News Microsoft: You Can't Get Around Windows 11 Requirements

bigdragon

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2011
768
171
19,160
0
These new requirements are honestly great if they're used to secure the OS and user data. That niche hardware is actually quite powerful and useful.

However, the same hardware can be abused for DRM and heavy-handed content restrictions on users. I don't see signs of that happening yet, but there's always the risk.
 
Last edited:

Blitz Hacker

Honorable
Jul 17, 2015
44
11
10,565
6
These new requirements are honestly great if they're used to secure the OS and user date. That niche hardware is actually quite powerful and useful.

However, the same hardware can be abused for DRM and heavy-handed content restrictions on users. I don't see signs of that happening yet, but there's always the risk.
I mean I'm gonna post this here and see how it ages. My guess is Microsoft has found some serious security flaw that needs an OS overhaul to remedy, or They want to push some sort of protection for ransomware. I just hope they don't over step going on some unremoveable drm policy for applications etc. That stuff is horrible.
 

uptonland

Commendable
Sep 20, 2018
4
2
1,515
0
It just means there will be a bunch of bootleg versions with assorted workarounds & hacks to allow installation a-la the hackintosh community and dark-site license verification/activation like that currently available for virtually all MS and other software. As usual, it'll only be legit installs that will be affected.
 

tshinhar

Honorable
May 27, 2015
124
28
10,640
20
The new requirements are horrible.
Why can't I install win 11 if I have a cpu that is clearly capable of running it (like Intel 6th gen)?
I mean sure, if the requirements where just the tpm 2.0 and secure boot I could somewhat expect that argument, but what if I have them both but with a 6 gen cpu? (and before anyone says it is not possible because the cpu is too old I do have such a pc)
It's just a scam to try and force people to buy new pcs
 

drtweak

Illustrious
<Mod Edit> I still have clients who are on 7 because they don't want to spend 15-25K a year on subscriptions but their 2013 standalone license works just fine but not past windows 7. I have another client who has mixed XP to 10 stuff XP stuff running one stupid little program and blocked from net) and the new version of the software that he paid for, bought a new server and SQL to run (Him and my boss are not fans of VM's) so he spend 4K on that plus who knows how much on the software only to put it on hold after training everyone after he found out it only works on 10 AFTER doing all of this! Now its like <Mod Edit>. might as well just replace all those PC's now vs refrub stuff he likes for 11.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thestryker

Honorable
Apr 19, 2016
7
3
10,515
0
You don't actually need secure boot to be enabled according to the specs so that being a requirement is extremely arbitrary. TPM they haven't explained the use of, but okay I could see it no real problem here. Arbitrarily cutting off CPUs which support both secure boot and TPM 2.0 without an explanation is by far the worst part of this debacle. I have a 6900k system which supports secure boot and has a TPM 2.0, but for no disclosed reason this isn't good enough.
 

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
1,113
197
19,470
4
<Mod Edit> I still have clients who are on 7 because they don't want to spend 15-25K a year on subscriptions but their 2013 standalone license works just fine but not past windows 7. I have another client who has mixed XP to 10 stuff XP stuff running one stupid little program and blocked from net) and the new version of the software that he paid for, bought a new server and SQL to run (Him and my boss are not fans of VM's) so he spend 4K on that plus who knows how much on the software only to put it on hold after training everyone after he found out it only works on 10 AFTER doing all of this! Now its like <Mod Edit>. might as well just replace all those PC's now vs refrub stuff he likes for 11.
Lack of due diligence there. Sounds like managers and higher ups doing this instead of actual technical people.

You don't actually need secure boot to be enabled according to the specs so that being a requirement is extremely arbitrary. TPM they haven't explained the use of, but okay I could see it no real problem here. Arbitrarily cutting off CPUs which support both secure boot and TPM 2.0 without an explanation is by far the worst part of this debacle. I have a 6900k system which supports secure boot and has a TPM 2.0, but for no disclosed reason this isn't good enough.
I find this interesting and maybe it was the build I was using. But I couldn't load bulid 22000.51 in a VM without secure boot being on install would always fail. Maybe that has been changed in the newer builds.
 

Johnpombrio

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2006
170
12
18,695
4
I still think that MS will relent and offer Win 11 without Secure Boot and the TPM requirement. They will create a new "Windows 11 Secure!" version and require some vulnerable corporate clients to adhere to a more secure environment. To have this level of security for the ordinary user is kind of pointless.
 

LolaGT

Proper
Oct 31, 2020
152
97
170
1
This has something to so with someone involved having their fingers in the pie, wanting to make bank. I'm cynical after being on this planet 5+ decades.

The only future I see is a whole lot of folks switching to an alternative OS.
Face it, the majority of casual PC users don't need much more than a basic gui that will let them cruise the net, watch youtube, use facebook, instagram and email.
 

great Unknown

Honorable
Dec 23, 2014
7
0
10,510
0
My Asus motherboard has a "socket" for a TPM module. I'm wondering if - if and when prices come down - I could boot with a TPM module in place, then remove the module for actual operation?
 

Sleepy_Hollowed

Reputable
Jan 1, 2017
122
26
4,610
0
I’m only going to take a wild stab, but I’m thinking that they know of secure CPU instructions (AES/Random number generator/Virtualization) that the cutoff are those CPUs.

The TPM though has me a bit worried about them locking stuff down, unless they only plan to use the most secure version of secureboot.

I already migrated all my machines to Linux in preparation for this with the exception of one machine which will be used for windows only software, and I barely make the cut luckily.
 

gdmaclew

Distinguished
May 20, 2008
1,478
32
19,490
99
Ridiculous! I have an ASUS X570 motherboard and an AMD 2700X CPU. And Microsoft says I can't run Windows 11?
Guess what?
I'm staying with Windows 10.
Buzz off Microsoft.
WhynotWin11 isn't that much better.
It reports that I am using a Legacy Boot Method. Wrong!
 
Last edited:

mrv_co

Honorable
Jan 18, 2016
92
31
10,560
0
Wow, my trusty old PC that I bought for Windows 10 and still works just fine for checking email and surfing web pages won't run Windows 11!?!?!?!?... I better call Dell and order a brand spanking new 'Windows 11 Ready' PC POSTHASTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pretty sure that^ is how it is supposed to work.
 
Apr 1, 2020
223
101
760
0
So in 2026 when 40% of Windows users are running Windows 10 and it drops out of service? This isn't 2010 where the processor and motherboard need to be up to date because older hardware is so slow in comparison, this is 2021 where PCIe 3.0 and any CPU from the last few years will allow someone to game at 4K for a while to come.
 

CXB

Commendable
Sep 9, 2019
7
4
1,525
1
I welcome a more secure environment. Microsoft has to gamble their entire fortune on the security of their software. It' a huge risk for them.

Making PCs more secure, moving clients onto GPT, checking they have firewalls up, reducing the vast set of possible configurations, etc etc all makes this more possible and less risk.

It's called medicine: it's good for you, in hostile environments where viruses can work their way through entire populations.......
 

Romanio0089

Prominent
Apr 13, 2020
17
6
525
1
Lmao Microsoft is going to try their best but it's as easy as just doing a clean install to bypass those stupid requirements.

Microsoft, those requirements are just dumb, you can't stop people from installing the OS on "unsupported systems".
 

Romanio0089

Prominent
Apr 13, 2020
17
6
525
1
What is possible in this beta eval version may not be the same as what happens when it is actually released.
Yes it will. Simply on how the kernel is built, it will be possible. Maybe they can try to change things a bit, but a simple patch will make things work again.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY