Windows 11 May Not Run on Early Ryzen, Threadripper, Skylake-X, or Any Pre-2016 Intel PC

I'll admit I'm a recent Linux-convert and kind of done with Microsoft at this point. But I can still look at the facts, and form a fair opinion, or admit that I am wrong if warranted.

And I think Microsoft has done some good stuff recently, porting Xbox games to PC and releasing on Steam, Visual Studio Code and other cross-platform products, their warming up to open-source, etc.

But this Windows 11 is a mistake. Clearly it was meant as a patch update for Windows 10 (you can even see it on the insider build info) but some business suit thought they could make more money rebranding it as Windows 11.

And the system requirements are a joke. They are saying 4GB of memory is the minimum and a 1GHz dual-core, but then 7th gen Intel or Zen 1 won't work?! 4GB on RAM is nearly unusable on a modern OS these days, and the 7700K or Ryzen 1 are still good and not that old, it's so inconsistent.

Assuming they are giving the OS away like Windows 10 (and most DIYers probably get OEM keys for cheap) they are basically making their money from new PC sales, which is convenient for them when they are asking people to chuck perfectly good PCs from 3 years ago (even some their own Surface line they are selling today won't work).

I understand the security requirements, and, yes, it is more secure for sure. So I don't think that is a bad thing. But the way they are going about it seems like it's more for their benefit than the users (and honestly, how many average end-users are using BitLocker or anything else that supports TPM right now?).

So I don't know. Might install it when it comes out just to do some benchmarking and see if it is okay, but I honestly don't want to support them anymore so I will hold out on Linux as long as I can unless there is like a big new game I can't get working. I'm just kind of done.
 
The TPM requirement, while I don't entirely agree with it, does make a bit of sense within an enterprise environment for obvious security reasons.
Normally a feature like TPM would just be a feature that's automatically enabled once it detects the hardware. We've been browsing the internet without TPM required forever and will continue to do so forever in the future. It's not like Windows 10 pushed for this feature or migrated people to TPM, and now suddenly we need TPM?
somethings_fucky_trailer_park_boys.gif
The CPU requirement, however, is total bullshit that will artificially and drastically increase e-waste unnecessarily, not to mention force-obsolete so many capable systems both in and out of enterprise and personal markets - this is pure Corporatism, and should be fought against at every facet.
We should bring this up in the future when Microsoft claims to be green for the environment. It's not our fault that a Haswell CPU is still perfectly fine in 2021.
I hope that pendragon1 is correct in that Microsoft will change their requirements in the coming months, because if not, we are in for a truly dark future with Microsoft's "Windows-as-a-service" and its ever-changing requirements.
Microsoft will have to if they want any hope of adoption. Windows upgrades are not like MacOS or Linux in that Microsoft ends up changing way too much stuff that people are comfortable with. MacOS users are happy to upgrade because Apple respects their users need for familiarity, as does Linux. Microsoft puts the start button in the middle and all the menus and settings you remember from Windows 10 are now in different places, once again. Also, it doesn't help that Windows 11 is just Windows 10 with a different skin. Microsoft could be total dicks and still require TPM and newer CPU's but then seven years later more people will be Windows 10 than Windows 11. Microsoft can't even force people to upgrade to Windows 11 like they did with Windows 10, because of their own stupid requirements. It's going to be a shit show and Microsoft would literally have no choice but to retract their requirements. Of course Microsoft could continue to push for these requirements and literally watch the Windows desktop burn as Apple, Google, and maybe even Valve could take away Windows market share. Yes Valve because they're the ones behind Linux and Wine support.

xk94101431971.png
 
Of course Microsoft could continue to push for these requirements and literally watch the Windows desktop burn as Apple, Google, and maybe even Valve could take away Windows market share. Yes Valve because they're the ones behind Linux and Wine support.
I think Valve could be the wild card we are looking for. If their SteamPal device (whatever it is) is running Linux (and all signs point to that) it could be a big moment for people to realize Windows no longer has a stranglehold on the PC gaming market.

Most normal people have probably never heard of Proton, and still think Linux is where it was back in the 90's. A successful Linux handheld could change that perception a lot. Plus Chrome OS getting Steam and Debian app support. It really is all coming together.
 
I’m not so sure the restrictions on the CPU are arbitrary. Microsoft had to make very significant changes to subsystems to account for Intel’s security holes that aren’t present in 8th gen and up because those changes exist on the CPU’s code. Microsoft also had to do some significant overhauls to the task scheduler to accommodate first gen Ryzen and older AMD parts. By cutting that stuff out Microsoft gets to take a lot of code branches out of the finished product and can work on not fucking up the few they left in there.

lots of people have been asking Microsoft to cut the fluff and sadly that means legacy had to go. I doubt I am going to upgrade anything at the office from 10 to 11, perhaps my laptop so I can learn it’s ins and outs and maybe my home rig but not the work ones not at all. New machines coming in I won’t downgrade mind you but I’ll likely have win 10 machines active till the EoL date for sure.
 
I still have some Windows machines, and I'll probably upgrade my laptop to 11 at some point. My dev testing machine I'll likely keep on 10 because I bet it will be another XP/7 thing where people stay on 10 for a long time.
 
I'll admit I'm a recent Linux-convert and kind of done with Microsoft at this point.
No, you'll be back. Let's not pretend. When Nadella gets up on the big stage at the next Windowsfest- "and just One. More. Thing! 90 days Free unlimited Onedrive for everyone!" the ground will shake, and you'll be reinstalling Windows like it was a drinking fountain and you just crossed the Sahara.

And it won't be your fault for not resisting. Resist the urge to blame yourself. This company, this man are just too powerful.

1625472711239.png
 
Last edited:
No, you'll be back. We all will. When Nadella gets up on stage at the next Windowsfest- "and just One. More. Thing! 90 full days of Free unlimited Onedrive for everyone!" the ground will shake, and you'll be reinstalling Windows like it was a drinking fountain and you just crossed the Sahara.

And it won't even be your fault for not resisting. This company, this man are just too powerful.
Getting f*cked by megacorps and their corpo shills is getting extremely tiresome, especially when loyalty means absolutely nothing to them.
No megacorp or CEO is too powerful and all-knowing, though, only the perception of such arbitrary concepts are what gives them power over individuals.

To quote Principal Rolle (Ernie Hudson) from The Substitute (1996):

5fhs53.jpg
 
Last edited:
When literally everyone in the thread is calling out GotNoRice on their repeated revisionist history of only a few years ago, I would say it is time to admit fault and throw in the towel like a mature adult.
It is one thing to be wrong, and it is another to simply be in total denial even when presented with actual historical facts - this is by far the latter.

Now Microsoft is doing the same thing with Windows 11, and we are simply stating the obvious faults and Corporatist tactics that they are going to most likely screw everyone over with.
Revenue matters. Home users, especially folks like us, are not revenue generators. We're not their customers in that sense anymore.
Oh, not to mention the massive amount of unneeded e-waste that will occur because of their new OS "requirements".
I'm still confused why everyone keeps thinking that this will have some impact on the business (enterprise) side.
1. Depreciation cycles are 5 years for desktop systems at most - there are tax reasons for this, but most importantly, that's how long they keep things that they care about. By the time W11 drops, every system supported still will be at or under that mark.
2. Even if there were still Kaby Lake systems < 5 years old at release, NO ONE in the enterprise space is going to be installing this right away. They'll still be shipping systems with W10 - average I deal with right now is 1909 or 1809 (rule of thumb is you install the prior fall update in the spring - lets you figure out / patch any issues) - for a very long time. Heck, as an enterprise consumer, you can still get Win7 and support for it if you need to!
The TPM requirement, while I don't entirely agree with it, does make a bit of sense within an enterprise environment for obvious security reasons.
Signed binaries. It makes sense for both sides, we can argue about the ~value~ for home users, but it totally makes sense. Same reason MacOS does it. Same reason Linux does it for that matter too - just does it differently.
The CPU requirement, however, is total bullshit that will artificially and drastically increase e-waste unnecessarily, not to mention force-obsolete so many capable systems both in and out of enterprise and personal markets - this is pure Corporatism, and should be fought against at every facet.
They have no interest in supporting older hardware, since folks with older hardware generally aren't revenue-generating customers. And god knows what it will take to fix issues related to older hardware. No matter where you draw that line, someone is irritated - so they drew it at the 5 year depreciation mark.
I hope that pendragon1 is correct in that Microsoft will change their requirements in the coming months, because if not, we are in for a truly dark future with Microsoft's "Windows-as-a-service" and its ever-changing requirements.
 
I don't think many people understand why Apple went x86 to begin with. It wasn't just because PowerPC was falling behind but because Apple knew the WinTel market was so strong that a lot of Mac users complained about not being able to run Windows applications. Going x86 solved a lot of those problems, but now going ARM has recreated them. Looking at this from an end users point of view if I can't run the latest game or Windows software effectively on my M1 Mac then I'm forced to go buy an x86 PC. Hence why they're #2 even though they had growth.
Like I said, the Mac software situation isn't the same in 2021 as it was in 2005/2006. You do know that's about 15 years ago, right?

And again, you have zero evidence that any dip (if there even really was one) was caused by a lack of Windows software. No, I know what you're going to say... still no evidence. Ah, wait — again, no evidence.

On the other hand, I can safely say that very few if any Mac users bought their system determined to keep up with Windows gaming or the "latest Windows software." If they buy with Windows as a serious consideration, it's typically for that one work app they need to run. Remember, the only really game-friendly Macs are the larger MacBook Pros, the 27-inch iMac and the Mac Pro... and you don't buy those because you intend to spend a lot of time in Windows, especially not for gaming.


That's because a lot of Mac users install Parallels instead. It's far easier than dealing with BootCamp and in most cases does the job. M1 has good x86 performance but not as good as a Genuine x86 CPU, and forget the GPU performance as many games don't run. As a Linux user I'm jealous of Parallels.
Evidence, please? Corel (Parallels' parent company) would be rolling in cash if a large chunk of Mac users were running Parallels; there were over 100 million active Mac users in 2018, and that number has definitely gone up since. Hate to break it to you, but the likelihood is that most Mac users don't run either Boot Camp or Parallels, and only some of those people absolutely need it. The number that does may be notable, but enough to spark a significant sales dip? Probably not.


To be honest most people just browser the web and watch videos which most ChromeBooks do just fine. Clearly you don't buy a Mac for that particular reason.
Not in my case, certainly... but the point is that the days of being forced to run Windows apps are winding down. Which makes me wonder why Microsoft is limiting Windows 11's hardware support. Wouldn't that just steer more people toward Chromebooks and Macs? (And no, in real life few people switch to Linux.)
 
