5 ms·

Crazy how windows 11 objectively works fine on pretty much all hardware you'd expect but Microsoft is insisting it doesn't and we need to upgrade

by fukka42 10mo ago

yard2010 10mo ago
They are lying to make money. It's a common tactic.
- fukka42 10mo ago
  [dead]
- austin-cheney 10mo ago
  No they will make the same money either way because they are selling the OS, not the hardware. They are requiring only newer hardware to limit their surface of exploitation and reduce their compatibility list.
  - dymk 10mo ago
    Microsoft and their OWM partners sell hardware and have done so for a very long time.
  - Forbo 10mo ago
    They also sell a license with the new hardware. The bulk majority of the public never buy hardware without an OS. So yes, they are making more money with each new hardware sale. Plus the increase of forced advertising means they make more per user, effectively double dipping. Why do you feel the need to defend a convicted monopolist for engaging in user hostile behavior?
- api 10mo ago
  They might sell more Windows 11 if it ran on more hardware. How does this make them money? It's worth asking, but I think there's an answer: they want the OS to be transformed into an interface to their cloud where recurring revenue is easier. To do that, they need to make it more like a mobile OS and more locked down. TPM helps this.
  - dymk 10mo ago
    Dropping windows 10 support is a pretty big lever to apply pressure to get people to upgrade to 11. Oh turns out you also “need” to buy new hardware to run it.
    - Fabricio20 10mo ago
      Dropping windows 10 support is a really reasonable decision. The focus is on 11, it's been out for almost 5 years. I'm guessing they are close to releasing 12 at this point, maybe in a year or two. Supporting three entire fully fledged oses is quite alot of work. I also understand supporting newer hardware, they dropped 32bit on 11 and moved the instruction set up a bit. You gotta do a cutoff somewhere and I'm happy that they are at least allowing us to use the improved performance our modern CPUs have. I'm not happy with alot of stuff, but I get this at least.
      - tyami94 10mo ago
        I'd argue it's probably time to drop 32-bit x86 support, but the rest of this stuff is arbitrary and doesn't have any tangible benefit except conveniently providing hardware manufacturers with an excuse to unload new hardware onto people when there's nothing wrong with what they have. (not to mention, pardon the conspiracy theory, they're probably trying to use the TPM to turn the PC into a smartphone-like platform)
        hakfoo 10mo ago
        It's surprising that when we had Win7 they did that brief "XP Mode" experiment with some virtualized-penalty box. Why didn't that go further? Presumably virtually any x86-64 box currently in circulation would be fast enough to run a VM running a full copy of 32-bit XP/Win7/Win10, or even a full carousel (or download store) of DOS and early-windows releases. It could be the most compatible Windows ever, solving the weird "64-bit systems can't run some 16-bit apps" gotcha and perhaps allowing some way to bridge in support for devices that can only be driven by old 32-bit XP drivers.
  - 10mo ago
RobotToaster 10mo ago
They want everyone to have neo-clipper-chip "TPM"s.
- luciferin 10mo ago
  My understanding is that TPM is secure, and Win 11 still supports TPM. Am I mistaken and/or misunderstanding your statement that Microsoft is enforcing a hardware requirement with a known back door?
  - baby_souffle 10mo ago
    TPM can be secure. But secure for whom against what? Microsoft and “against you” are not implausible answers to that question…
  - web3-is-a-scam 10mo ago
    TPM is not secure. At all. At least when when you’re using Windows. https://youtu.be/t1eX_vvAlUc https://youtu.be/t1eX_vvAlUc
    - jabwd 10mo ago
      Do you also have a source thats not a youtuber? Would be far more interesting to read on apparently it being a spy chip rather than just a HSM.
      - web3-is-a-scam 10mo ago
        It’s not like these things aren’t publically documented by Microsoft. You just need to be able to translate their doublespeak.
        propaganja 10mo ago
        A tall order, and that's if you can even find it.
      - 10mo ago
p_ing 10mo ago
The unsupported CPUs lack the support for Virtualization Based Security, which is a major security feature in Windows 11. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-vbs https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/de...
- xbar 10mo ago
  It is not a mandatory feature.
  - p_ing 10mo ago
    Yes, it is mandatory for OEMs.
- rstat1 10mo ago
  VBS is also in Windows 10 and has no problem working on CPUs that aren't "supported" in Windows 11
  - p_ing 10mo ago
    This is incorrect. Not all CPUs supported by Windows 10 supported the VBS feature. Microsoft is making the VBS mandatory for OEMs, hence the CPU needs support, hence the ~7 year old minimum requirement for CPUs in what Microsoft supports for Windows. Yes, you can disable it during setup as a workaround, but it's exactly that. And why you'd want to make your system less secure, well I'll leave that to the exercise of the reader when they'll turn around two weeks from now and complain about Windows security.
    - rstat1 10mo ago
      Most of the requirements for that feature are UEFI features or a TPM, and have nothing to do with the CPU The actual CPU requirements are VMX, SLAT, IOMMU and being 64 bit, which have all been available on the Intel side at least, since at least 2008, with some coming available even before that. The CPU requirement was just an attempt to force people to buy new hardware they didn't need. Nothing more. A perfect example of this is the Ryzen 5 1600. Its not officially supported but meets every single one of the requirements and had no trouble enabling the feature in the run up to the release of Win11 (before it was blocked for no reason). I know this because I did it. Also they marked all but one 7th Intel Core CPU as unsupported, and the one they did add just so happens to be the one they were shipping in one of their Surface products. No way you can tell me this list was based fact and not the whims of some random PM when they do stuff like that.

