Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
processor that not all computers have built in. While most new PCs
come with the device, many older computers are left in the lurch. This
severely curtails the upgrade options for those users, and instead of
moving to the new OS, a lot of them have decided to stay with Windows
10.

Microsoft has been fairly adamant that Windows 11 users must have TPM,
and have in fact gone out of their way to disable hacks that allow the
OS to be installed on computers that don't have the module. It's not
entirely without merits; several core features of the OS --including
SecureBoot and the Bitlocker Hard-drive encryption-- rely on the
hardware. Just from a support perspective, it's understandable why
they'd not want users to install the OS on unsupported hardware. All
the more since it is inevitable that were they to relent, some
hardware manufactures /would/ skimp out on the cost of the TPM module
and while all the savings would go to the OEM, it would be Microsoft
that would get the blame.

So it's somewhat surprising that Microsoft has finally relented* even
a little bit on the issue. It's still against recommended procedure
(and doing so will get you warning messages and a not-easily-removed
watermark on your desktop reminding you of your foolhardiness) but
now, if you really want, you CAN install Windows 11 on unsupported
hardware.

Which overall I think is a good thing. With Windows 10 falling out of
support next year, it would open up a lot of PCs to hacks through
unpatched vulnerabilities. It also keeps a lot of computers that are
otherwise perfectly usable from getting junked just because they don't
meet up to Microsoft's approval. And, let's face it, with the world
economy likely to hit the shitter because of America's looming trade
war fiasco, new computers aren't going to be must-have purchases for a
lot of people for the next few years. So keeping older PCs running is
a net benefit to all.

It's interesting that Microsoft blinked, though. I guess it just shows
how much of their income is now dependent on income from outside the
OS division --be it advertising, data-harvesting, or subscriptions to
OneDrive or Office365-- that they're willing to sacrifice the goodwill
of OEMs (who were hoping the Win11 TPM requirement would drive sales
of new computers).

That said, I actually don't like Windows 11 that much; it's feels a
lot less polished than Windows 10 (which felt less polished than 7,
which was less polished than 2K, etc. etc. Maybe one day the world
will all come to its senses and finally just migrate to Linux? ;-).
But if your old-but-functional PC is still running Win10 and you were
wondering what to do when Microsoft finally pulls the plug on that old
OS, well... there's another option available now. Maybe not the best
one, but it's an option you didn't have until now.

* details here
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2550265/microsoft-now-allowing-windows-11-on-older-incompatible-pcs.html

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:57:01 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>
>Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
>products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
>in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
>processor that not all computers have built in. While most new PCs
>come with the device, many older computers are left in the lurch. This
>severely curtails the upgrade options for those users, and instead of
>moving to the new OS, a lot of them have decided to stay with Windows
>10.
>
>Microsoft has been fairly adamant that Windows 11 users must have TPM,
>and have in fact gone out of their way to disable hacks that allow the
>OS to be installed on computers that don't have the module. It's not
>entirely without merits; several core features of the OS --including
>SecureBoot and the Bitlocker Hard-drive encryption-- rely on the
>hardware. Just from a support perspective, it's understandable why
>they'd not want users to install the OS on unsupported hardware. All
>the more since it is inevitable that were they to relent, some
>hardware manufactures /would/ skimp out on the cost of the TPM module
>and while all the savings would go to the OEM, it would be Microsoft
>that would get the blame.
>
>So it's somewhat surprising that Microsoft has finally relented* even
>a little bit on the issue. It's still against recommended procedure
>(and doing so will get you warning messages and a not-easily-removed
>watermark on your desktop reminding you of your foolhardiness) but
>now, if you really want, you CAN install Windows 11 on unsupported
>hardware.
>
>Which overall I think is a good thing. With Windows 10 falling out of
>support next year, it would open up a lot of PCs to hacks through
>unpatched vulnerabilities. It also keeps a lot of computers that are
>otherwise perfectly usable from getting junked just because they don't
>meet up to Microsoft's approval. And, let's face it, with the world
>economy likely to hit the shitter because of America's looming trade
>war fiasco, new computers aren't going to be must-have purchases for a
>lot of people for the next few years. So keeping older PCs running is
>a net benefit to all.
>
>It's interesting that Microsoft blinked, though. I guess it just shows
>how much of their income is now dependent on income from outside the
>OS division --be it advertising, data-harvesting, or subscriptions to
>OneDrive or Office365-- that they're willing to sacrifice the goodwill
>of OEMs (who were hoping the Win11 TPM requirement would drive sales
>of new computers).
>
>That said, I actually don't like Windows 11 that much; it's feels a
>lot less polished than Windows 10 (which felt less polished than 7,
>which was less polished than 2K, etc. etc. Maybe one day the world
>will all come to its senses and finally just migrate to Linux? ;-).
>But if your old-but-functional PC is still running Win10 and you were
>wondering what to do when Microsoft finally pulls the plug on that old
>OS, well... there's another option available now. Maybe not the best
>one, but it's an option you didn't have until now.
>
>
>
>
>
>* details here
>https://www.pcworld.com/article/2550265/microsoft-now-allowing-windows-11-on-older-incompatible-pcs.html
>
>
This is cool. My older Win10 PC's are already Rufus'ed to Win11. Now they
get a cool watermark too! Love it!