Revenue matters. Home users, especially folks like us, are not revenue generators. We're not their customers in that sense anymore.
We could be if the Windows Store wasn't shit. How exactly does Android make money when the OS is not only free but open source?
No, you'll be back. Let's not pretend. When Nadella gets up on the big stage at the next Windowsfest- "and just One. More. Thing! 90 days Free unlimited Onedrive for everyone!" the ground will shake, and you'll be reinstalling Windows like it was a drinking fountain and you just crossed the Sahara.

And it won't be your fault for not resisting. Resist the urge to blame yourself. This company, this man are just too powerful.

View attachment 372102
Like the great Wendell has once said, "Windows belongs in a VM".


Like I said, the Mac software situation isn't the same in 2021 as it was in 2005/2006. You do know that's about 15 years ago, right?
I'm aware that Photoshop is no longer a game exclusive to MacOS. I admit that software is less of a problem today since most applications are ported to every platform including Linux, but that doesn't change the fact that Windows has software that's exclusive to it that you won't find on Mac.
And again, you have zero evidence that any dip (if there even really was one) was caused by a lack of Windows software. No, I know what you're going to say... still no evidence. Ah, wait — again, no evidence.
I literally made a post about it.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/08/u...GlRqz84wOfl2a0dkQ_5UVLI9u3mkOgh5OlKNLB0O2EpQT
On the other hand, I can safely say that very few if any Mac users bought their system determined to keep up with Windows gaming or the "latest Windows software." If they buy with Windows as a serious consideration, it's typically for that one work app they need to run. Remember, the only really game-friendly Macs are the larger MacBook Pros, the 27-inch iMac and the Mac Pro... and you don't buy those because you intend to spend a lot of time in Windows, especially not for gaming.
The stupidity of people is amazing. Just look at the pandemic and see how people have handled the whole situation. So when someone buys a Mac and expects it to run Windows apps with no problems, you shouldn't be surprised. It kinda worked on Intel Macs because they went to guys like me who pointed out Parallels and Bootcamp, which was mostly fine for them.
Evidence, please? Corel (Parallels' parent company) would be rolling in cash if a large chunk of Mac users were running Parallels; there were over 100 million active Mac users in 2018, and that number has definitely gone up since. Hate to break it to you, but the likelihood is that most Mac users don't run either Boot Camp or Parallels, and only some of those people absolutely need it. The number that does may be notable, but enough to spark a significant sales dip? Probably not.
We're already seeing a sales dip, the question is will it continue?
Not in my case, certainly... but the point is that the days of being forced to run Windows apps are winding down. Which makes me wonder why Microsoft is limiting Windows 11's hardware support. Wouldn't that just steer more people toward Chromebooks and Macs? (And no, in real life few people switch to Linux.)
I'm not about to figure out the method to Microsoft's madness. Microsoft has done a lot of stupid crap in the past, including recent past and they got away with it. Does Microsoft care that Windows 11 might push people towards Mac and Chromebooks? I think Microsoft believes that you either upgrade to Windows 11 for all the new cool features they have, or buy a new PC with Windows 11 preinstalled. They don't see MacOS and ChromeOS as a viable alternative to Windows, and they maybe right. I'm sure there's a poster at Microsoft headquarters with a picture of Linux and some inside joke that only they understand. Then again Microsoft probably had the same thought process with IE vs Netscape, Xbox vs Playstation, and Windows Mobile vs Android. Microsoft's my way or the highway mentality hasn't been known to work in their favor.
 
I'm aware that Photoshop is no longer a game exclusive to MacOS. I admit that software is less of a problem today since most applications are ported to every platform including Linux, but that doesn't change the fact that Windows has software that's exclusive to it that you won't find on Mac.
Of course there's still Windows exclusive software. That's not the point. It's that the dependence on Windows software has shrunk significantly since then, and that most people likely aren't buying Macs with Boot Camp or a VM as a must-have.


That's... not evidence. Not even close.

That indicates that Apple fell from the top spot in the US. It doesn't explain why people did or didn't choose Macs apart from price. In fact, it suggests that price, not Windows support, was likely the main reason for the shift — people are buying cheap Chromebooks for tasks like remote schooling. And if you hadn't noticed, Chromebooks don't run Windows.


The stupidity of people is amazing. Just look at the pandemic and see how people have handled the whole situation. So when someone buys a Mac and expects it to run Windows apps with no problems, you shouldn't be surprised. It kinda worked on Intel Macs because they went to guys like me who pointed out Parallels and Bootcamp, which was mostly fine for them.
That's just speculation, though... not evidence. Where's your study showing that a significant number of people bought (or plan to buy) Macs expecting them to run Windows apps without even touching Boot Camp? I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on occasion, but it's a gigantic, massive logical stretch to suggest those know-nothings play a significant role in Mac purchasing habits.


I'm not about to figure out the method to Microsoft's madness. Microsoft has done a lot of stupid crap in the past, including recent past and they got away with it. Does Microsoft care that Windows 11 might push people towards Mac and Chromebooks? I think Microsoft believes that you either upgrade to Windows 11 for all the new cool features they have, or buy a new PC with Windows 11 preinstalled. They don't see MacOS and ChromeOS as a viable alternative to Windows, and they maybe right. I'm sure there's a poster at Microsoft headquarters with a picture of Linux and some inside joke that only they understand. Then again Microsoft probably had the same thought process with IE vs Netscape, Xbox vs Playstation, and Windows Mobile vs Android. Microsoft's my way or the highway mentality hasn't been known to work in their favor.
That's the thing... Windows 11 feels like a revival of the bad, Ballmer-era Microsoft, the one that overestimated the value of Windows and didn't stop to think that competitors could seize on any missteps. It's just a question of who the beneficiaries are and how much they benefit. My guess: Apple profits at the high end ($1K and up), while Chromebook vendors scoop up some of the very low end. I wouldn't say that Windows 11 will mark the end of the monopoly, but it could narrow that monopoly to those in-the-middle PCs where people need more power than a Chromebook but can't afford a Mac.
 
