Windows 11

[JCC]

It will be interesting to see what happens. MS may have opened themselves up to litigation over this since they previously claimed Win 10 would be the "final" version. They are likely going to be forced to keep issuing security updates.

[Blackhawk]

I have one PC (out of... six?) that will run it.

It's going to be PC-COVID in four years when they cut off support for 10 and half of all PCs still can't update.

[Victoria Raverna]

Found something I don't like about Windows 11. It removed the ability to know the current spatial audio setting or to change spatial audio setting without opening the Sound Settings.

In Windows 10, you can change that easily from right clicking the volume/speaker icon. In Windows 11, right clicking that icon only show three choices: Troubleshoot sound problems, Open Volume Mixer and Open Sound Settings.

[Kraken]

I have one PC (out of... six?) that will run it.

It's going to be PC-COVID in four years when they cut off support for 10 and half of all PCs still can't update.

Neither of my Windows machines are upgradable. However, Wife is lobbying to replace her 6-year-old laptop. If that comes with Win 11 preinstalled, her lifetime free tech support just expired.

[Formix]

I . . . actually use Paint 3D. So will Win11 have Paint 4D? Ohh, Paint 8K?

[Zaxxon]

Since my laptop wasn't designed for it, even if it can run it, I can't imagine it will run it well.

The interesting part is that the incompatibility stuff has nothing to do with performance this time out. If a machine runs Windows 10, it'll run Windows 11 just fine, other than the fact that MS arbitrarily decided to impose restrictions on certain processor lines and require a TPM.

Those pieces have workarounds, and the question is just whether MS will leave anyone who bypasses those restrictions out in the cold on updates. As someone mentioned above, the legal side of that could prove interesting (not to mention the PR implications).

But from a performance perspective, Win 11 is no more demanding than Win 10.

[Blackhawk]

I . . . actually use Paint 3D. So will Win11 have Paint 4D? Ohh, Paint 8K?

It's Microsoft. It'll be Paint 360D, and will eventually upgrade to Paint 1D.

[RunningMn9]

Found something I don't like about Windows 11.

Me too, the fact that it doesn't support the stupid processor in my Alienware laptop. This displeases me. I have a 7th generation processor, which apparently just misses the cutoff. Although oddly enough, they do list two i7-7820 processors as supported, just not mine.

[Blackhawk]

The security benefits of this requirement are real, but they put them out too soon. If they're going to go back to numbering Windows versions, they should have put out Win11 with support for this security feature, then five years from now put out Win12 with it as mandatory. As it is, it's going to cause a lot of problems. Security problems when they effectively end support for half of the PCs on peoples' desks in a few years, and compatibility problems when new versions of software start requiring an operating system that half of the world can't install (although I hope that they realize this wouldn't be the best option for sales and avoid doing so...)

It's going to disproportionately hurt people living paycheck to paycheck, schools, minorities, and poorer nations - groups that can't afford to buy or upgrade to processors that are current. I've got Win10 on everything in my house for security reasons, but I rely on multiple PCs with components a decade or more old. I can't afford to upgrade any of them, let alone all of them.

The fact that they decided to push this during the chip shortage is batshit insane and blind.

[jztemple2]

Found something I don't like about Windows 11.

Me too, the fact that it doesn't support the stupid processor in my Alienware laptop. This displeases me. I have a 7th generation processor, which apparently just misses the cutoff. Although oddly enough, they do list two i7-7820 processors as supported, just not mine.

Windows says my new rig isn't compatible and I have an i9-10850K. Anyway, I'm going to stick with Win10 till I can't, in the same way I always waited till end of support on previous versions of the OS. I don't want to be their beta tester.

[Victoria Raverna]

Found something I don't like about Windows 11.

Me too, the fact that it doesn't support the stupid processor in my Alienware laptop. This displeases me. I have a 7th generation processor, which apparently just misses the cutoff. Although oddly enough, they do list two i7-7820 processors as supported, just not mine.

