Kitz Forum
Computer Software => Windows 11 => Topic started by: Bowdon on September 29, 2021, 11:25:21 AM
-
I think Windows 11 comes out soon. I'm wondering if anyone on the forum will be getting it?
I did the upgrade check on my computer and so far both the motherboard and cpu have no TPM 2.0 facility. The CPU isn't on the list.
The people who can upgrade I think will get Windows 11 offered to them as an update.
For those who can't upgrade we have until 2025 Windows 10 support.
-
Just out of interest I tried the checker to see if my hardware was compatible but it says I need Windows 10 before I can even try this. Not that I intend to get it anyway, I was just interested as my hardware is quite new. I cannot see why they would restrict this, surely if they want to try to get people back to Microsoft they need to try harder.
I think I'll stick to Linux anyway ;) :blush: :-X :no:
Stuart
-
Windows 8.1 runs fine, may look in 2023.
-
I have a Intel Kabylake i5 (7th Gen Processor) so no upgrade for me :( TPM 2.0 is enabled on the M/B (Intel PTT). I did notice that Asus have issued a new Beta Bios for my M/B for Windows 11.... haven't tried it yet as it's not final release.
Still we've got until 2025 to move to a new platform, although the new Intel Alderlake (12th Gen Processor) looks interesting :)
-
I have a Intel Kabylake i5 (7th Gen Processor)...
I suspect that one will be easy to get around.
Of my three devices running Win10 only one has a TPM, but that also has a 7th Gen i5 like you.
The other two are running a 3rd gen i3 and an AMD A10-5700K - both getting on a bit now but still more than happy running Win10 for everyday tasks. The AMD PC still has a spinning HD too!
:)
-
I think you're underestimating what Microsoft may be attempting here.
I believe they want to exclusively use new CPU instructions to better optimise the OS and reduce the avenue for bugs to creep in, there's no other good reason I could see for the CPU cut-off restriction and them saying unsupported hardware wont get OS updated and may crash.
I'd actually be annoyed if they DON'T do that as it would point more to collusion with OEMs in order to push new hardware, I'd rather believe they are actually doing it to improve OS stability.
-
I think you're underestimating what Microsoft may be attempting here.
I believe they want to exclusively use new CPU instructions to better optimise the OS and reduce the avenue for bugs to creep in...
I really don't know, as two out of my three Win10 machines aren't on the supported CPU list for Win10 (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows-hardware/design/minimum/windows-processor-requirements) and as far as I can see never have been. They are both however running just fine and still getting updates.
I even had a Core 2 Duo running Win10 until about a year ago. That wasn't the best experience but it was useable.
I think only time will tell on this one.
:)
-
They said they will work fine, right now. The idea is they are limiting it so they can make changes later and not guarantee those CPUs will still work.
So basically if in the future they figure out a way to dramatically improve performance or security using instructions exclusive to new CPUs, they can do it.
Although I'm dubious on the security aspect as if they were really serious about that they would have enabled bitlocker in Home edition.
-
I think Windows 11 comes out soon. I'm wondering if anyone on the forum will be getting it?
I did the upgrade check on my computer and so far both the motherboard and cpu have no TPM 2.0 facility. The CPU isn't on the list.
I used the PC check and the processor was the only thing that failed the test.
-
Apparently you can use https://gist.github.com/AveYo/c74dc774a8fb81a332b5d65613187b15 to install Windows 11 bypassing the CPU and TPM checks.
-
Apparently you can use https://gist.github.com/AveYo/c74dc774a8fb81a332b5d65613187b15 to install Windows 11 bypassing the CPU and TPM checks.
I think someone here suggested the CPU list will change over time and ones listed as not compatible now will change.
-
I think someone here suggested the CPU list will change over time and ones listed as not compatible now will change.
They've said they will continue to review the list to decide if any more will be added, no guarantees. Makes you wonder what the determining factor is in what qualifies a CPU.
-
I have one laptop recently purchased that passes the compatibility check.
I also have a very near miss - a tablet that passes everything except the disk size (it only has 58GB).
-
I will stick with windows 10
-
Have noticed today that my Win 10 Pro PC's are now displaying a Win 11 incompatability warning on the Windows Update display window, not sure when this appeared but was certainly before a "Defination Update" carried out today.
Does not appear to be an obvious or easy way to remove this message, I have no wish to be blatently reminded of this already well documented MS anomaly and would prefer to have the message removed, I'am sure someone will discover a way to do so.
-
I had the same issue due not leaving TMP2.0 on when windows 10 update decided to check my system for 11 compatibility, PC health check tool said it was compatible (after enabling TMP2.0) but the windows update stamp of not compatible was issued already.
So I downloaded MS windows 11 media creation tool, made a bootable USB (must be >8GB) then when all finished I started the setup from windows explorer (did not boot from USB stick) :thumbs: *this is the solution for the windows update not compatible message, but after checking PC health check tool and verifying that pc is compatible.