Revenue matters. Home users, especially folks like us, are not revenue generators. We're not their customers in that sense anymore.
Windows is approximately 10% of Microsoft's total revenue - that is screwing over a lot of customers, and perfectly good systems that are hardly legacy, for 10%.
To quote Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) from Aliens (1986):

5fjc1t.jpg
 
We could be if the Windows Store wasn't shit. How exactly does Android make money when the OS is not only free but open source?
Ad revenue, tracking revenue, store revenue. The Windows Store is a Ballmer-Era disaster and will never really be improved on - that's not Microsoft's main revenue stream, and it's not a growth business - not really. It exists to support Azure services and Enterprise ELA services.
I'm not about to figure out the method to Microsoft's madness. Microsoft has done a lot of stupid crap in the past, including recent past and they got away with it. Does Microsoft care that Windows 11 might push people towards Mac and Chromebooks? I think Microsoft believes that you either upgrade to Windows 11 for all the new cool features they have, or buy a new PC with Windows 11 preinstalled. They don't see MacOS and ChromeOS as a viable alternative to Windows, and they maybe right. I'm sure there's a poster at Microsoft headquarters with a picture of Linux and some inside joke that only they understand. Then again Microsoft probably had the same thought process with IE vs Netscape, Xbox vs Playstation, and Windows Mobile vs Android. Microsoft's my way or the highway mentality hasn't been known to work in their favor.
The real revenue generators for Windows (the enterprise) will upgrade as it becomes time to - those are all done via MSFT ELAs (EAs, in their terminology) as needed. That revenue stream isn't going anywhere. Most average home users will upgrade when they get a new PC. Enthusiasts? We get irritated, but we're also the ones buying licenses for $10 or using funky Win7 upgrade paths - we don't generate much revenue for them.
Windows is approximately 10% of Microsoft's total revenue - that is screwing over a lot of customers, and perfectly good systems that are hardly legacy, for 10%.
To quote Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) from Aliens (1986):

View attachment 372179
And the majority of THAT is going to be enterprise users and Enterprise Agreements. Those won't change.

Legacy or not, they're 5 years old - they're deprecated out and due for replacement. That's how the business world works. Laptops are replaced every 3-5 years. Desktops every 5. Warehouse/etc systems no one cares about and go longer, but your average machine? Max lifespan from the business side of 5 years. Then they get dumped used on gray market sellers, and show up on craigslist/ebay. Those aren't revenue generators for microsoft anymore - if anything, they're a support drain on revenue. I'm not saying it's the nicest thing they could do, but from a business perspective? I get it. I deal with this all the time - this is the line of business I'm currently in. Perfectly good systems get swapped like clockwork on a depreciation cycle.
 
I'm well aware of that, though it did apply to the Pro edition, which is what we were dealing with in enterprise at the time, as was nearly everyone else in the world.

What percentage of Windows installations are Enterprise edition, in your estimation? I think you are forgetting Microsoft's largest customers.

The free upgrade also only applied to retail/OEM editions of Windows. Professional editions in the enterprise sector would be volume-licensed installations.
 
What percentage of Windows installations are Enterprise edition, in your estimation? I think you are forgetting Microsoft's largest customers.

The free upgrade also only applied to retail/OEM editions of Windows. Professional editions in the enterprise sector would be volume-licensed installations.
There is a Pro version and a Enterprise version. Most Corporations use Enterprise and its Volume Licensing. They get the latest versions included in their volume licensing agreements.
 
Of course there's still Windows exclusive software. That's not the point. It's that the dependence on Windows software has shrunk significantly since then, and that most people likely aren't buying Macs with Boot Camp or a VM as a must-have.
You say it as fact but then...
That's... not evidence. Not even close.

That indicates that Apple fell from the top spot in the US. It doesn't explain why people did or didn't choose Macs apart from price. In fact, it suggests that price, not Windows support, was likely the main reason for the shift — people are buying cheap Chromebooks for tasks like remote schooling. And if you hadn't noticed, Chromebooks don't run Windows.
Chromebooks are also given away for free from schools.
That's just speculation, though... not evidence. Where's your study showing that a significant number of people bought (or plan to buy) Macs expecting them to run Windows apps without even touching Boot Camp? I wouldn't be surprised if it happens on occasion, but it's a gigantic, massive logical stretch to suggest those know-nothings play a significant role in Mac purchasing habits.
You want a study? Oh boy, we've really went that direction haven't we? There is no evidence and there never will be. This is all speculation, and that's all we have to go on by. Considering Apple released their M1 hardware recently and they fell to #2 would suggest that maybe their lack of Windows compatibility is what's deterring customers? You got a better explanation? Keep in mind everyone is selling more hardware because everyone is buying more hardware.
That's the thing... Windows 11 feels like a revival of the bad, Ballmer-era Microsoft, the one that overestimated the value of Windows and didn't stop to think that competitors could seize on any missteps. It's just a question of who the beneficiaries are and how much they benefit. My guess: Apple profits at the high end ($1K and up), while Chromebook vendors scoop up some of the very low end. I wouldn't say that Windows 11 will mark the end of the monopoly, but it could narrow that monopoly to those in-the-middle PCs where people need more power than a Chromebook but can't afford a Mac.
I don't see it that way. Then again who knows what'll happen next year with the way the economy is going? Chromebooks are trying to evolve to be more than just a web browser while Microsoft is also trying to compete against Apple with their Surface products. Apple is trying to isolate themselves by going ARM. To me this move to Windows 11 is just another Vista and Windows 8 type of era, in that we've been down this road before. That doesn't mean things won't change but I doubt Microsoft will lose any significant market share.
 