Crazy how windows 11 objectively works fine on pretty much all hardware you'd expect but Microsoft is insisting it doesn't and we need to upgrade

by fukka42 10mo ago

Crazy how windows 11 objectively works fine on pretty much all hardware you'd expect but Microsoft is insisting it doesn't and we need to upgrade

yard2010 10mo ago

They are lying to make money. It's a common tactic.

fukka42 10mo ago
[dead]
austin-cheney 10mo ago
No they will make the same money either way because they are selling the OS, not the hardware. They are requiring only newer hardware to limit their surface of exploitation and reduce their compatibility list.
- dymk 10mo ago
  Microsoft and their OWM partners sell hardware and have done so for a very long time.
- Forbo 10mo ago
  They also sell a license with the new hardware. The bulk majority of the public never buy hardware without an OS. So yes, they are making more money with each new hardware sale. Plus the increase of forced advertising means they make more per user, effectively double dipping. Why do you feel the need to defend a convicted monopolist for engaging in user hostile behavior?
api 10mo ago
They might sell more Windows 11 if it ran on more hardware. How does this make them money? It's worth asking, but I think there's an answer: they want the OS to be transformed into an interface to their cloud where recurring revenue is easier. To do that, they need to make it more like a mobile OS and more locked down. TPM helps this.
- dymk 10mo ago
  Dropping windows 10 support is a pretty big lever to apply pressure to get people to upgrade to 11. Oh turns out you also “need” to buy new hardware to run it.
  - Fabricio20 10mo ago
    Dropping windows 10 support is a really reasonable decision. The focus is on 11, it's been out for almost 5 years. I'm guessing they are close to releasing 12 at this point, maybe in a year or two. Supporting three entire fully fledged oses is quite alot of work. I also understand supporting newer hardware, they dropped 32bit on 11 and moved the instruction set up a bit. You gotta do a cutoff somewhere and I'm happy that they are at least allowing us to use the improved performance our modern CPUs have. I'm not happy with alot of stuff, but I get this at least.
    - tyami94 10mo ago
      I'd argue it's probably time to drop 32-bit x86 support, but the rest of this stuff is arbitrary and doesn't have any tangible benefit except conveniently providing hardware manufacturers with an excuse to unload new hardware onto people when there's nothing wrong with what they have. (not to mention, pardon the conspiracy theory, they're probably trying to use the TPM to turn the PC into a smartphone-like platform)
      - hakfoo 10mo ago
        It's surprising that when we had Win7 they did that brief "XP Mode" experiment with some virtualized-penalty box. Why didn't that go further? Presumably virtually any x86-64 box currently in circulation would be fast enough to run a VM running a full copy of 32-bit XP/Win7/Win10, or even a full carousel (or download store) of DOS and early-windows releases. It could be the most compatible Windows ever, solving the weird "64-bit systems can't run some 16-bit apps" gotcha and perhaps allowing some way to bridge in support for devices that can only be driven by old 32-bit XP drivers.
- 10mo ago

RobotToaster 10mo ago

They want everyone to have neo-clipper-chip "TPM"s.

luciferin 10mo ago
My understanding is that TPM is secure, and Win 11 still supports TPM. Am I mistaken and/or misunderstanding your statement that Microsoft is enforcing a hardware requirement with a known back door?
- baby_souffle 10mo ago
  TPM can be secure. But secure for whom against what? Microsoft and “against you” are not implausible answers to that question…
- web3-is-a-scam 10mo ago
  TPM is not secure. At all. At least when when you’re using Windows. https://youtu.be/t1eX_vvAlUc https://youtu.be/t1eX_vvAlUc
  - jabwd 10mo ago
    Do you also have a source thats not a youtuber? Would be far more interesting to read on apparently it being a spy chip rather than just a HSM.
    - web3-is-a-scam 10mo ago
      It’s not like these things aren’t publically documented by Microsoft. You just need to be able to translate their doublespeak.
      - propaganja 10mo ago
        A tall order, and that's if you can even find it.
    - 10mo ago

p_ing 10mo ago

The unsupported CPUs lack the support for Virtualization Based Security, which is a major security feature in Windows 11. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/device-experiences/oem-vbs https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/de...

xbar 10mo ago
It is not a mandatory feature.
- p_ing 10mo ago
  Yes, it is mandatory for OEMs.
rstat1 10mo ago
VBS is also in Windows 10 and has no problem working on CPUs that aren't "supported" in Windows 11
- p_ing 10mo ago
  This is incorrect. Not all CPUs supported by Windows 10 supported the VBS feature. Microsoft is making the VBS mandatory for OEMs, hence the CPU needs support, hence the ~7 year old minimum requirement for CPUs in what Microsoft supports for Windows. Yes, you can disable it during setup as a workaround, but it's exactly that. And why you'd want to make your system less secure, well I'll leave that to the exercise of the reader when they'll turn around two weeks from now and complain about Windows security.
  - rstat1 10mo ago
    Most of the requirements for that feature are UEFI features or a TPM, and have nothing to do with the CPU The actual CPU requirements are VMX, SLAT, IOMMU and being 64 bit, which have all been available on the Intel side at least, since at least 2008, with some coming available even before that. The CPU requirement was just an attempt to force people to buy new hardware they didn't need. Nothing more. A perfect example of this is the Ryzen 5 1600. Its not officially supported but meets every single one of the requirements and had no trouble enabling the feature in the run up to the release of Win11 (before it was blocked for no reason). I know this because I did it. Also they marked all but one 7th Intel Core CPU as unsupported, and the one they did add just so happens to be the one they were shipping in one of their Surface products. No way you can tell me this list was based fact and not the whims of some random PM when they do stuff like that.