Windows says my new rig isn't compatible and I have an i9-10850K. Anyway, I'm going to stick with Win10 till I can't, in the same way I always waited till end of support on previous versions of the OS. I don't want to be their beta tester.

Probably just need to enable secure boot and TPM in UEFI settings.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Windows 11 will hobble gaming performance by default on some prebuilt PCs

Microsoft 'will be enabling VBS on most new PCs over this next year' and that can tank PC gaming performance by around 25%.

Despite Microsoft's claims that "if you're a gamer, Windows 11 was made for you" you will need to watch out for future prebuilt PCs with the new OS factory installed. That's because the Big M is enabling more security features in PCs by default, and one in particular can seriously tank gaming performance.

In our testing, that can add up to as much as a 28% drop in average frame rates. And you thought the TPM 2.0 restrictions were a pain...

That sort of frame rate delta is like dropping down an entire tier of graphics card and, in these days where GPUs are so hard to come by, Microsoft gimping the performance of the chip in your newbuild machine would surely be hard for gamers to stomach.

The issue is Virtualization-Based Security (VBS), a setting introduced into Windows 10 which uses hardware and software virtualisation to enhance the security of your system. It basically creates an isolated subsystem that helps prevent malware from screwing your PC.

Microsoft explains it as follows: "VBS uses hardware virtualization features to create and isolate a secure region of memory from the normal operating system. Windows can use this 'virtual secure mode' to host a number of security solutions, providing them with greatly increased protection from vulnerabilities in the operating system, and preventing the use of malicious exploits which attempt to defeat protections."

It's a feature mainly intended for enterprise customers to be able to lock down the corporate PCs they drop into their offices and make sure they don't get compromised.

And if you're upgrading from Windows 10 to Windows 11 then you don't have to worry about VBS being enabled, unless you were already running an enterprise version of the older OS, that is. The issue comes if you're receiving a machine which has had an OEM build of Windows 11 installed on it.

In a post from late August, the one which reintroduced the PC Health Check app for Windows 11 Insiders, Microsoft again talks up the enhanced security features of the new OS.

I expect you already know about the requirements for the Trusted Platform Module (TPM 2.0), but this post also talks about VBS, and the company's desire match the Department of Defense and its demands for Virtualization-Based Security enabled as standard.

"While we are not requiring VBS when upgrading to Windows 11," explains the post, "we believe the security benefits it offers are so important that we wanted the minimum system requirements to ensure that every PC running Windows 11 can meet the same security the DoD relies on.

"In partnership with our OEM and silicon partners, we will be enabling VBS and HVCI on most new PCs over this next year. And we will continue to seek opportunities to expand VBS across more systems over time."

We've tested a selection of games on the current release build of Windows 11, with VBS off and VBS enabled (though not actually running) and the impact is obvious.

Far Cry New Dawn is the outlier here, which barely shrugs at VBS, with just a 5% reduction in frame rate. But Horizon Zero Dawn drops by some 25%, Metro Exodus by 24%, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider by 28%. Interestingly, the 3DMark Time Spy score only dropped by 10%.

Why is that interesting? Because it was actually UL who brought this issue to our attention. When it updated us about Windows 11 support being baked into its full benchmarking suite of products, it made note about this performance-damaging security feature. And that's when I started benchmarking.

"In our testing with pre-release builds of Windows 11," UL tells us, "a feature called Virtualization-based Security (VBS) causes performance to drop. VBS is enabled by default after a clean install of Windows 11, but not when upgrading from Windows 10. This means the same system can get different benchmark scores depending on how Windows 11 was installed and whether VBS is enabled or not.

"We plan to add VBS detection to our benchmarks in a future update to help you compare scores fairly."

The enablement of VBS isn't having an impact on the actual speed of the hardware in the system, however. We've dug into what's happening over multiple benchmark runs of Metro Exodus and the CPU or graphics card aren't slowing down. The average frequency of the GPU and CPU actually barely changes.

What we have noticed, however, is that the power draw has dropped for both processor and graphics card. But the reason for the performance drop is surely coming from somewhere else.

The thing to note, though, is that VBS is not enabled by default for all clean installs of Windows 11. I downloaded the latest ISO version of the OS in order to check VBS out on our test rig, but had to do some registry editing, and BIOS tweaking, in order to actually enable it. So, it's nothing to be concerned about if you're just grabbing a Windows 11 download for a fresh install yourself.

But Windows 11 PCs, built by the biggest OEMs, such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo, are looking likely to come with VBS as standard. What we're not clear about, however, is whether those companies' gaming brands will also have VBS enabled. Or whether system builders will be exempt and can continue to ship gaming PCs without VBS.

My instinct says that gaming-focused brands should be able to circumvent any Microsoft request to have VBS on by default, but these are interesting times… You can quickly check whether it is on or off yourself by hitting the 'Win' key and typing 'MSInfo32', then down at the bottom of the system report it will show whether VBS is enabled.

Though it might take some registry work to disable if you do discover it lurking there.

We've reached out to Microsoft and certain OEMs for clarification about Windows 11 and VBS, and will update if we hear anything concrete from them. But one thing's for sure, this security feature is not making me feel secure about the gaming performance of tomorrow's PCs.

[Victoria Raverna]

The security benefits of this requirement are real, but they put them out too soon. If they're going to go back to numbering Windows versions, they should have put out Win11 with support for this security feature, then five years from now put out Win12 with it as mandatory. As it is, it's going to cause a lot of problems. Security problems when they effectively end support for half of the PCs on peoples' desks in a few years, and compatibility problems when new versions of software start requiring an operating system that half of the world can't install (although I hope that they realize this wouldn't be the best option for sales and avoid doing so...)

It's going to disproportionately hurt people living paycheck to paycheck, schools, minorities, and poorer nations - groups that can't afford to buy or upgrade to processors that are current. I've got Win10 on everything in my house for security reasons, but I rely on multiple PCs with components a decade or more old. I can't afford to upgrade any of them, let alone all of them.

The fact that they decided to push this during the chip shortage is batshit insane and blind.

It is always going to be too soon. Secure boot was the requirement for certified Windows 8 PC (2012). TPM 2.0 was the requirement for certified Windows 10 PC starting July 2016. So since over five years ago Windows 10 supported those security feature. With Windows 11, they now make it mandatory.

[Victoria Raverna]

Windows 11 will hobble gaming performance by default on some prebuilt PCs

VBS is not a new Windows 11 feature. It is in Enterprise version of Windows 10 since first Windows 10 version and in non Enterprise version since April 2018 version (Windows 10 1803). I always have it enabled and never noticed a problem in gaming. The Memory Isolation feature that blocked two drivers when I upgraded to Windows 11 was part of the VBS. It was enabled in Windows 11 because I had it enabled in Windows 10.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Windows 11 will hobble gaming performance by default on some prebuilt PCs

VBS is not a new Windows 11 feature. It is in Enterprise version of Windows 10 since first Windows 10 version and in non Enterprise version since April 2018 version (Windows 10 1803). I always have it enabled and never noticed a problem in gaming. The Memory Isolation feature that blocked two drivers when I upgraded to Windows 11 was part of the VBS. It was enabled in Windows 11 because I had it enabled in Windows 10.

No one said it was, and VBS undeniably improves system security. The concern from PC Gamer is that the VBS rollout in Windows 11 will not be optional on prebuilt Windows 11 PCs. In which case a 25-28% drop in gaming performance could translate to hundreds of dollars of wasted GPU. Potentially, that's akin to a prebuilt VBS-enabled GTX 3070 Windows 11 PC having similar performance as a custom-built system with VBS disabled and a cheaper, lower-end GPU.

Having said that, CPU virtualization has been around much, much longer and is significantly more mature than GPU virtualization. So, hopefully nVidia and AMD may address it with suitable driver optimization.