What percentage of Windows installations are Enterprise edition, in your estimation? I think you are forgetting Microsoft's largest customers.

The free upgrade also only applied to retail/OEM editions of Windows. Professional editions in the enterprise sector would be volume-licensed installations.
Correct, none of my Enterprise/Education licenses qualify for the "free" upgrade from 7/8 to 10, but if I went into my VLSC page and got my updated MAK (multiple activation key) then placed a Windows 10 install media on the device I could begin that upgrade then just provide my key at the appropriate time in the installer and have it perform an upgrade that way. But the windows updater did not offer it as an option, 10 does at least give me the options to perform upgrades between the major releases but they are clearly placed in the optional updates section, I don't know if that is standard or not as I have never checked that in a home / pro machine because I don't really have access to any of those.
 
Correct, none of my Enterprise/Education licenses qualify for the "free" upgrade from 7/8 to 10, but if I went into my VLSC page and got my updated MAK (multiple activation key) then placed a Windows 10 install media on the device I could begin that upgrade then just provide my key at the appropriate time in the installer and have it perform an upgrade that way. But the windows updater did not offer it as an option, 10 does at least give me the options to perform upgrades between the major releases but they are clearly placed in the optional updates section, I don't know if that is standard or not as I have never checked that in a home / pro machine because I don't really have access to any of those.
Not standard. Enterprise works really differently.
 
So many that Linux has what, 1% market share? Or have they managed to break the 2% barrier...nm I looked it up 2.6%. Many they're on a tear. If this keeps up, by 2040 they might have 5% market share. I've been in IT for decades and I can count the number of people who abandoned Windows for linux on one hand. And if I limit it to non IT types, then I need no limbs at all, because NONE have switched.

Again, this switch to Linux has been coming for 20 years and 2.6% penetration. That's a big fat nothing burger. The only way it goes mainstream is if MS decides to build Windows on top of Linux. Only then might it fully shed it's original credo: it was hard to write it should be hard to use (*)

(*) for non technical users
So windows wins because it's installed on the device when you buy it? Odd logic is odd. Personally, I'd be impressed with 5% Linux adoption considering an OS that receives no capitalistic marketing whatsoever, made by the people for the people - Hell, I find the current adoption rates impressive.

McDonald's is a 'restaurant', not a real good one, bad for one's health, but still very popular - Highlighting that 'Popularity' is not always a measure of 'great'. Once again, as ARM devices increase in popularity with the hobbiest community and most run some form of Linux, times are changing. Eventually Windows will fully adopt the fat fingered touch UI and it's days as a desktop OS will be all but gone, then you can enjoy paying a subscription for everything about the OS that matters.
 
Windows is approximately 10% of Microsoft's total revenue - that is screwing over a lot of customers, and perfectly good systems that are hardly legacy, for 10%.
To quote Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) from Aliens (1986):



I'm really feeling this. I'm hoping this launches to very poor reviews and is poorly received. I'm already disenfranchised with the way Microsoft handles business.
 
As much as I'd like a mass exodus from Windows, it probably won't happen.

People that want the latest/greatest will begrudgingly install it. Most people will stay on Windows 10 and complain.

It will be just like Vista and Windows 8, and business will go on as usual.
 
I hope the reality has set in with the Microsoft defenders that MS will indeed be barring installation of Windows 11 on 2017 and older PC's.

How much actual testing have you done using real Windows 11 builds on actual hardware? I'm pretty sure I wasn't dreaming while I took this screenshot:

Q6600_21H2.jpg


It's just kind of comical when you have someone who reads an article, and based on that, thinks they know more than those actually doing the testing.

The moment Windows 11 can't actually be installed on older hardware, I'll be the first one here posting about it. Right now, it runs fine on anything that Windows 10 can run on.

I’m not so sure the restrictions on the CPU are arbitrary. Microsoft had to make very significant changes to subsystems to account for Intel’s security holes that aren’t present in 8th gen and up because those changes exist on the CPU’s code. Microsoft also had to do some significant overhauls to the task scheduler to accommodate first gen Ryzen and older AMD parts. By cutting that stuff out Microsoft gets to take a lot of code branches out of the finished product and can work on not fucking up the few they left in there.

As of right now there isn't anything that is broken when it's installed on the Q6600. That, to me, implies that the restrictions are indeed arbitrary, or at least, aren't directly tied to anything that is necessary for the system to actually function. I specifically chose this system because it's basically the oldest Quad-Core CPU. It does not have TPM or Secureboot. No UEFI. Not a supported CPU. No SSSE4.1. It's not even using a DX12 GPU. Everything works great.

If there is some specific function that you believe requires TPM, or Secureboot, etc, let me know and I will be happy to test it on my test rig.
 
