Question I have concerns about the strict requirements needed to run it ?

[Fatalzo]

So Windows 11 has some very strict system requirements, and we all know that - infact, most computers can't run it.

But there's an issue.

Whenever anything has a major successor, people are almost instant to jump on the train and then become one of the first, because they think it's cool and impressive, or they just really want it.

And this is proven - look at how much Hatchimals, PS5s, XBOX Series X's, RTX 3090s, and stuff like that have been flying around, getting dumped off the shelves and resold, and then they get a major recall.

But Windows 11 has some really unnecessary requirements.

A good amount of people are like me, using an old computer with stuff like a 3rd gen processor, and a weak GPU and PSU, since we don't do anything major with our computers, apart from maybe running light games like Roblox or Minecraft, or doing productive work.

But even more people have medium to low-end prebuilt computers that can usually be up to around 3 years old.

But the Windows 11 requirements are super strict, and as a result most computers, including these new ones, cannot run it.

Now, I think it's quite obvious what Microsoft's goal was - release an OS with very specific requirements, and then tell everyone who doesn't meet them to get a new computer. When someone buys a new computer that comes with Windows, which is almost any non-apple computer, and installation discs count too, Microsoft earns money.

They're quite evidently creating Windows 11 to earn a quick buck, but this actually has some very concerning issues.

When the PS5 and Xbox Series X were announced, they were so hoarded that there ended up being a semiconductor shortage.
When RTX 3090s were sold, they were so hoarded that they sold for more than $10000 dollars, and created a massive graphics shortage, causing even weak GPUs like mine to skyrocket.
With this in mind, Windows 11 has the potential to make TPM chips literally more valuable than their weight in gold. You could literally see thousand-dollar TPM chips flying around the market, but that's not all.

They require very new CPU technologies. Your CPU's generation is also limited by your motherboard. For example, my Z220 Workstation's motherboard can't support a 6th gen CPU, or anything after Ivy Bridge for that matter.

There's already a minor CPU storage, and this might also spark a motherboard shortage, while making new CPUs more valuable than their weight in gold.

Should I be worried about all of this?

 

[USAFRet]

Difference between software and hardware requirements.

Yes, there IS a difference.
And there is nothing preventing Microsoft from implementing that hardware requirement.

 

[hotaru.hino]

An advancement is fine, an ability to tap into in advancement is also fine, making it a requirement can only be justified if it's actually needed. Remember when 3d accelerators came out? Maybe you don't, maybe you're too young, but I do. Remember how they made them a requirement to operate Windows just a few years after the technology was released? Yeah, me either.

DirectX 9 came out in 2003. Three years later, Windows Vista was released and required a DirectX 9 compatible GPU to take advantage of a new driver model.

You're not going to win this argument. TPM is not needed to run Windows. Would you be ok with them requiring a set of speakers being plugged into a 3.5mm jack at all times just to run Windows as well? It's absurd. If you're going to keep harping on "muh security" then Windows should also require all computers be connected to a physical firewall like SonicWall at all times, just to browse YouTube.

I don't care about "winning or losing" arguments. This is a discussion, not a competition. Nor did I say TPM is needed to run Windows. I mean, maybe if you twisted the words around when I said this:

If Microsoft feels that it needs to beef up its security, have it standardized as much as possible, and TPM is the only way to do it, then that's what's going to happen.

And sure, I keep harping about security, but Windows is a huge target for attackers. It's in Microsoft's interest to improve security as much as they can because their biggest customers aren't you or me or the people who tinker with PCs. It's corporations and governments who trust Microsoft that the OS is secure enough that random attackers can't just waltz in their systems and take what they want. If Microsoft fails to show some effort in improving their security, people will just abandon ship and/or sue them for negligence.

I will point back to the vulnerability found in around 2007 which affected Windows 2000, XP, and Vista (and the server versions based on them). Vista's improved security model lessened the severity of the attack. Well, if you left UAC on.

I'd actually agree with that. Basic human psychology shows that the more safety nets someone has, the more risks they take, and lazier they become, ironically increasing the number of accidents they cause.

But let's look at actual data:

• The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration in a 2008 report showed there was a downward trend in deaths and injuries.
• The latest comprehensive report I've found from them was for 2018. However, some of the things they point out are:
  • There's still a downward (albeit small) trend in fatalities
  • Since 1975 when they started recording data, the vehicle fatalities per million miles traveled reduced by 66%
  • There's still a significant amount of people that die due to DUIs, not wearing their seatbelt, or not wearing a helmet if driving a motorcycle.