[malchior]

My issue with these changes is that they are not really risk relevant in a realistic way. Enabling TPM and using it to support BitLocker on a laptop? That makes some sense. Enabling it on some schlub's home pc? The benefits there are less solid. It is especially thin if data leakage is your real worry. I mean if you have legitimate worry that someone might take a drive and it'd matter for some reason, then yes they'll need to enable TPM/flip on BitLocker.

That being said I don't think that is a real threat to most people. Their data is stolen outside their house 99% of the time. If the risk they are trying to mitigate is ransomware well TPM isn't going to do much for you. Unless they are going to start signing binaries or similar mechanism, build hash lists, and store them out in TPM. I think that's pretty doubtful. In that spirit, I don't get why it is a hard requirement in the consumer space. At this point they should give us some broader guidance about what the benefit is in real terms or what their vision is for the move.

[Blackhawk]

The security benefits of this requirement are real, but they put them out too soon. If they're going to go back to numbering Windows versions, they should have put out Win11 with support for this security feature, then five years from now put out Win12 with it as mandatory. As it is, it's going to cause a lot of problems. Security problems when they effectively end support for half of the PCs on peoples' desks in a few years, and compatibility problems when new versions of software start requiring an operating system that half of the world can't install (although I hope that they realize this wouldn't be the best option for sales and avoid doing so...)

It's going to disproportionately hurt people living paycheck to paycheck, schools, minorities, and poorer nations - groups that can't afford to buy or upgrade to processors that are current. I've got Win10 on everything in my house for security reasons, but I rely on multiple PCs with components a decade or more old. I can't afford to upgrade any of them, let alone all of them.

The fact that they decided to push this during the chip shortage is batshit insane and blind.

It is always going to be too soon. Secure boot was the requirement for certified Windows 8 PC (2012). TPM 2.0 was the requirement for certified Windows 10 PC starting July 2016. So since over five years ago Windows 10 supported those security feature. With Windows 11, they now make it mandatory.

Right now only computers with components released after 2017 can be upgraded. Since most people upgrade one or two steps below cutting edge, then realistically only computers built in the last three years are going to be eligible. And that three years was during a shortage that drove up prices, and fully half it was during a pandemic that crippled shipping. So yeah, right now is still too soon.

[Victoria Raverna]

The security benefits of this requirement are real, but they put them out too soon. If they're going to go back to numbering Windows versions, they should have put out Win11 with support for this security feature, then five years from now put out Win12 with it as mandatory. As it is, it's going to cause a lot of problems. Security problems when they effectively end support for half of the PCs on peoples' desks in a few years, and compatibility problems when new versions of software start requiring an operating system that half of the world can't install (although I hope that they realize this wouldn't be the best option for sales and avoid doing so...)

It's going to disproportionately hurt people living paycheck to paycheck, schools, minorities, and poorer nations - groups that can't afford to buy or upgrade to processors that are current. I've got Win10 on everything in my house for security reasons, but I rely on multiple PCs with components a decade or more old. I can't afford to upgrade any of them, let alone all of them.

The fact that they decided to push this during the chip shortage is batshit insane and blind.

It is always going to be too soon. Secure boot was the requirement for certified Windows 8 PC (2012). TPM 2.0 was the requirement for certified Windows 10 PC starting July 2016. So since over five years ago Windows 10 supported those security feature. With Windows 11, they now make it mandatory.

Right now only computers with components released after 2017 can be upgraded. Since most people upgrade one or two steps below cutting edge, then realistically only computers built in the last three years are going to be eligible. And that three years was during a shortage that drove up prices, and fully half it was during a pandemic that crippled shipping. So yeah, right now is still too soon.

For those that can't upgrade to Windows 11, they can stay with Windows 10 which is still going to be supported for another 4 years.

[gilraen]

Whenever my work updates our computers with the new Windows version - that's usually when I upgrade my personal computers.

My gaming laptop is brand new, but my desktop computer is from 2012, and I won't be replacing it just for Win 11 unless the CPU or motherboard fail in the next 4 years.