How much actual testing have you done using real Windows 11 builds on actual hardware? I'm pretty sure I wasn't dreaming while I took this screenshot:

View attachment 372267

It's just kind of comical when you have someone who reads an article, and based on that, thinks they know more than those actually doing the testing.

The moment Windows 11 can't actually be installed on older hardware, I'll be the first one here posting about it. Right now, it runs fine on anything that Windows 10 can run on.



As of right now there isn't anything that is broken when it's installed on the Q6600. That, to me, implies that the restrictions are indeed arbitrary, or at least, aren't directly tied to anything that is necessary for the system to actually function. I specifically chose this system because it's basically the oldest Quad-Core CPU. It does not have TPM or Secureboot. No UEFI. Not a supported CPU. No SSSE4.1. It's not even using a DX12 GPU. Everything works great.

If there is some specific function that you believe requires TPM, or Secureboot, etc, let me know and I will be happy to test it on my test rig.
It very well could work and work well on a 6 series but if they don’t have the code base cooked into windows like they do on 10 to close the hardware security holes then it’s not exactly a safe environment. Those software security patches are a good 5+% performance across the board, was an ugly implementation and causes just about as many problems as it solves.
Could they fix the implementation maybe? Should they… I’m not so sure.
 
How much actual testing have you done using real Windows 11 builds on actual hardware? I'm pretty sure I wasn't dreaming while I took this screenshot:

View attachment 372267

It's just kind of comical when you have someone who reads an article, and based on that, thinks they know more than those actually doing the testing.

The moment Windows 11 can't actually be installed on older hardware, I'll be the first one here posting about it. Right now, it runs fine on anything that Windows 10 can run on.



As of right now there isn't anything that is broken when it's installed on the Q6600. That, to me, implies that the restrictions are indeed arbitrary, or at least, aren't directly tied to anything that is necessary for the system to actually function. I specifically chose this system because it's basically the oldest Quad-Core CPU. It does not have TPM or Secureboot. No UEFI. Not a supported CPU. No SSSE4.1. It's not even using a DX12 GPU. Everything works great.

If there is some specific function that you believe requires TPM, or Secureboot, etc, let me know and I will be happy to test it on my test rig.
https://blogs.windows.com/windows-i...te-on-windows-11-minimum-system-requirements/
From the article by Microsoft:
In support of the Windows 11 system requirements, we’ve set the bar for previewing in our Windows Insider Program to match the minimum system requirements for Windows 11, with the exception for TPM 2.0 and CPU family/model.

As of right now there isn't anything that is broken when it's installed on the Q6600. That, to me, implies that the restrictions are indeed arbitrary, or at least, aren't directly tied to anything that is necessary for the system to actually function. I specifically chose this system because it's basically the oldest Quad-Core CPU. It does not have TPM or Secureboot. No UEFI. Not a supported CPU. No SSSE4.1. It's not even using a DX12 GPU. Everything works great.

If there is some specific function that you believe requires TPM, or Secureboot, etc, let me know and I will be happy to test it on my test rig.
Your reversal on your stance with Windows 11 isn't fooling anyone, and you haven't owned a single thing in this thread that you have directly been countered on multiple times.
Time to give up the shilling, GotNoRice, because Microsoft does not care about you in the least. :meh:
 
Last edited:
Your reversal on your stance with Windows 11

What stance have I "reversed" on?

I stand by everything I've said. Most of this thread has been hijacked by Linux fanatics who don't actually care about Windows one way or another.

haven't owned a single thing in this thread that you have directly been countered on multiple times

A bunch of Linux fanatics patting each other on the back and telling each other that they are correct doesn't mean I've been countered on anything. I might as well be trying to argue with my dog, and quite frankly, I have better things to do.

Time to give up the shilling, GotNoRice, because Microsoft does not care about you in the least. :meh:

Who the hell are you to tell me i'm not allowed to have an opinion just because I have a generally favorable view of some Microsoft products? Get over yourself.
 
What stance have I "reversed" on?

I stand by everything I've said. Most of this thread has been hijacked by Linux fanatics who don't actually care about Windows one way or another.



A bunch of Linux fanatics patting each other on the back and telling each other that they are correct doesn't mean I've been countered on anything. I might as well be trying to argue with my dog, and quite frankly, I have better things to do.



Who the hell are you to tell me i'm not allowed to have an opinion just because I have a generally favorable view of some Microsoft products? Get over yourself.
Who are you to call others with opinions "Linux fanatics", especially when they have repeatedly hammered this thread with facts about Microsoft's bad practices?
Also, I literally just proved your last post invalid, and you simply ignored that fact, which was directly from Microsoft's own documentation on the currently preview of Windows 11 in that it can run on virtually any x86-64 CPU and without TPM.

I hope you enjoy Microsoft, because they are certainly going to enjoy you.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft's own documentation on the currently preview of Windows 11 in that it can run on virtually any x86-64 CPU and without TPM.

If it's something they can toggle on and off so casually, then that kind of gives one the impression that maybe it's not something that is particularly necessary for the OS to work correctly...

My testing isn't just about installing the OS, but also testing old drivers for hardware that will almost certainly never get native Windows 11 drivers, etc.

I don't claim to be able to predict the future or know exactly what path MS will take. I'm just taking this one OS build at a time and seeing what works and what doesn't. So far, yeah, I'm pretty optimistic based on what I see. If that bothers you, you should ask yourself why.
 
Last edited:
When has Windows asked for a PIN? It just asks me for a password.