-
Have noticed today that my Win 10 Pro PC's are now displaying a Win 11 incompatability warning on the Windows Update display window, not sure when this appeared but was certainly before a "Defination Update" carried out today.
I have checked and have the same message.
-
Readiness check on my windows tablet:
The processor isn't currently supported, everything else has a green tick including:
The system disk is 64GB or larger.
System storage 63GB
:shrug2:
-
Readiness check on my windows tablet:
The processor isn't currently supported, everything else has a green tick including:
:shrug2:
Maybe its reading the RAW drive size not the formatted size?
-
Going to wait about 6 months before I consider upgrading to it. My 3990WX definitely supports it, just I don't trust there to be initial bugs and such. Microsoft seem to generally follow a pattern of good and then bad O/S, and 11 falls into the bad so I'll wait and see how things go first. As it is there's already been a 15%~ loss in performance on Ryzen systems reported, although a fix is on the way apparently.
-
The good and bad OS pattern was never accurate as people forget the OS versions that weren't great until later service packs. As I recall its more like:
Win 3.1 - Good
Win 95 - Huge improvement
Win 98 - As I recall it didn't fix a lot of stability issues 95 had
Win 98SE - Great
Win ME - I honestly can't remember why people thought this was bad? I think it was more than it didn't offer anything obvious over 98 while needing more resources.
Win XP - Good, but only really great after SP3 I think it was
Win Vista - not nearly as bad as people made out, biggest problem was just insane RAM usage
Win 7 - good, but again only became great after later service packs.
Win 8 - not exactly bad either
Win 10 - is pretty much Win 8 SE and I feel its actually gotten worse from later updates, had a ton of problems getting 10Gbit to work properly. They've actually made a lot of under-the-hood changes to 10, maybe more than 11 which is just more work on top of that. I only think they called it 11 so they could have that backwards compatibility cut-off.
Win 11 - feels more like Win 10 SE to me.
-
Well, I did say generally. Everyone's experiences will differ a bit. :)
I hated Windows 98, 98 SE was much better though. Windows 2000 was a great O/S, missing from that list. I didn't like Vista or 8.0, 8.1 was better though. I can't massively complain about 10, in general I thought it was fine. 11 I've yet to try.
-
Ah yes 2000, completely forgot that but it doesn't really fit in the list anyway as it wasn't a home oriented OS, it was the evolution from Windows NT which eventually became the base for XP as I recall?
At the end of the day though, the numbering in kinda arbitrary as ever since XP its based on the NT kernel we don't have all the technical details of what they changed.
I'm absolutely sure we wouldn't have gotten a Windows 11 if they didn't want to have a backwards compatibility cut-off on hardware to make a push into higher security.
-
I think you're underestimating what Microsoft may be attempting here.
I believe they want to exclusively use new CPU instructions to better optimise the OS and reduce the avenue for bugs to creep in, there's no other good reason I could see for the CPU cut-off restriction and them saying unsupported hardware wont get OS updated and may crash.
I'd actually be annoyed if they DON'T do that as it would point more to collusion with OEMs in order to push new hardware, I'd rather believe they are actually doing it to improve OS stability.
I believe they do collude with hardware vendors.
I still remember the Windows 8/10 debacle. Initially coffeelake had published drivers for windows 8, USB, SATA, chipset, sound etc. all officially supported.
Then suddenly as if it was pre planned, almost over night Intel pulled the drivers, all the motherboard vendors pulled the drivers, and then to seal the deal Microsoft rolled out a patch which disabled windows updates for that hardware. Those of us who had the archived drivers before they were pulled and a patch to disable the updates block, ran windows 8 fine, wasnt unstable, it was just a move to push people to windows 10, and also allowed the hardware vendors to cut their support costs by supporting less OS versions.
Bizarrely Windows 7 kept been supported, it got DX12, and the RTX 3000 series GPUs have a windows 7 driver even though its EOL, whilst they dont have a windows 8 driver which is not EOL.
My advice for people who either dont like windows 11 changes, or have hardware microsoft dont want to support, is to just keep using windows 10 and not worry about it for 5 years, people are acting like windows 10 is dead and that they must move to windows 11.
-
That's not really the same thing though as Windows 10 AFAIK was compatible 100% with Windows 8 hardware (the odd hardware that wasn't the old 8 drivers usually worked on 10) and a free upgrade to 10 from 8.
-
That's not really the same thing though as Windows 10 AFAIK was compatible 100% with Windows 8 hardware (the odd hardware that wasn't the old 8 drivers usually worked on 10) and a free upgrade to 10 from 8.
I suspect the take-up of Win11 will be a lot lower than it was for Win10 because of this. I certainly won't be rushing out to buy three lots of new hardware when what I have now serves its purpose perfectly well on Win10, and should continue to to so for a few years yet.
-
Good move tubaman.
I am also staying on Win 10 and hope in the 5 years before its EOL, someone will make a UI mod like openshell/startisback to restore the UI, because I absolutely hate the UI changes in windows 11.
Most of the announced security features (if it bothers you) can be already turned on in Windows 10, they just off by default.