That said, do *not* upgrade to 24H2 until they figure out whatever crap
they didn't catch from the Insider program.*

My machine has blue screened twice since I installed it. First one was
just WTF crash/blue screen nothing in the logs. Second one was Windows
telling me that my C: drive was corrupted, probably from the previous
crash. Restarted. WTF blue screen in the middle of freaking boot-up
CHKDSK. Could it be the beginning of a C: drive failure. CrystalDiskInfo
doesn't think so. I think they just screwed the pooch on this release.

I ran CHKDSK manually, restarted, and for now everything seems fine. If
this keeps happening I'll have to downgrade. Which will be an upgrade.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)
_______________________________________________________________________

* Plus the fiasco with certain 2TB WD M.2 SSDs, which WD had to fix
itself with a firmware update. I'm sure no one in the Insider program had
one! Makes me wonder if it's OS problems with my 500GB WD M.2 SSD.

On 11/12/2024 16:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
> products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
> in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
> processor that not all computers have built in. While most new PCs
> come with the device, many older computers are left in the lurch. This
> severely curtails the upgrade options for those users, and instead of
> moving to the new OS, a lot of them have decided to stay with Windows
> 10.
>
> Microsoft has been fairly adamant that Windows 11 users must have TPM,
> and have in fact gone out of their way to disable hacks that allow the
> OS to be installed on computers that don't have the module. It's not
> entirely without merits; several core features of the OS --including
> SecureBoot and the Bitlocker Hard-drive encryption-- rely on the
> hardware. Just from a support perspective, it's understandable why
> they'd not want users to install the OS on unsupported hardware. All
> the more since it is inevitable that were they to relent, some
> hardware manufactures /would/ skimp out on the cost of the TPM module
> and while all the savings would go to the OEM, it would be Microsoft
> that would get the blame.
>
> So it's somewhat surprising that Microsoft has finally relented* even
> a little bit on the issue. It's still against recommended procedure
> (and doing so will get you warning messages and a not-easily-removed
> watermark on your desktop reminding you of your foolhardiness) but
> now, if you really want, you CAN install Windows 11 on unsupported
> hardware.
>
> Which overall I think is a good thing. With Windows 10 falling out of
> support next year, it would open up a lot of PCs to hacks through
> unpatched vulnerabilities. It also keeps a lot of computers that are
> otherwise perfectly usable from getting junked just because they don't
> meet up to Microsoft's approval. And, let's face it, with the world
> economy likely to hit the shitter because of America's looming trade
> war fiasco, new computers aren't going to be must-have purchases for a
> lot of people for the next few years. So keeping older PCs running is
> a net benefit to all.
>
> It's interesting that Microsoft blinked, though. I guess it just shows
> how much of their income is now dependent on income from outside the
> OS division --be it advertising, data-harvesting, or subscriptions to
> OneDrive or Office365-- that they're willing to sacrifice the goodwill
> of OEMs (who were hoping the Win11 TPM requirement would drive sales
> of new computers).
>
> That said, I actually don't like Windows 11 that much; it's feels a
> lot less polished than Windows 10 (which felt less polished than 7,
> which was less polished than 2K, etc. etc. Maybe one day the world
> will all come to its senses and finally just migrate to Linux? ;-).
> But if your old-but-functional PC is still running Win10 and you were
> wondering what to do when Microsoft finally pulls the plug on that old
> OS, well... there's another option available now. Maybe not the best
> one, but it's an option you didn't have until now.
>
>

I put it into the category of good intentions but bad implementation. So
for the users whose hardware doesn't support TPM at all then you're
better off moving to a supported OS even if it doesn't support all the
more secure implementations of security functions. Then you have users
(me included) that have a PC that does support TPM but it's not enabled
by default so fails the Win 11 compatibility check. How many users will
just see that and say, well I'll stick with Win 10 then. Maybe the
health check app could do more to look at the motherboard version and
determine whether it is compatible.