If I install a custom launcher you won't notice.


I have done it successfully to many friends and family because I don't like dealing with technical support. The only exception is when someone uses it to play games, like Roblox for example is a problem for me since I can't get Roblox to work on Linux for the life of me. Windows breaks all the time and family members tend to download stuff that breaks the OS all the time. Most malware like to break Windows update to prevent an update from removing it. So I install Linux and disguise it as Windows to prevent these problems. They don't know because as far as they know it's Windows.

For a guy living in reality you seem awfully upset over discussing about OS's. I've done it multiple times with great success. Here's a snapshot of my sisters laptop that I've fixed for her. Other than the obvious background that I've chosen, the differences between Windows 10 and this skinned Linux Mint are hard to distinguish. Now that I think about it the look is more like Windows 7. Oh well.

View attachment 371652

Last time I installed Windows 10 for a family member it wouldn't let me continue without creating a PIN for the account. There was no option hidden somewhere that allowed you to skip this step. However, you can remove the PIN once you sign into the account the first time. I have no idea why Microsoft wants you to remember both your account password and local PIN. I guess it's punishment for the uptake in Windows Hello being so low.
When literally everyone in the thread is calling out GotNoRice on their repeated revisionist history of only a few years ago, I would say it is time to admit fault and throw in the towel like a mature adult.
It is one thing to be wrong, and it is another to simply be in total denial even when presented with actual historical facts - this is by far the latter.

Now Microsoft is doing the same thing with Windows 11, and we are simply stating the obvious faults and Corporatist tactics that they are going to most likely screw everyone over with.
Oh, not to mention the massive amount of unneeded e-waste that will occur because of their new OS "requirements".


I actually respected heatlesssun for their true passion on Microsoft products' versatility, and the many positives they brought to an enterprise and customers - not to mention, heatlesssun would truly admit when Microsoft pushed the boundaries of what was necessary and when they stepped over the line for invasion of privacy and pushed Corporatist tactics on their loyal customers.
I was proud to have them as a friend on this forum for many reasons, especially for helping others with Microsoft products and related issues.

GotNoRice, however, hasn't done any of that, and at this point is just straight up shilling by pushing revisionist history repeatedly, pretending like these severe forced-upgrade issues with Windows 7/10 never existed, and has been proven wrong numerous times in this thread, especially so by the very individuals who actually lived through those said issues that GotNoRice is claiming never happened.
It is also getting tiresome being told these issues didn't exist when we literally lived through them, and only a few years ago at that, so this is all in very recent memory.


The TPM requirement, while I don't entirely agree with it, does make a bit of sense within an enterprise environment for obvious security reasons.
The CPU requirement, however, is total bullshit that will artificially and drastically increase e-waste unnecessarily, not to mention force-obsolete so many capable systems both in and out of enterprise and personal markets - this is pure Corporatism, and should be fought against at every facet.

I hope that pendragon1 is correct in that Microsoft will change their requirements in the coming months, because if not, we are in for a truly dark future with Microsoft's "Windows-as-a-service" and its ever-changing requirements.
Nothing revisionist about it. If you stayed on top of things Windows 10 was never able to install on a PC without you explicitly allowing it to. Not denying that there were a multitude of people that this did happen to, but it's missing the whole picture to assert that Windows 10 was automatically installing on everybody's PC.
 
It's just kind of comical when you have someone who reads an article, and based on that, thinks they know more than those actually doing the testing.

The moment Windows 11 can't actually be installed on older hardware, I'll be the first one here posting about it. Right now, it runs fine on anything that Windows 10 can run on.



As of right now there isn't anything that is broken when it's installed on the Q6600. That, to me, implies that the restrictions are indeed arbitrary, or at least, aren't directly tied to anything that is necessary for the system to actually function. I specifically chose this system because it's basically the oldest Quad-Core CPU. It does not have TPM or Secureboot. No UEFI. Not a supported CPU. No SSSE4.1. It's not even using a DX12 GPU. Everything works great.

If there is some specific function that you believe requires TPM, or Secureboot, etc, let me know and I will be happy to test it on my test rig.
Did you have to make any registry changes, or just boot to install media and install as you normally would?

As for the CPU/System requirements, I think that's mostly information for system integrators and OEM's to be 'certified' for Windows 11 so that all features are capable of being enabled. If people want to run it on older hardware and possibly lose some features, that should be fine.
 
Who cares? Win 11 will not run on my 1950x? Thanks God! I'm still solidly rocking on Win 7 x64 ESU.
 
So windows wins because it's installed on the device when you buy it? Odd logic is odd.
Linus Torvalds has said this is the reason Linux on the desktop hasn't had much traction. How many people you know will go through the trouble to erase their computer to install Linux or any other OS?
 
Last time I installed Windows 10 for a family member it wouldn't let me continue without creating a PIN for the account. There was no option hidden somewhere that allowed you to skip this step. However, you can remove the PIN once you sign into the account the first time. I have no idea why Microsoft wants you to remember both your account password and local PIN. I guess it's punishment for the uptake in Windows Hello being so low.

Nothing revisionist about it. If you stayed on top of things Windows 10 was never able to install on a PC without you explicitly allowing it to. Not denying that there were a multitude of people that this did happen to, but it's missing the whole picture to assert that Windows 10 was automatically installing on everybody's PC.
When I install Windows I always avoid making a Microsoft account. Maybe that's why there's no PIN?
 