-
I don't know why they haven't released Windows 11 Home without all these added hardware requirements, as most of the programs requiring them aren't even in the Home version.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compare-windows-11-home-vs-pro-versions (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compare-windows-11-home-vs-pro-versions)
I think they have shot themselves in the foot with these requirements in the short term.
It would have been a better user transition if people could have upgraded to Windows 11 Home, then at least they would have been using Windows 11.
I'll be holding out with Windows 10 until I do my next computer upgrade. The next computer it feels like I'm going backwards. I don't like this open water cooling system, and these days SLI i.e. two graphics cards are an outdated idea, so I'll be going back to one.
-
I don't know why they haven't released Windows 11 Home without all these added hardware requirements, as most of the programs requiring them aren't even in the Home version.
That is the confusing part. What's the point of having these requirements and NOT at least allowing encrypted drives in Home edition?
-
Does anyone know if Win 11 has requirements for the CPU’s instruction set ?
-
3.5 Processor
Devices that run Windows 11 require a 1 GHz or faster processor that meets the following requirements.
• Supports 2 Processor Cores
• Compatible with the x64 or ARM64 instruction set
• Supports PF_ARM_V81_ATOMIC_INSTRUCTIONS_AVAILABLE instruction set (for ARM64 processor)
• Supports PAE, NX and SSE4.1
• Supports CMPXCHG16b, LAHF/SAHF, and PrefetchW
• Meets the supported processor generation list
Refer to the Silicon Support Policy for the supported processor list
*Page 12 https://download.microsoft.com/download/7/8/8/788bf5ab-0751-4928-a22c-dffdc23c27f2/Minimum%20Hardware%20Requirements%20for%20Windows%2011.pdf
-
Thank you. When was cmpxchg16b introduced ? Thought everything x64 would have it, I must be daft though.
There is a history of requiring double-width cmpxchg instructions for locks in previous new versions, is there not? And a very good thing too.
-
None of my hardware meets the requirements but for a laugh I installed it in a couple of VM's and a 2007
laptop. The installer on the ISO baulks at the hardware but I just used the Windows deployment tool, DISM,
which makes no hardware checks or needs any registry hacks to run.
Installed cleanly and runs fine.
The Patch Tuesday updates arrived on time and installed without incident. On the 2007 laptop, I downloaded
the fixes and applied them manually, again without any problems. It seems reports that updates would be
blocked on unsupported hardware are, for the time being, wrong. The actual .msu update files are still using the Windows 10 naming convention and both msinfo and the command prompt still describe the system as Windows 10.
To me the whole thing looks more like Windows 10.1 than 11
-
Technically its not going to be much different to 10 at launch, the security features have been touted as some kind of major overhaul, but the majority of them already exist in 10.
The primary reason for the 11 rebrand, I still think is to force a new UI on people, force new requirements on developers (now DCH drivers are needed), and to allow new defaults to be adopted (these seem to be primarily for security reasons).
End users will always be more submissive to changes like this if its a new OS version rather than just an update to an existing OS.
I have played with 11 on a VM like many others I have that curiosity, but I will take the same approach to my production machines I have always taken before which is to only upgrade if I have a big reason to upgrade, I have no big reason to upgrade to 11 right now.
There is some changes I like, the settings applet changes for instance, but I feel the overall desktop UI is a pretty big regression, as if they trying to put tablet UI onto desktop users, because Microsoft still refuse to make different OS builds for different devices, instead they want one for all devices.
-
> Microsoft still refuse to make different OS builds for different devices, instead they want one for all devices.
Understandable - UI fragmentation is one of things that went towards killing Symbian, not forgetting the iPhone, and various other factors. So Microsoft is wise imo - I think they need an adaptive OS, or one with #ifdefs in it :-), so that at least they only have one codebase.
Confession: I worked for Symbian in 1998.
-
I didnt know that killed Symbian, but I do agree, that one code base is ok if they could at least have some adaptiveness in the OS to allow people to change for their device type.
-
They had to try and deal with all kinds of display sizes, and they had their customers such as Nokia not using parts of the Symbian o/s, from what I’ve read and what my old boss has said publicly, such parts particularly being UI-related code, look-and-feel and so forth.
Interesting fact- my friend Jane completely rewrote the core of the o/s, so ‘Symbian o/s’ is not one o/s but two; made it hard real-time capable, I think, iirc. I haven’t quizzed her about it though. That was years after I had left. She wrote a book about the new v2 o/s, which in its guts bore almost no relation to the old I suspect. I’ve forgotten what the proper code name for the new o/s was.
There’s a book about about the crash downfall of Nokia which is extremely interesting reading, need to find the reference; doesn’t talk about Symbian though. In the beginning, Symbian was owned by a consortium: Psion, Ericsson, Nokia, poss Motorola [?] (I forget) and maybe another shareholder whom I can’t remember. Later on, Nokia bought up a lot of the shares. This was all many years after I had left. I think I worked for them for less than a month, then left London and went to Skye. Before then, the division I worked for was Psion Software.