[Blackhawk]

The security benefits of this requirement are real, but they put them out too soon. If they're going to go back to numbering Windows versions, they should have put out Win11 with support for this security feature, then five years from now put out Win12 with it as mandatory. As it is, it's going to cause a lot of problems. Security problems when they effectively end support for half of the PCs on peoples' desks in a few years, and compatibility problems when new versions of software start requiring an operating system that half of the world can't install (although I hope that they realize this wouldn't be the best option for sales and avoid doing so...)

It's going to disproportionately hurt people living paycheck to paycheck, schools, minorities, and poorer nations - groups that can't afford to buy or upgrade to processors that are current. I've got Win10 on everything in my house for security reasons, but I rely on multiple PCs with components a decade or more old. I can't afford to upgrade any of them, let alone all of them.

The fact that they decided to push this during the chip shortage is batshit insane and blind.

It is always going to be too soon. Secure boot was the requirement for certified Windows 8 PC (2012). TPM 2.0 was the requirement for certified Windows 10 PC starting July 2016. So since over five years ago Windows 10 supported those security feature. With Windows 11, they now make it mandatory.

Right now only computers with components released after 2017 can be upgraded. Since most people upgrade one or two steps below cutting edge, then realistically only computers built in the last three years are going to be eligible. And that three years was during a shortage that drove up prices, and fully half it was during a pandemic that crippled shipping. So yeah, right now is still too soon.

For those that can't upgrade to Windows 11, they can stay with Windows 10 which is still going to be supported for another 4 years.

At which point half of the PCs in the world will become unsafe to use. That's still why I say it is too soon. It needs to be done in a way that doesn't expose half of all PCs to the wild.

[Victoria Raverna]

The security benefits of this requirement are real, but they put them out too soon. If they're going to go back to numbering Windows versions, they should have put out Win11 with support for this security feature, then five years from now put out Win12 with it as mandatory. As it is, it's going to cause a lot of problems. Security problems when they effectively end support for half of the PCs on peoples' desks in a few years, and compatibility problems when new versions of software start requiring an operating system that half of the world can't install (although I hope that they realize this wouldn't be the best option for sales and avoid doing so...)

It's going to disproportionately hurt people living paycheck to paycheck, schools, minorities, and poorer nations - groups that can't afford to buy or upgrade to processors that are current. I've got Win10 on everything in my house for security reasons, but I rely on multiple PCs with components a decade or more old. I can't afford to upgrade any of them, let alone all of them.

The fact that they decided to push this during the chip shortage is batshit insane and blind.

It is always going to be too soon. Secure boot was the requirement for certified Windows 8 PC (2012). TPM 2.0 was the requirement for certified Windows 10 PC starting July 2016. So since over five years ago Windows 10 supported those security feature. With Windows 11, they now make it mandatory.

Right now only computers with components released after 2017 can be upgraded. Since most people upgrade one or two steps below cutting edge, then realistically only computers built in the last three years are going to be eligible. And that three years was during a shortage that drove up prices, and fully half it was during a pandemic that crippled shipping. So yeah, right now is still too soon.

For those that can't upgrade to Windows 11, they can stay with Windows 10 which is still going to be supported for another 4 years.

At which point half of the PCs in the world will become unsafe to use. That's still why I say it is too soon. It needs to be done in a way that doesn't expose half of all PCs to the wild.

Like I wrote before by that reasoning, it'll be always too soon. You said to do Windows 11 that support the security feature for 5 years then make it mandatory with Windows 12. That is what they're doing except they called your Windows 11 as Windows 10. Windows 10 supported the security feature but not mandatory for over 8 years (2017 to October 2025). By the time it is mandatory to upgrade to Windows 11 or newer Windows, computers that doesn't support it will be over 8 years old.

It'll be always too soon to some people. 8 years is not enough for some people. 16 years is also not enough for some people, too. The only way it is not going to be too soon is never make it mandatory.

[Blackhawk]

Let me simplify: Three years after the technology becomes a part of the normal market is too soon. The difference is that technology requires time to 'filter down' to normal users, then more time to filter down to lower income users. That's not being allowed to happen.