You want a study? Oh boy, we've really went that direction haven't we? There is no evidence and there never will be. This is all speculation, and that's all we have to go on by. Considering Apple released their M1 hardware recently and they fell to #2 would suggest that maybe their lack of Windows compatibility is what's deterring customers? You got a better explanation? Keep in mind everyone is selling more hardware because everyone is buying more hardware.
Then don't make definitive statements about why Apple slipped to second in the US.

Canalys and other market analysis firms have a more plausible explanation as it is: Chromebooks were very popular low-cost options as people continued to work and learn from home, and vendors like HP sell a lot of cheap Chromebooks. Apple is a premium computer brand, so its growth was limited. Doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.


I don't see it that way. Then again who knows what'll happen next year with the way the economy is going? Chromebooks are trying to evolve to be more than just a web browser while Microsoft is also trying to compete against Apple with their Surface products. Apple is trying to isolate themselves by going ARM. To me this move to Windows 11 is just another Vista and Windows 8 type of era, in that we've been down this road before. That doesn't mean things won't change but I doubt Microsoft will lose any significant market share.
The Surface line isn't really the threat to Apple that Microsoft envisioned. It's good stuff, but Microsoft is too hung up on incremental upgrades and so far has a non-starter in the Surface Pro X. I wouldn't say Apple is isolating itself, either. If anything, it's doing what it should have been doing for a while: giving you a clear reason to buy a Mac beyond the software (including integration with the Apple ecosystem) and a few "oh, that's nice" hardware features. The M1 MacBook Air in particular keeps winning a lot of contests: it's faster than equivalent Intel-based laptops, typically lasts hours longer on battery, and is completely fanless. Even if you're not a huge fan of macOS, it may simply be the better system for common tasks.

I certainly wouldn't count on Windows 11 leading to a surge of Mac users, in part because it's just not likely to be as much of a debacle as Vista or Windows 8. But it plays into Apple's hands, and it might lead to a Windows 8-style sales slump where PC buyers (particularly business customers) simply hold off.
 
Linus Torvalds has said this is the reason Linux on the desktop hasn't had much traction. How many people you know will go through the trouble to erase their computer to install Linux or any other OS?
If I was a betting man, I'd bet that most home users never update whatever comes on their computer. If they have Win10 now they'll have Win10 until they replace the machine. When support stops for Win10 they'll keep using it and not care. They barely run windows updates which is why MS started forcing them to run. So, the thought of any substantial numbers of users installing Linux is just ludicrous. Corporate users just replace machines and they're unlikely to switch to Linux unless there's a major cost savings to them that offsets the training for their people.
 
Nothing revisionist about it. If you stayed on top of things Windows 10 was never able to install on a PC without you explicitly allowing it to. Not denying that there were a multitude of people that this did happen to, but it's missing the whole picture to assert that Windows 10 was automatically installing on everybody's PC.

It is revisionist. Sure the people in this forum know enough to watch for shady shit but how much of the population is made up of people like us? A minuscule amount.

How many people out there clicked the red X thinking that would make Win10 NOT install? Far more than the people like us on this forum. Let's not play semantics here. MS pulled some really shady shit with getting Win10 to install and that most certainly lead to Win10 being automatically installed WITHOUT THE USERS PERMISSION. Period.

MS fucked many people in the ass without so much as the courtesy of a reach around. I won't even bring up how many of those people who were upgraded without permission also didn't understand what they were doing when they tied their Yahoo/AOL/Gmail/insertaccount here to the MS account that was touted during Win10 setup.

Bottom line is MS is again trying to pull a fast one simply because it benefits their pocket book, yet so many people out there are excusing it and then using revisionist history with Win10 to justify their excuses.

This is a place where the open source community is so much better than the Windows community. When the FOSS community sees stupid shady shit they raise holy hell and it forces change. Look at the backlash Ubuntu had when they added the Amazon stuff a few years back. Look at the brouhaha around Audacity in recent weeks. Muse Group has been backpedaling for weeks with the new privacy policy, GPL violations, and telemetry they're trying to add. Due to the extreme backlash distros now have the ability to set a simple flag to not include the telemetry bullshit. There's also a possibility that Audacity will simply be forked and the telemetry shit not even available at all.

That type of backlash is what we need against MS but instead people just excuse it all away and MS goes about their day. I mean come on it's stupid for my Intel i7-6820HQ in my Dell Precision 5510 to not be supported. How anybody could try to argue that a quad core with 8 threads @ 3.6 is too slow to run Windows 11 is beyond comprehension. It also isn't because of something like Spectre/Meltdown. That's just a cop out and a bullshit excuse. Like others have said MS is simply forcing obsolescence to try to artificially boost PC sales which means more money for them.
 
If I was a betting man, I'd bet that most home users never update whatever comes on their computer. If they have Win10 now they'll have Win10 until they replace the machine. When support stops for Win10 they'll keep using it and not care. They barely run windows updates which is why MS started forcing them to run. So, the thought of any substantial numbers of users installing Linux is just ludicrous. Corporate users just replace machines and they're unlikely to switch to Linux unless there's a major cost savings to them that offsets the training for their people.
It’s why Microsoft had to remove the option to not update for home. How many class actions did Microsoft tank from all over because people got viruses from not patching.
 
When I install Windows I always avoid making a Microsoft account. Maybe that's why there's no PIN?
If you're on Home, you don't have that choice. Pro / Enterprise / etc allow you to skip. Home, must have account.
 
Back
Top