Read more.Quote:
Adds Intel Core X, Xeon W, and Core 7820HQ (Surface Studio 2) CPUs to compatibility list.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Adds Intel Core X, Xeon W, and Core 7820HQ (Surface Studio 2) CPUs to compatibility list.
I'm convinced there will be people who see that they won't have to deal with Windows Update as often and come to the conclusion that it's an improvement over the standard setup.
Don't think I would be one of them, but perhaps with a sturdy enough AV suite you could make it all work.
Ughh, assuming this isn't some sort of miscommunication, what were they thinking? Why on Earth would it be a good idea to allow people to use an OS if they're not going to get security updates? That's just asking for widespread trouble. Unless this is just a case of modifying the install media to force it to work.
Windows Update can be its own worst enemy at times, but it's almost never a solution to just disable it. That's how we have ended up with prolific malware over the years. Plenty of the notorious, advanced malware of recent years have been completely inoperable on fully patched Windows installations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
Antivirus is not a replacement for security updates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
I'm not exactly known for being a fan of W10 (and therefore, by extrapolation, hardly either a W11 or MS fanboy) but I think we have to give them a bit more credit than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
It looks to me, from several different reviews but not having gone back to MS's own statements, that exact wording is important here, and nuanced.
As I understand it, MS haven't (now) simply suggested they're going to actively seek to block users with 'unsupported' hardware. They're just not going to go out of their way to facilitate it. They haven't said they won'tallow security updates to such users, merely that it may not work. much the same applies to updates. It may not work, but by inference, it also may work, and that it "may" not suggests they're not testing it either way.
It seems to come down to "We're intending W11 for hardware meeting <insert list> and if you are not on that supported list, then we simply haven't and aren't going to either test it, or expend effort to ensure it works. If it does, good for you but if it doesn't, don't come crying to us - it's unsupported."
And even as not exactly an MS fan, well, they can't support everything going back in time. They seem to be insisting on TPM 1.2, and from the perspective of future security, I have trouble arguing with that. If, in order to provide additional boot security, they must insist on that, then ... fair enough. I mean, if the OS provides a route to bypass that, then that gives a route for hackers, malicious code, etc, to bypass it too. Maybe their stance on TPM is that it's been around for some years and, well, it's time to make life harder for the nasty and/or criminal element. Maybe someone will find a way to get W11 onto non-compliant machines, but MS seem to want no responsibility for anything that might happen as a result.
And users with non-compliant still have a couple of viable options, including switching to Linux, or just carrying on with W10 for another 4 years, until that goes EOL.
Overall, we're still in beta territory and I don't think we can conclude much about their final posiion until we get the criteria attached to actual product releases, not betas.
Agreed. An educated "not quite yet" is one thing. Delaying a while is okay, provided it's understood that not doing so involves an element of risk from not patching potential weaknesses. It also involves not risking issues from errors in the patch itself, and that's a fine balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
There is a danger, though, that some users will select "next week" indefinitely, and months later, are still saying "next week". That said, it's MY machine, and if I'm daft enough to do that, it's my risk. The alternative, of MS over-riding my decision and installing anyway, whether I want it or not, ignores the possibility that I know the risks, but have a reason for refusing a given patch, perhaps because I already tried it and know it breaks something important to me.
Different users have diffeent levels of both expertise, and installed hardware and software. For non-techie users, forcing an install might be a good idea but for those that know what they're doing, it is very presumtuous of MS if they over-ride a decision to not install, and do it anyway. It isn't their system. They sota can't win, either way .... except by putting the "don't install" option somewhere that you have to be looking for it, really intending to find it, to find it.
Yeah I suspect 'miscommunication' is the more likely scenario here. I really can't see a way they'd be intentionally digging that hole for themselves.
Regarding TPM, I'm inclined to agree. However, there are systems that support integrated TPM but are unsupported regardless, so that's not the only requirement. Supporting e.g. Coffee Lake but not Kaby Lake is curious as they're both effectively Skylake at the CPU core level, and as far as I know the GPU/chipset features are also close to identical, so I wonder if there are other platform changes they are considering, or just wanted to draw an arbitrary line in terms of supported hardware?
is there any tool anywhere... where I can seeif my current system is compatible with?
If I emember orrectly, theres a very basic minimum hardware spec, and then, TPM 1.2.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Having a base hardware requirement, and it was a pretty low base, isn't surprising as they can't support legacy hardware forever .... or people would expect W11 to run on their Amstrad 1640 or original PC/XT.