So while, if we assume, there may be an increase in collisions, there's been an overall decrease in injury or death and a large chunk of those are caused more by reckless behavior in general (as in, they'll do stupid things regardless of safety features). However, that isn't to say I agree with all "safety features." Some of these can be remedied more easily than others, like putting the phone down. Other safety features however, like anti-lock brakes, allow a person who's encounters a high-stress, low frequency event to not have to worry about "oh crap, my wheels are locked, time to let go of the brakes."

Plus there's the issue that in the US people tend to like bigger cars because bigger = more safe, which sucks for people driving smaller cars. And then there's people who buy cars that are way above their skill level. However, none of this has to do with safety features making people lazy and complacent. I'm sure most people who buy a car with that "automatic braking" feature don't go "oh cool, now I don't have to brake anymore."


EDIT: Overall my counterargument against "Windows doesn't need TPM to run" is sure, it doesn't. But I'd like peace of mind knowing that I don't have to worry as much as I am now. This isn't to say I'm going to start clicking on random links, installing random software, but at the very least, if a supply chain attack happens on manufacturer of hardware that I use, a tainted firmware update is pushed, and TPM can prevent that malware from working as intended, all without me having to know or do anything, I would like that.

Otherwise let's just get rid of every security feature we have now. They're not actually needed to run anything anyway.

 

[revodo]

Could you provide the data that show that the various safety features in vehicles have increased auto fatalities, and by how much?

I might, except I said nothing about fatalities, I said accidents.

That shows me you didn't even really read what I said, and that comment was just meant to be condescending. If you're actually curious if my statement was accurate in any way, well, feel free to do your own research. If you do and still think I'm wrong, good for you. At least you did your own research.

 

[USAFRet]

I might, except I said nothing about fatalities, I said accidents.

That shows me you didn't even really read what I said, and that comment was just meant to be condescending. If you're actually curious if my statement was accurate in any way, well, feel free to do your own research. If you do and still think I'm wrong, good for you. At least you did your own research.

An accident that results in an injury or fatality is different than an accident that results in a owie.

A few years ago, I walked away (actually crawled out) from a rollover. The young lady that hit me at 55+mph also walked away. I think she had a bloody nose from the airbag.
Absent vehicle safety features over the years, either or both of us might still be in the hospital.



But, back to the point with computers....
Lets look back to the WannaCry ransomware. The vast majority of systems that were infected were those who had purposely avoided any Windows security updates.

Malware attacks are evolving all the time.

Looking forward, possibly the TPM subsystem is a way to ward these off.

 

[revodo]

An accident that results in an injury or fatality is different than an accident that results in a owie.

A few years ago, I walked away (actually crawled out) from a rollover. The young lady that hit me at 55+mph also walked away. I think she had a bloody nose from the airbag.
Absent vehicle safety features over the years, either or both of us might still be in the hospital.



But, back to the point with computers....
Lets look back to the WannaCry ransomware. The vast majority of systems that were infected were those who had purposely avoided any Windows security updates.

Malware attacks are evolving all the time.

Looking forward, possibly the TPM subsystem is a way to ward these off.

And I'm sure she'll do it again to someone else, because what was her punishment for being so careless? A bloody nose, and a slight increase on premiums? Can't wait till she royally screws up and kills an entire family. Because why not? She's got seatbelts, and airbags, and roll cages, and safety impact designs, and insurance, etc. She doesn't have to pay attention to the road.

Ever see someone doing 100mph+ in a car and texting? I sure have. Ever seen someone on rocket skates doing 100mph+ while texting? To be fair, I've never seen anyone on rocket skates, but sarcasm aside, my point remains. People take much less risk when they have very little, if any safety nets to rely on.

Hey remember when Apple made it impossible to jailbreak their phones? But it totally happened anyways? Over, and over again? Advancing security measures is fine, but it's not worth it to jump the ship that soon and cause that many people to be locked out of an OS because of security, especially because security is something of a joke to anyone who knows how easy it is to attack even the strongest systems out there, let alone some random persons PC.

 

[USAFRet]

I am entirely unsure of what point you're trying to make.

As years and technology progresses, 'more security' is a bad thing?
Is that it?

If you look at the PC specs in my sig line below, you'd find that my main daily driver system is also not on the approved list.
i7-4790k.
But...do you see my bitching about it?
No.

By the time the Win 10 on it falls off support from MS, several years from now...it will have been replaces.
It may be repurposed with a different OS. Linux, perhaps.


So...your solution is to remove all 'safety nets' from an operating system, and let the chips fall where they may?
No.

An infected system simply becomes a part of a botnet or spam distributor. Affecting ALL of us.
The majority of email traffic is spam. Sucking up bandwidth. Which costs actual money.