It's like requiring electric vehicles in order to use a highway. It might work when the technology gets cheaper, or when poor people are able to buy the used ones, but right now they're limited to the well-off.

And I'm sick of seeing companies catering to the well-off and leaving the poor high and dry because they're not big enough spenders.

[Victoria Raverna]

Let me simplify: Three years after the technology becomes a part of the normal market is too soon. The difference is that technology requires time to 'filter down' to normal users, then more time to filter down to lower income users. That's not being allowed to happen.

It's like requiring electric vehicles in order to use a highway. It might work when the technology gets cheaper, or when poor people are able to buy the used ones, but right now they're limited to the well-off.

And I'm sick of seeing companies catering to the well-off and leaving the poor high and dry because they're not big enough spenders.

Let me repeat, it is 8 years not 3 years. The new feature is not mandatory until October 2025 since you don't have to upgrade to Windows 11 until then. Windows 10 is still being supported and going to be the main target for software developers if a lot of people can't upgrade to Windows 11.

It is also very likely they'll extend support for Windows 10 longer like what they did with Windows 7 if there are still a lot of Windows 10 in use that can't install Windows 11 by October 2025.

It is also possible that Windows 11 will be like Windows 8/8.1. People stayed on Windows 7 long after 8/8.1 were available and not upgrading until Windows 10.

[Blackhawk]

Three years is not eight years. And yet I have four PCs (out of six) in my house that are older than eight years old. Of the PCs that I have that are under eight years old (and both are under three), only one has a processor that meets the requirements. My 'upgrades' are generally from tech that is five or six years old to tech that is two or three years old, and that was before the chip shortage. In 2025 there will likely be different PCs here, but the age ratio will likely be about the same. The vast majority of the 'family and friends' PCs I've worked on over the years were of that age.

Come 2025 (assuming they don't extend it), I won't be the people using Win7 in the Win8 era. I'll be the people using WinXp in the 8 era, and there won't be anything I can do about it.

Microsoft could have handled this multiple ways, but they are choosing to handle it in a way that caters to their corporate customers, doesn't affect their shareholders, techies, or the reviews sites, but screws people like me.

[Daehawk]

Windows7x64 raises hand.

[Victoria Raverna]

Three years is not eight years. And yet I have four PCs (out of six) in my house that are older than eight years old. Of the PCs that I have that are under eight years old (and both are under three), only one has a processor that meets the requirements. My 'upgrades' are generally from tech that is five or six years old to tech that is two or three years old, and that was before the chip shortage. In 2025 there will likely be different PCs here, but the age ratio will likely be about the same. The vast majority of the 'family and friends' PCs I've worked on over the years were of that age.

Come 2025 (assuming they don't extend it), I won't be the people using Win7 in the Win8 era. I'll be the people using WinXp in the 8 era, and there won't be anything I can do about it.

Microsoft could have handled this multiple ways, but they are choosing to handle it in a way that caters to their corporate customers, doesn't affect their shareholders, techies, or the reviews sites, but screws people like me.

Then it'll like what I wrote. It'll be always too soon. The only way to make it not too soon is if they don't make the security feature mandatory. 10 years from now, there'll still be people with PCs that can't upgrade to Windows 11.

Maybe people with hardware that don't support Windows 11 can switch to Linux if newer Linux doesn't also make it mandatory to have TPM 2.0. Or for gamers, we can choose SteamOS.

[Kraken]

Windows7x64 raises hand.

I always wash my hands after reading one of your posts.

Pretty sure that four years is aspirational; MS will support Win10 for a year or two beyond that. Even if they stick with Plan A, both of my machines will be seven years old and ripe for replacement by then. If I'm still burning oxygen I'll be 67 and ripe for replacement myself.