It all still seems to be a moveable target until official release, though, and anything they say now could change until then. And very possibly will. It's why I'm not paying much attention yet, and certainly not DL'ing or installing 'trials'. I get why people are, and in the past I would have too, but now? I'm rather "meh" about the trials. Nothing I (or any of us) say is going to change their minds, and I can't be bothered to fart about with it. When the final release is out, I'll just decide to upgrade, or not, and either way, just move on. I'm ready for them, this time, and can cope quite happily either way. ;) :D
I think it's only open to 'insiders' at the moment, with the public release coming 'later'.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuorTek
A base performance requirement is one thing, but that doesn't add up when they're allowing e.g. a quad core Skylake CPU called Coffee Lake, but not allowing a quad core Skylake CPU called Kaby Lake. i3-8100 is supported, but i7-7700k is not, despite its higher clocks. The nearly identical i7-7740X (Kaby Lake for socket 2066) has just been added though. A platform with what I expect is a negligible market share. The exact line they've drawn just seems more arbitrary than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen999
So being someone has literally just installed Windows 11 on an "unsupported" system since the new advice, thought I'd give you a little feedback. Firstly, my understanding of the unsupported systems are in the main are those without Secure Boot & TPM 2.0 (Not TPM 1.2) The only thing I have that doesn't qualify is an i7 6700K 4Ghz. I created a bootable USB with Rufus. On completion Rufus advised that the image will not work unless Secure Boot is disabled?. Found some instructions online that assure me, it is safe to disregard this, so I crack on. First attempt is an utter disaster and failed with an unable to boot error message, so I try to restore Windows 10 with an Acronis Back-Up to find that the drive numbers on my 6 Hard Drives have been scrambled by the attempted Windows 11 install. The recovery installs to a now partitioned HDD and is unusable. At this point I'm regretting my decision to crash & burn and I overwritten my Windows 10 USB with Windows 11 (Yes I know, I only has one to hand) While creating an new install ISO on another system, by pure chance and in exactly the same way I attempted the Windows 11 install again. This time it went seamlessly (without disabling Secure Boot) After a serious near-miss I now have Windows 11 running seamlessly (so far) The context menu is a little glitchy but so far, it is pretty sweet. Managed a decent couple of hours Gaming last night :-) It was a risky, stressful road getting there though. P.S. My Asus Motherboard only supports Gen 6 & Gen 7 but Asus are currently creating a "Windows 11" Bios for the board (Currently in Beta)
If I remember correctly, MS initially said TPM 2,0 was necessary, but more recently revised that to TPM 1.2, either in hardware or firmware.
However, I have not been paying close attention to it (not until it releases officially) so could easily be misremembering what MS said .... and changed to.
Rule 1 of installing Windows - remove *every* drive apart from the one you want to install Windows on! I've lost count of the amount of times this has caused problems on friends' computers when they've swapped storage drives out etc. It's utterly ridiculous that Windows still behaves this way.
It happened to me once, with Windows installing the boot partition on a storage drive, so Windows later failed to boot when I removed that drive. :rant::wallbash:
Good point about the BIOS updates though, I remember hearing about those somewhere. Maybe the motherboard manufacturers know something we don't?
So it really is starting to sound more and more like windows 11 was really more about selling new pc's than 'security' and it will basically run on anything that can run windows 10....
The amount of confusion and contradiction that is being released about windows 11 isn't really going to help windows 11 adoption imo....but then windows 11 is the 'bad release' in the cycle so....
MS need to come out with clear, simple, non contradictory information rather than what they are releasing now.
I feel sorry for anyone working in tech support or those that deal with pc problems...not to mention those with zen1 cpu's (seriously, I have no idea why they don't qualify)...
Now if tpm (1.2) modules could cost the £5-10 they should cost rather than the £70+ that scalpers are charging....
The overwhelming majority of PCs don't need an add-on TPM modules as every CPU since I think the Haswell era has supported firmware TPM (i.e. every supported CPU and beyond). The ridiculous prices being charged seem to be an amalgamation of scalper idiocy and/or people panic-buying from scalpers through sheer ignorance. I've also not yet encountered a Skylake+ era system that didn't have a BIOS switch to enable this, even if it was off by default. The same could be true for earlier systems but I've not had the opportunity to check many of those.
MS have required TPM for Windows 10 system builders for years now, so it's not a sudden shocking requirement: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...for-windows-10
MS however, could have done a better job of communicating this after all the media hyperbole to pull the rug out from under the greedy scalpers' feet, and prevent people from getting ripped off.
I think it's a bit premature to make sweeping statements like in your first line though. The TPM and secure boot requirements are almost indisputably useful, and the recent changes don't alter that at all.
It's like Microsoft inhabit an alternative reality where we're not in the midst of a global shortage of silicon and people don't care about environmental issues.
If this W11 option is in a state where you're effectively taking full responsibility for updating your system and ensuring drivers are properly installed and configured - I'm disabling my TPM and getting this. The bane of my PC existence is Windows automatically giving me updates that it thinks are good for me and causing problems in the process. If I can have W11 without that nonsense and take full responsibility for installing the updates I want on my own schedule, that sounds actually pretty good. Take out the automated stuff and I can guarantee I've set a restore point, know exactly what was installed when and have a much more active role in troubleshooting.
Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.
Microsoft: Here's something for free. Windows 10 was a success, despite the initial MOANING.
Nearly everyone here: Moan, complain, give me my money back! (Installs Win 11 anyway).
Usual.
Use your hosts file to block MS services if you're that annoyed. Business updates are NOT an issue, as you have WSUS.
