/some other checks and gives you all those failures, then if you pass those, it does the CPU age check.)
 
VivienM said:
I can tell you the installer of 22000.194 tells me, trying to do an in-place upgrade, that my i7 7700 is not supported.

(But it doesn't say that on my no-TPM 1.2/no-secure boot laptop. It's like it's a separate check - first it does the TPM/secure boot/some other checks and gives you all those failures, then if you pass those, it does the CPU age check.)
Click to expand...
So bollocks on MS' PR department 🙄
 
Ajay said:
So bollocks on MS' PR department 🙄
Click to expand...

I have long had a feeling that not everybody at MS understands fully how draconian the CPU age cut-off is. Or doesn't understand that somebody else told the developers to put code imposing a hard cut-off on older processors?

What I still want to understand is how to get that waiver of doom screen. I'm not about to go and reboot (which, despite not meeting the reliability expectations for Windows 11, only needs rebooting once a month for the patches...) my i7 7700 to try and boot from the disc and see if that is how you see it, but everything I've tried either gets hard rejected or allowed to continue.

The other thing is, I suspect there's a secret CLI switch, registry key, or something to disable the in-place upgrade CPU check. Maybe someone will discover it.
 
Well, hopefully once Win11 gets out into the wild - the complaints will come rushing in. Then we will see just how 'hard' that CPU cutoff is.
 
Ajay said:
Well, hopefully once Win11 gets out into the wild - the complaints will come rushing in. Then we will see just how 'hard' that CPU cutoff is.
Click to expand...

Basically, all the requirements are being checked only for in-place upgrades.

Unless the final build will be different than the 22000.194 ISO everybody calls the final build, when you boot from the ISO, it actually checks for secure boot and TPM. Maybe TPM 2.0 specifically. Add the two well-known registry keys to bypass those things and it appears to let you pick what drive to install on, and I didn't try to go further. Curious to see what it would do on the 7700 without any of the bypass keys. But I'm amazed that on another sandy bridge that isn't even UEFI-capable, it seems to be comfortable with a BIOS/MBR setup, though perhaps it would have broken later on in the install..

Problem is, assuming the next feature update will be delivered as an in-place upgrade in 6 months, even if they give you cumulative/security updates, in 6 months you have to clean install Windows again unless someone finds a registry key/command line switch/something to allow in-place upgrades.
 
Ajay said:
Well, hopefully once Win11 gets out into the wild - the complaints will come rushing in. Then we will see just how 'hard' that CPU cutoff is.
Click to expand...

IMO most ordinary people will assume there's a good reason for it. Admittedly my customers tend to me at the more technophobic end of the scale, but if I had a quid for every time one of them said something like, "because technology moves so fast, this'll be obsolete in no time"...
 
VivienM said:
I have long had a feeling that not everybody at MS understands fully how draconian the CPU age cut-off is. Or doesn't understand that somebody else told the developers to put code imposing a hard cut-off on older processors?

What I still want to understand is how to get that waiver of doom screen. I'm not about to go and reboot (which, despite not meeting the reliability expectations for Windows 11, only needs rebooting once a month for the patches...) my i7 7700 to try and boot from the disc and see if that is how you see it, but everything I've tried either gets hard rejected or allowed to continue.

The other thing is, I suspect there's a secret CLI switch, registry key, or something to disable the in-place upgrade CPU check. Maybe someone will discover it.
Click to expand...
Do you have another disk/ssd you can backup your Win10 install to? Then you can do the Win11 upgrade and if it fails, restore the backup and just carry on till 2025. Maybe at some point MS will relax requirements just a tad. Just my 2 cents.

Personally, I don’t intend to upgrade for at least 6 months. There’s probably a ton of bug fixing that’s still yet to be done. I've toyed around with it in a VM, nothing in 11 that makes me eager to move.
 
Ajay said:
Do you have another disk/ssd you can backup your Win10 install to? Then you can do the Win11 upgrade and if it fails, restore the backup and just carry on till 2025. Maybe at some point MS will relax requirements just a tad. Just my 2 cents.

Personally, I don’t intend to upgrade for at least 6 months. There’s probably a ton of bug fixing that’s still yet to be done. I've toyed around with it in a VM, nothing in 11 that makes me eager to move.
Click to expand...

I'll probably do a clean install on some of my Sandy Bridge laptops with the full registry keys to bypass the various checking at some point.

Very hesitant to do it on the newer systems like the i7 7700 that, frankly, I use daily and that run reliably - it's a lot of work setting up a clean Windows install on a heavily-used desktop and, unless something earth shattering happens, we know that install is going to be SOL at the next feature update in 6 months at the latest.

I did upgrade a very lousy el-cheapo i5 8xxx laptop to it on Friday. My first time running it on bare metal. And my view is, it feels like another Windows feature upgrade, not a major OS upgrade like in the old days. Everything, including things like AV software that's usually finicky about OSes, is still there and seems just as happy as under 21H1.

Frankly, I've half come around to the idea that if the 12-gen Intels turn out to be good, I might just take my RTX 3070 out of the 7700 and build a new system. I don't love the idea and wouldn't even be considering it if it wasn't for this BS but... if the 12-gen CPUs are good and 64+ gigs of DDR5 aren't completely insanely bankrupting, I may consider it.

(And I have a NAS with 12TB free and a stack of external hard drives in a drawer, although I do need more modern backup/imaging software first.)
 
Is anyone able to submit a CPU for compatibility? I bought a used Ryzen 5 1600 AF for a spare system. The 1600 AF was released Q4/2019. I don't see it on the compatibility list. This is not the plain 1600 14nm. This is a 12nm chip that is basically the same thing as the Ryzen 5 2600 only clocked a bit slower. The 2600 is on the list.
 
balloonshark said:
Is anyone able to submit a CPU for compatibility? I bought a used Ryzen 5 1600 AF for a spare system. The 1600 AF was released Q4/2019. I don't see it on the compatibility list. This is not the plain 1600 14nm. This is a 12nm chip that is basically the same thing as the Ryzen 5 2600 only clocked a bit slower. The 2600 is on the list.
Click to expand...

Microsoft's position is that they've allowed all the CPUs they're planning to allow. They claimed to do a big review after the June announcement/outcry and the only processor they added to the list was an i7 7xxx used in some funky Surface product.

But we don't know exactly how they're doing the check... so... does their PC health tool actually fail you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top