Having worked in security for a long time one thing you learnt was that
functionality sells but security is generally just seen as a hindrance
as it doesn't actually help you do you job but instead is at best
neutral. Oh you've included encryption, excellent what does that allow
me to do, errr ... absolutely nothing.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
> products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
> in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
> processor that not all computers have built in.

What happened to the fairly stringent CPU requirements? Were they lifted
earlier or something?

I have a couple of 2010-ish laptops with Windows 10 which I haven't used
in a few years. I guess I could keep the better one of them around still
although I don't really know what for...

Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote at 21:27 this Thursday (GMT):
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
>> products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
>> in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
>> processor that not all computers have built in.
>
> What happened to the fairly stringent CPU requirements? Were they lifted
> earlier or something?
>
> I have a couple of 2010-ish laptops with Windows 10 which I haven't used
> in a few years. I guess I could keep the better one of them around still
> although I don't really know what for...

I think they tried to inflate the requirements to get people to buy a
new computer, then panicked when they realized people were staying on
W10.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:27:41 +0200, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
>> products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
>> in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
>> processor that not all computers have built in.
>
>What happened to the fairly stringent CPU requirements? Were they lifted
>earlier or something?
>
>I have a couple of 2010-ish laptops with Windows 10 which I haven't used
>in a few years. I guess I could keep the better one of them around still
>although I don't really know what for...

I think all the increased CPU requirements had to do with ensuring the
processors had TPM support. From what I've read, architecturally
there's no real performance difference running Win10 and Win11 on the
same hardware. Win10 just didn't /require/ TPM. Win11 does.

(and note, it STILL requires it. Microsoft just isn't bending over
backwards to prevent you from running it on unsupported hardware
anymore)

I mean, hell, Win11 technically supports Intel Atom processors. ;-)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:42:37 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:27:41 +0200, Anssi Saari
><anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>
>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
>>> products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
>>> in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
>>> processor that not all computers have built in.
>>
>>What happened to the fairly stringent CPU requirements? Were they lifted
>>earlier or something?
>>
>>I have a couple of 2010-ish laptops with Windows 10 which I haven't used
>>in a few years. I guess I could keep the better one of them around still
>>although I don't really know what for...
>
>I think all the increased CPU requirements had to do with ensuring the
>processors had TPM support. From what I've read, architecturally
>there's no real performance difference running Win10 and Win11 on the
>same hardware. Win10 just didn't /require/ TPM. Win11 does.
>
>(and note, it STILL requires it. Microsoft just isn't bending over
>backwards to prevent you from running it on unsupported hardware
>anymore)
>
>I mean, hell, Win11 technically supports Intel Atom processors. ;-)
>
Nah. My wife's old laptop had a 6 series Core CPU and even *it* had TPM
2.0 right on the die. I used Rufus to put 11 on it. Works perfectly.
Picked up the TPM right away. Even Memory Isolation works.

IIRC, there was some instruction extension on 8 series+ Core CPUs.

a) Now with the 13 & 14 series fiasco, they're may be trying to rescue
Intel.

b) They need people to bite hard on Copilot. Windows 10 doesn't really
have that feature built into the OS. They've bet the (server) farm.