 

[revodo]

You wrote a lot. That's ok that you quote statistics without taking the larger picture into consideration. It's also funny that you thought I was specifically talking only about auto accidents. Anyway...

DirectX 9 came out in 2003. Three years later, Windows Vista was released and required a DirectX 9 compatible GPU to take advantage of a new driver model.

You're listening the RECOMMENDED system specifications in order to run the fancy transparent glass and shadow effects, not what was required to RUN VISTA.

Stop trying to be slick and act like DirectX 9 was a requirement to run that operating system, it wasn't. More people ran it without such a card than did when it launched. I would have no problem if Microsoft made TPM a RECOMMENDATION instead of a REQUIREMENT. The exact same thing with DirectX 9 GPUs and Vista.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

He certainly isn’t making much sense with his so-called arguments. Yes he saying that we should throw out all safety measures because we are actually better off without them which is insane

And if he wasn’t meaning that he has extremely poor communication skills

 

[COLGeek]

It is a good thing that no one will be forced to use Win 11. There are other choices. 😱😱😱

 

[USAFRet]

I would have no problem if Microsoft made TPM a RECOMMENDATION instead of a REQUIREMENT.

That happened several years ago.
Hence, Anything from the last few years is TPM capable.

 

[Lycogala]

Could you provide the data that show that the various safety features in vehicles have increased auto fatalities, and by how much?

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety did a study on this and found that modern safety features do in fact contribute to driver overconfidence and distracted driving. Although I cannot find the study itself and offer statistics, there are lots of references to the study from news sources:

https://www.google.com/search?q=AAA+Foundation+car+safety+systems+study

I don't know how much relevance this has to Windows, but I found the concept revodo brought up interesting and I do agree with it.

 

[USAFRet]

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety did a study on this and found that modern safety features do in fact contribute to driver overconfidence and distracted driving. Although I cannot find the study itself and offer statistics, there are lots of references to the study from news sources:

https://www.google.com/search?q=AAA+Foundation+car+safety+systems+study

I don't know how much relevance this has to Windows, but I found the concept revodo brought up interesting and I do agree with it.

Distracted driving and more 'crashes'? Sure. No problem with believing that. People are stupid.
If you were to see my vanity plates and the sticker on my truck tailgate, you'd quickly realize that I am a hardcore opponent of 'distracted driving'.

More injuries and fatalities?
Well....gonna have to see some stats on that.

 

[King_V]

I might, except I said nothing about fatalities, I said accidents.

Fine, your data that shows how the safety equipment has led to an increase in ACCIDENTS, then. Though, as pointed out, minor injury vs death is a big difference, and don't forget to account for the increased number of vehicles on the road.

That shows me you didn't even really read what I said, and that comment was just meant to be condescending. If you're actually curious if my statement was accurate in any way, well, feel free to do your own research. If you do and still think I'm wrong, good for you. At least you did your own research.

I read what you said just fine. You made the assertion that the net effect of increased safety equipment is increased accidents. I'm sure if we were driving cars with 70s era technology, we'd still be texting and driving.

But, YOU made the assertion - YOU provide the data. Don't tell me to do your research for you, or tell me that I need to put in the work to prove your point.

 

[revodo]

But, YOU made the assertion - YOU provide the data. Don't tell me to do your research for you, or tell me that I need to put in the work to prove your point.

Then don't look into it. I really don't care.

 

[revodo]

He certainly isn’t making much sense with his so-called arguments. Yes he saying that we should throw out all safety measures because we are actually better off without them which is insane

Would you feel different walking past the lion cage at a zoo, vs walking by a lion out in the open?

I'll assume the answer is yes. If so, why? Was it the fence that made you feel safe? Fences don't always work, there have been accidents and fatalities at zoos all over the world, yet that little safety net of sorts makes you completely drop your guard, every time.

Also, how many videos have we seen of people turning autopilot on Teslas and falling asleep in traffic?

Have no forms of standard safety is a bit much, but there's a line you don't want to cross, otherwise people get completely lazy and increase the risk of accidents. It's true for the lion exhibit, it's true for cars, and it's true for computers.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

peope are stupid, there is no doubt. you can't protect the stupid from themselves and your argument is horrible. give data on your examples, all BS nonsense for sure. how many people getting mauled at zoos from lions where it was the fences fault? go away

if you are an idiot, then all bets on safety are OFF case closed.

 

[King_V]

Then don't look into it. I really don't care.

Then your claim falls under this fallacy:

A claim made without any evidence to back it is just empty talk.

