Microsoft wobbles the Windows 11 hardware goalposts

[HEXUS]

Adds Intel Core X, Xeon W, and Core 7820HQ (Surface Studio 2) CPUs to compatibility list.

Read more.

[Ozaron]

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.

[watercooled]

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.

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.

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.

Don't think I would be one of them, but perhaps with a sturdy enough AV suite you could make it all work.

Antivirus is not a replacement for security updates.

[Saracen999]

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.

....

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.

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.

[Saracen999]

....

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.

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.

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.

[watercooled]

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?

[QuorTek]

is there any tool anywhere... where I can seeif my current system is compatible with?

[Saracen999]

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?

If I emember orrectly, theres a very basic minimum hardware spec, and then, TPM 1.2.
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.

[watercooled]

is there any tool anywhere... where I can seeif my current system is compatible with?

I think it's only open to 'insiders' at the moment, with the public release coming 'later'.

If I emember orrectly, theres a very basic minimum hardware spec, and then, TPM 1.2.
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.

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.

[guybrush1966]

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)

[Saracen999]

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.

[watercooled]

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.

Good point about the BIOS updates though, I remember hearing about those somewhere. Maybe the motherboard manufacturers know something we don't?

[LSG501]

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....

[watercooled]

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.

[Corky34]

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.

[philehidiot]

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.