RobertOZ wrote:
Have Microsoft changed the requirements for Win 11, there is no mention of which Generation of processors are now suitable, all it now states is 1 Ghz or faster and 4 Gb ram
The page you provided states that the processor must be "1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with 2 or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or System on a Chip (SoC)". If you click on the MS link in the sentence, you'll go to the Windows Processor Requirements page (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/window ... quirements), and there you'll find the lists of compatible Intel and AMD processors for Windows 11. In short, not much appears to have changed if you want to run Windows 11 on a supported platform.
I have seen reports that MS has backed off from the hard line in PC specs that was originally promoted. However, while those processor requirements are extensive but seem to have not regressed any - just amplified which cpu's will run w11. The safe boot mechanism also hasn't been mentioned lately, so it's fair bet it is still going to be necessary, which in turn determines the type of BIOS the system must have, and also the TPM mechanism requires coordinated manufacturer and MS action. On my experience (posted here earlier) that is going to be hard to get for anything that's older than 2 years, if that; they all have an interest in selling more hardware.
According to the 31 Aug press release, windows update will offer an upgrade to eligible systems. And from what I've seen, most upgrades to w11 will be by way purchasing a new computer.
I'm getting used to running out of support OS - it's been 2 years since win7 went EOL yet both my laptops still work. Updating the application software they use will also be an issue, and I cannot justify the cost of new hardware and new apps unless it is desperate - meaning the hardware has failed and a new one is now essential not optional. I can see my w10 desktop going the same route.
Asus motherboards, from Coffee Lake onwards, can be TPM compliant by enabling PTT in the BIOS. Advanced/PCH-FW/PTT and save/reboot. My Sky Lake did not make it. Gigabyte mb's can do the same.
Yep, gigabyte mb's can do it. Mine can. But the point - as I outlined in an earlier post - is whether the mb manufacturer will actually do it. It seems to create the TPM chip the manufacturer has to cooperate with MS and create a secure signature for the boot files, which is then burnt into that TPM chip, which somehow you have to acquire. Gigabyte has already told me that - even tho my mb is capable - it's too old for the effort involved for them to be bothered (not in those words, but that was the substance). And I suggest other major mb makers like ASUS et al will do the same. So any mb that wasn't designed for the nominated processors and is older than 2? years is unlikely to get a TPM chip made for it.
If you want windows 11, the most trouble free way to get it after formal release is going to be a new machine.
**In few days I'm expecting a new mini celron J4125, it's OK for win11 but my year old J3455 isn't.
So I might give it a spin to put 11 on it (once I image it's current 10 20H1)
This looks very simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r54sWEQhG8
All rather interesting, and at least worth a try. I am furious that my 4K i7 7th generation is excluded... so will certainly try some of this when it gets to a final release version.
Ken Berry wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:52 am
All rather interesting, and at least worth a try. I am furious that my 4K i7 7th generation is excluded... so will certainly try some of this when it gets to a final release version.
Final release might be too late as MS could shut tight such loop holes by then.
From the tenor of the YT vids, bypassing secure boot and - at the moment, other things - involves being a developer/registering as such. And in that form, new versions are complete replacements, not updates even tho delivered via the update channel.
Ken Berry wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:40 pm
So do we install the trial version now and have it roll over automatically to the final version when that comes out...?
If to begin with we install it on un supported CPU/system, then why to bother if it's final or not.
On top of the to do list is to block any updates for few months.
MS have been pushing secure boot for some time now: bulletins on it date back to when win7 was the main release. There are standards involved, such as UEFI, and then the time needed to get complying hardware well distributed in the user population. That distribution happens slowly now, when the hardware is updated rather than - early in windows life - when a new version had gee-whizz extra features everyone wanted so they updated straight away. And that update almost never involved replacing the hardware, unless there was a specific speed advantage (one such in my personal experience was the change from 16bit to32bit x86, together with a clock speed doubling; about 1987. The result was a 10-fold improvement in execution time of software apps, and from that time onwards the dev community stampeded to the newer hardware. And that kept happening as new generations of chips and faster clock speeds arrived).
So I think that MS has decided that now is the time to push the software/hardware uptake of secure boot on PC's. Various someones (note that MS hasn't done this, some enterprising coders did) may have by-passed it for a while on dev releases, but secure boot as such is an established combo now - and I would think that MS' main concern at the moment is de-bugging the OS code, rather than how it starts.
You will notice that there has been no backtrack on hardware in any of MS press releases dealing with the public release of win11 - processors particularly. And secure boot is simply a specific software way of using that hardware at start time.
Aren't we just flogging a dead horse here, even though our computers comply in all respects with Win 11 requirements, unless we have a compatible 64 bit processor, upgrading will not be possible
RobertOZ wrote:
Aren't we just flogging a dead horse here
Pretty much, especially since several on this forum were posting about how they continue to use Windows 7 despite it being at EOL. Hence the concern about running Windows 11 seems strange.
RobertOZ wrote:
Aren't we just flogging a dead horse here
Pretty much, especially since several on this forum were posting about how they continue to use Windows 7 despite it being at EOL. Hence the concern about running Windows 11 seems strange.