[Blackhawk]

Three years is not eight years. And yet I have four PCs (out of six) in my house that are older than eight years old. Of the PCs that I have that are under eight years old (and both are under three), only one has a processor that meets the requirements. My 'upgrades' are generally from tech that is five or six years old to tech that is two or three years old, and that was before the chip shortage. In 2025 there will likely be different PCs here, but the age ratio will likely be about the same. The vast majority of the 'family and friends' PCs I've worked on over the years were of that age.

Come 2025 (assuming they don't extend it), I won't be the people using Win7 in the Win8 era. I'll be the people using WinXp in the 8 era, and there won't be anything I can do about it.

Microsoft could have handled this multiple ways, but they are choosing to handle it in a way that caters to their corporate customers, doesn't affect their shareholders, techies, or the reviews sites, but screws people like me.

Then it'll like what I wrote. It'll be always too soon. The only way to make it not too soon is if they don't make the security feature mandatory. 10 years from now, there'll still be people with PCs that can't upgrade to Windows 11.

Maybe people with hardware that don't support Windows 11 can switch to Linux if newer Linux doesn't also make it mandatory to have TPM 2.0. Or for gamers, we can choose SteamOS.

I think we're going in circles here. You just keep ignoring my actual points in favor of repeating 'always be too soon.' I addressed that. The time between the release of the hardware and the point at which it is mandatory is the only real factor. One year later is too soon. 20 years later is too late. At some point in between those extremes the tech will be in the hands at the people at the bottom of the food chain. I think 2025 is prior to that sweet spot based on years at the bottom of the food chain, and years spent helping other people with their PCs.

And seriously, 'if you don't like it, switch to a different OS' is bull.

There is a right way to do this, and that is to ensure that the impact of forcibly making entire systems obsolete is minimized. Their current plan only does that for the well-off.

[Victoria Raverna]

Three years is not eight years. And yet I have four PCs (out of six) in my house that are older than eight years old. Of the PCs that I have that are under eight years old (and both are under three), only one has a processor that meets the requirements. My 'upgrades' are generally from tech that is five or six years old to tech that is two or three years old, and that was before the chip shortage. In 2025 there will likely be different PCs here, but the age ratio will likely be about the same. The vast majority of the 'family and friends' PCs I've worked on over the years were of that age.

Come 2025 (assuming they don't extend it), I won't be the people using Win7 in the Win8 era. I'll be the people using WinXp in the 8 era, and there won't be anything I can do about it.

Microsoft could have handled this multiple ways, but they are choosing to handle it in a way that caters to their corporate customers, doesn't affect their shareholders, techies, or the reviews sites, but screws people like me.

Then it'll like what I wrote. It'll be always too soon. The only way to make it not too soon is if they don't make the security feature mandatory. 10 years from now, there'll still be people with PCs that can't upgrade to Windows 11.

Maybe people with hardware that don't support Windows 11 can switch to Linux if newer Linux doesn't also make it mandatory to have TPM 2.0. Or for gamers, we can choose SteamOS.

I think we're going in circles here. You just keep ignoring my actual points in favor of repeating 'always be too soon.' I addressed that. The time between the release of the hardware and the point at which it is mandatory is the only real factor. One year later is too soon. 20 years later is too late. At some point in between those extremes the tech will be in the hands at the people at the bottom of the food chain. I think 2025 is prior to that sweet spot based on years at the bottom of the food chain, and years spent helping other people with their PCs.

And seriously, 'if you don't like it, switch to a different OS' is bull.

There is a right way to do this, and that is to ensure that the impact of forcibly making entire systems obsolete is minimized. Their current plan only does that for the well-off.

Then how many years is that sweet spot if 8 years is not enough? 10 years? 15 years?

And those that are less well-off than people at the bottom of the food chain in US? Like in third world countries? 20 years? 25 years?

My point is that it is always be too soon for someone somewhere. The only way to stop that is to not make it mandatory at all.

[Blackhawk]

There will never be a way to inflict zero damage with a major change. There is often a way to minimize damage. They're not doing that now.