 

[revodo]

how many people getting mauled at zoos from lions where it was the fences fault?

Fences are designed to prevent people from getting in, and the animals from getting out. Both have happened plenty of times all over the world, with all difference fence and enclosure designs.

 

[revodo]

Then your claim falls under this fallacy:

A claim made without any evidence to back it is just empty talk.

Ah yes, one of the many quotes heard from first semester college students.

There have been plenty of people who have told me things that contradicted my world views over the years. A lot of them, I chose to look further into myself. Some of those ideas I ended up changing my opinion on and agreeing with, others I did not.

Intellectualism is not waiting for someone to provide everything for you. That's pseudo intellectualism. Someone who hears something interesting and pursues further knowledge on his own is someone who should be respected. If you're waiting for someone to spoon feed "facts" to you, do you just blindly accept the sources? If so, that doesn't sound intellectual to me. If you end up trying to vet each source, well now you're doing what you said you shouldn't have to do, looking into it yourself.

If you don't want to look into something, that's fine, but don't act like you've won by stubbornly refusing to look into things.

 

[King_V]

Say whatever you will, dismiss things as you like, but as long as you provide ZERO EVIDENCE of your claims, then your claims have ZERO value.

 

[revodo]

Say whatever you will, dismiss things as you like, but as long as you provide ZERO EVIDENCE of your claims, then your claims have ZERO value.

Say whatever you want. You don't want to know new information unless it's spoon fed to you.

 

[USAFRet]

AWRIGHT....lets lay off the personal sniping.

Discuss the topic at hand, or not at all.

Agreed?

 

[revodo]

AWRIGHT....lets lay off the personal sniping.

Discuss the topic at hand, or not at all.

Agreed?

Agreed. I reiterate my previous statement. TPM requirement is stupid. I have yet to hear any specific, detailed reason as to why Windows 11 can't operate without it, other than Microsoft demanded it to be just so.

 

[Endre]

So Windows 11 has some very strict system requirements, and we all know that - infact, most computers can't run it.

But there's an issue.

Whenever anything has a major successor, people are almost instant to jump on the train and then become one of the first, because they think it's cool and impressive, or they just really want it.

And this is proven - look at how much Hatchimals, PS5s, XBOX Series X's, RTX 3090s, and stuff like that have been flying around, getting dumped off the shelves and resold, and then they get a major recall.

But Windows 11 has some really unnecessary requirements.

A good amount of people are like me, using an old computer with stuff like a 3rd gen processor, and a weak GPU and PSU, since we don't do anything major with our computers, apart from maybe running light games like Roblox or Minecraft, or doing productive work.

But even more people have medium to low-end prebuilt computers that can usually be up to around 3 years old.

But the Windows 11 requirements are super strict, and as a result most computers, including these new ones, cannot run it.

Now, I think it's quite obvious what Microsoft's goal was - release an OS with very specific requirements, and then tell everyone who doesn't meet them to get a new computer. When someone buys a new computer that comes with Windows, which is almost any non-apple computer, and installation discs count too, Microsoft earns money.

They're quite evidently creating Windows 11 to earn a quick buck, but this actually has some very concerning issues.

When the PS5 and Xbox Series X were announced, they were so hoarded that there ended up being a semiconductor shortage.
When RTX 3090s were sold, they were so hoarded that they sold for more than $10000 dollars, and created a massive graphics shortage, causing even weak GPUs like mine to skyrocket.
With this in mind, Windows 11 has the potential to make TPM chips literally more valuable than their weight in gold. You could literally see thousand-dollar TPM chips flying around the market, but that's not all.

They require very new CPU technologies. Your CPU's generation is also limited by your motherboard. For example, my Z220 Workstation's motherboard can't support a 6th gen CPU, or anything after Ivy Bridge for that matter.

There's already a minor CPU storage, and this might also spark a motherboard shortage, while making new CPUs more valuable than their weight in gold.

Should I be worried about all of this?

I wouldn’t worry!
Win10 will continue to run for another 4-5 years.
By that time, you’ll probably buy a newer PC with all the “bells and whistles” required by Win11.

•Q: Moving to a Linux distro, BSD, or a Mac?
•A: Most Windows users will never do that! They’ll either use Win11, or they’ll get an even simpler device, like a Chrome Book, or a tablet.

PS: I, actually, expect Win11 to become very successful in 3 years by now.

 

[antonis mark]

I tried windows 11 and I agree it's just a heavy modified windows 10 and the tpm is no use and I agree all the TPM requirements are completely pointless even windows 11 from 10 upgrade is pointless they are planning to kick off support for the majority of computer to reduce the maintenance cost