It was quite a long way short of nearly everyone. Some of those that objected to aspects of W10 moved to Linux. Most of my stuff did. Some more would like to but can't for work reasons. I have W10 on just two machibes, and even that because a factor in my circumstances changed that significantly shifted my assessment, but it was entirely external to MS. I am using W10 out of pragmatism, not because my opinion of it has changed, which it hasn't. The hosts file solves a subset of objections but not all. I certainly never said either anything about expecting money back, and would have been stupid to assert it wouldn't be a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur1814
As for W11, the same pragmatism applies, except that I have the option of sticking wth W10 and don't yet know if I will, because we don't yet know what the final product will be.
Yea, how dare people complain. Don't they know we're British. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur1814
Free? Really?!Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur1814
No.
Linux is free and it gets a lot of slack as a result. Windows is a product, whether you paid directly for it or not.
If you can't see the revenue source for a product, you need to keep looking until you do. The odds are it's somewhere hidden and unpleasant, because otherwise they'd tell you about it.
Windows also gets a lot of abuse because they keep telling us how amazing it is whilst they keep breaking the things we depend on for work and productivity with updates which are nearly impossible to avoid and retain an internet connection. I wouldn't mind so much if I installed an update manually at a time of my choosing, but they decide and their underdone QA means their actions break my PC and I have to fix the problem. If your mechanic did that to your car (came round and "serviced" it on your drive whilst you slept, broke it, tells you how much better it is and leaves you to undo the work), you'd be angry. I'd rather have the option to pay for an OS that doesn't do that to me.
Something I rely on being "free" isn't a benefit if it also breaks on a regular basis. "Free" car that breaks Vs paid for car that doesn't. Hmm.
All this whilst MS makes it harder and harder to use alternatives and guarantee compatibility with Office, etc.
So yes, we're complaining. Because the market leader has dumped their QA team, is using spyware to make money and actively making it harder to use alternatives and guarantee compatibility.
And people have the temerity to say "it's free, stop whinging". It's not free; they're selling your personal data and they collect your consent by obfuscation in pages of legalese.
And I do not trust modifying a file in an OS designed to spy on you to stop it spying on you. If I was designing something like this, I'd make a mildly technical way of "stopping it" to fool the unwary and exfiltrate the data some other way.
As Saracen says, it's about pragmatism. Having to use something for pragmatic reasons doesn't make it a good product.
The advantage of Windows over a Mac is that at least when Windows fails it's only the software and the hardware is intact. Apple play a very different game as they control the hardware and that makes for an exercise in terrible PCB design. When your 50-70V backlight and 3.3V display data test points are next to each other under the keyboard, you can expect some blown BGA chips or even CPUs with that one and, guess what, Apple will always prescribe a new logic board for 75% of the cost of a new Mac! Or you could use a USB-C charger not from Apple on your Mac. Same connector is for compatibility, right?! Oh no, they use the same connector and same name but a slightly different standard for ripple. Use a standard USB charger and they'll have you paying for a new logic board. Why? Because the IC that controls the USB charging, whilst almost identical to every other one out there, was custom made for Apple and TI have been instructed to sell it to no one else, especially not repair shops. Did I mention that you'd better be using Apple Cloud as any repair will potentially erase your data.
Hello, Windows Rock, meet the hard place - Apple.
And If you want to use Linux, you'll possibly have to give up some hardware and be technically minded because that one is genuinely free, so requires a little effort from you.
Not completely disputing the revenue source model (and nor do I want to go down that rabbit hole), but there's another aspect to consider.
Microsoft make most of their Windows sales revenue from pre-built computers, laptops, volume licensing, etc. Relatively little came from retail sales or retail upgrades in the first place.
However, people hanging around indefinitely on deprecated versions of Windows were/are a significant PITA for Microsoft, who inevitably had to keep tending to the long-mothballed OS install base for fear of allowing major malware spread for example. The 'free' upgrade actually makes a lot of sense even when you look at it solely from that angle.
Sure, MS would probably prefer if they could get that many people to move *and* have them all pay for it. But weighing up the options of having to support and endless legacy of deprecated OSes or just saving themselves the hassle by pulling people over to the latest build, it's not hard to see why they could have evaluated it as the better option.
Apple are very much a paid-for type of company, and their proponents like to emphasise that when compared against the 'free' Android. However, they also give their users 'free' OS upgrades, and do so for an impressive period of time. Typically for far longer than Android, in fact. Having users on a current build of your software just makes a lot of things so much less complicated, and trying to charge customers for the privilege of an update that benefits the manufacturer can be a tough sell at times, and be counter-productive. MS have just realised that.
MS charging for software updates would make them stand out against the current market, if anything.
Whether or not that wholly benefits the user is another debate. And I concur about not wanting poorly-tested feature updates to break things that previously worked. But as I've said before, MS are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to update policy. The problem with just leaving the updates entirely to the user, is that simply doesn't work. And yes, some people are capable of managing updates sensibly, for instance deferring, or blocking known-problematic updates, but many people who think they know better, don't. The amount of XP-era systems I encountered with Windows Update fully disabled by 'experts' was quite remarkable.