Anyway, I feel like this is something we just disagree on and I don't want to create bad blood. We likely have very different perspectives - and I know that mine, as a person who keeps other peoples' cast-offs running because he can't afford to buy new, is pretty far toward one end of the spectrum.

[malchior]

There will never be a way to inflict zero damage with a major change. There is often a way to minimize damage. They're not doing that now.

Anyway, I feel like this is something we just disagree on and I don't want to create bad blood. We likely have very different perspectives - and I know that mine, as a person who keeps other peoples' cast-offs running because he can't afford to buy new, is pretty far toward one end of the spectrum.

Yeah it isn't too hard to draw a line around the economics here. Especially since making people with less means computers unsafe in the interest of marginal safety gains is not all that sustainable a concept.

[Victoria Raverna]

Seem like Microsoft told people how to upgrade to Windows 11 if the hardware doesn't meet the requirement.

As long as your have Secure Boot and any version of TPM, you can upgrade to Windows 11 with some registry editing. Or you can just make a boot disk to install.

There are still hardware that can't install, but they're probably hardware that are very old ones. If your PC came with Windows 10, you can upgrade to Windows 11. If it was a Windows 7 PC then maybe you can't.

Still it is better wait and see how long Microsoft will support those unsupported but supported hardware. Probably not a good idea to upgrade until Microsoft confirm that they'll support those hardware at least as long as they are going to support Windows 10.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/10 ... -or-not/2/

[malchior]

Seem like Microsoft told people how to upgrade to Windows 11 if the hardware doesn't meet the requirement.

As long as your have Secure Boot and any version of TPM, you can upgrade to Windows 11 with some registry editing. Or you can just make a boot disk to install.

It is weird that they link to the bypass instructions without reference to the caveat from Microsoft which clearly says - "Other ways to install Windows 11 (not recommended unless instructed by support)". It doesn't really change the math a whole lot. You can do it but it is a workaround and the article acknowledges it turns your now supported PC into an unsupported pc.

[Rumpy]

Just for fun, I decided to try out their PC Health Checker, and right off the bat, my processor (i5 660) is no longer supported , doesn't feature secure boot or TPM 2.0. Not surprised at all given my board and processor are 9 years old.

[Victoria Raverna]

Just for fun, I decided to try out their PC Health Checker, and right off the bat, my processor (i5 660) is no longer supported , doesn't feature secure boot or TPM 2.0. Not surprised at all given my board and processor are 9 years old.

Wow. i5 660 was a generation behind Sandy Bridge so doesn't support avx instructions extension which is required by some newer games or their DRM.

[Isgrimnur]

i7-7800X

[Kraken]

I'm happy to stick with Win10 for as long as they'll support it...which I suspect will be longer than four years. And if not, my machines will be seven years old and ripe for replacement by then.

[Victoria Raverna]

i7-7800X

I think your PC is supported. You just need to get into BIOS or UEFI firmware to enable TPM 2.0.

i7-7800X is part of some processors from 7th generation Intel Core that are supported by Windows 11.

Windows 11 supported 8th generation Intel Core and newer processors but also supported some of the 7th generation.

[Victoria Raverna]

For people that have AMD processors, it is better to wait. There are confirmed report of lower performance with Windows 11 compare to Windows 10.

For those with supported Intel processors, I think it is okay to upgrade if you are ok with learning and adapting to new UI interface. If your monitor and graphic card support it, the Auto HDR is great feature. The Windows 11 HDR also seem to be better than the buggy Windows 10 HDR.

[Rumpy]

Just for fun, I decided to try out their PC Health Checker, and right off the bat, my processor (i5 660) is no longer supported , doesn't feature secure boot or TPM 2.0. Not surprised at all given my board and processor are 9 years old.

Wow. i5 660 was a generation behind Sandy Bridge so doesn't support avx instructions extension which is required by some newer games or their DRM.

Yeah, I'm quite behind the times. At 9 years old, I'm definitely due for an upgrade, but then the pandemic happened sending electronic prices surging. And surprisingly, it runs very well for the most part, but I do find myself getting bottlenecked.