It's almost certainly one of those two.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 10:16:21 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:42:37 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 23:27:41 +0200, Anssi Saari
>><anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>
>>>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Microsoft's Windows10 operating system was one of its most popular
>>>> products. Windows 11, however, has seen a much slower uptake. This is
>>>> in part because it requires built in TPM, a hardware encryption
>>>> processor that not all computers have built in.
>>>
>>>What happened to the fairly stringent CPU requirements? Were they lifted
>>>earlier or something?
>>>
>>>I have a couple of 2010-ish laptops with Windows 10 which I haven't used
>>>in a few years. I guess I could keep the better one of them around still
>>>although I don't really know what for...
>>
>>I think all the increased CPU requirements had to do with ensuring the
>>processors had TPM support. From what I've read, architecturally
>>there's no real performance difference running Win10 and Win11 on the
>>same hardware. Win10 just didn't /require/ TPM. Win11 does.
>>
>>(and note, it STILL requires it. Microsoft just isn't bending over
>>backwards to prevent you from running it on unsupported hardware
>>anymore)
>>
>>I mean, hell, Win11 technically supports Intel Atom processors. ;-)
>>
>Nah. My wife's old laptop had a 6 series Core CPU and even *it* had TPM
>2.0 right on the die. I used Rufus to put 11 on it. Works perfectly.
>Picked up the TPM right away. Even Memory Isolation works.
>
>IIRC, there was some instruction extension on 8 series+ Core CPUs.
>
>a) Now with the 13 & 14 series fiasco, they're may be trying to rescue
>Intel.
>
It's less Intel than OEMs in general. There's increasingly little
reason to buy a new computer these days unless your old one breaks. A
five year old PC is still a very capable machine. Heck, my ten
(Twelve? Fourteen? I forget) year old PC is still a surprisingly
powerful machine, able to run most modern games). There's very little
reason for people to buy a new PC... unless all of a sudden your
current one stops working. And for most people, "can't patch your OS
and programs now require the newest version of Windows" counts as 'not
working'.

The computer OEM business is cut-throat and has extremely low margins.
They NEED people to stay on the upgrade treadmill. This new TPM
requirement helps Intel (and AMD, for that matter), of course, but if
Microsoft is adding this requirement for the benefit for the OEMs more
than anyone else. It keeps people on that treadmill.

The Win11 requirements essentially rule out anything before an 8th Gen
Intel core or earlier than and AMD Ryzen 2000. Both are more than
capable of running the OS. Both date back to ~2018. The CPUs are more
than powerful enough for the OS.

>b) They need people to bite hard on Copilot. Windows 10 doesn't really
>have that feature built into the OS. They've bet the (server) farm.

Or just Microsoft services in general. They've pivoted /hard/ into
software-as-a-service, and Windows 11 pushes that integration a lot
more than did Windows 10. It /really/ wants you to create a Microsoft
account just to install the thing (it's still possible to bypass that
requirement with some hackery, but Microsoft works hard to close those
holes on the most commonly used home versions). Microsoft also is
making mint on advertising, either with direct marketing or just
shoving partner's apps onto user's computers.

>It's almost certainly one of those two.

The thing about it is, the TPM requirement really isn't that
outrageous. Having a dedicated hardware based cryptoprocessor is
actually beneficial to end-users, and it's a proactive move in a world
where hacks are becoming ever more sophisticated. Yet despite this,
OEMs are very likely to penny-pinch and go for cheaper alternatives if
allowed to do so. To some degree, Microsoft is between a rock and a
hard place; damned if they do and damned if they don't. Not requiring
the module and they get blamed for hacks. Require it and they get
blamed for abandoning swathes of customers.

The problem wasn't so much the TPM requirement; it was that Microsoft
was actively shutting down attempts to bypass it by people who -for
whatever reason- didn't have supported hardware. I /like/ this new
solution. It puts a banner on the screen reminding people that they're
running on unsupported hardware and any risks are THEIR fault but
still allowing them the freedom to do so. And although that banner can
be disabled, it very likely will be automatically RE-ENABLED with
every update, which will discourage OEMs from trying to sneak around
the requirement.

On 13/12/2024 17:08, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> The problem wasn't so much the TPM requirement; it was that Microsoft
> was actively shutting down attempts to bypass it by people who -for
> whatever reason- didn't have supported hardware. I/like/ this new
> solution. It puts a banner on the screen reminding people that they're
> running on unsupported hardware and any risks are THEIR fault but
> still allowing them the freedom to do so. And although that banner can
> be disabled, it very likely will be automatically RE-ENABLED with
> every update, which will discourage OEMs from trying to sneak around
> the requirement.

Agreed and also not considering how many users have the hardware but not
enabled. The idea is perfectly good as it provides a better level of
security so you can isolate RED cryptographic keys from the OS itself.
Oh dear, that key that is no longer needed has ended up being accessed
by some other completely unrelated process, that's not good. The idea
has been around for a long time and overall it's nice that it's made an
appearance in Windows.