Non-profit group begs Microsoft to extend support for Windows 10

[Ben Myers]

@Puiu , 3GB usage of Win 11 , not including cached data . I have 16GB and I am not going to 32GB any time soon .

nismo91 , I tried to install Win 11 (Tiny 11) on i3 2350M and it crashed at installation - the laptop hung . I used the options /product server to skirt the requirements but to no avail .

The i3-2350m is three years older than the release date of the TPM 2.0 spec, so the system does not have TPM 2.0. In addition, the amount of memory in the laptop may be a limiting factor, if it is not at the max of 16GB.

 

[Adhmuz]

The problem is not the end user that probably does not care alot about security, the problem is the business user where you have an it department trying to get the most security possible for the employees and disabling TPM is the opposite of that.
I'm not a tech savvy guy but I really hope that there was not another way around for Microsoft to improve security, otherwise this is going to be a electronic waste nightmare

Most businesses are not terribly concerned as medium to large scale enterprises who take security seriously will upgrade/replace hardware on a regular basis and should already be TPM 2.0 compliant, smaller businesses tend to be more lackadaisical with security and likely wouldn't be too concerned either way.

IMO a simple solution to this would be to keep the TPM 2.0 requirements for Pro versions of the OS where it really matters and remove it from the Home edition for the general public, however I don't see this happening.

 

[Adhmuz]

TPM 2.0 is not the only requirement for Windows 11. Microsoft claims that CPUs older than Intel 8th gen lack some instructions or capabilities that would slow down Windows 11 a lot. I have long believed that this claim is a large crock of steaming horse manure, and people running Windows 11 on older hardware have not complained about serious performance issues. TPM 2.0 debuted in 2014(!!) and mainstream systems built soon after had TPM 2.0 built in.

My test platform wasn't exactly a low end platform so I might not have been able to see the performance I was leaving on the table, and given the following from M$ Website:

Hardware requirements
To install or upgrade to Windows 11, devices must meet the following minimum hardware requirements:

• Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with two or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or system on a chip (SoC).
• Memory: 4 gigabytes (GB) or greater.

I'm not entirely sure what the additional processor requirements would be, some secret M$ sauce no doubt.

 

[Ben Myers]

Most businesses are not terribly concerned as medium to large scale enterprises who take security seriously will upgrade/replace hardware on a regular basis and should already be TPM 2.0 compliant, smaller businesses tend to be more lackadaisical with security and likely wouldn't be too concerned either way.

IMO a simple solution to this would be to keep the TPM 2.0 requirements for Pro versions of the OS where it really matters and remove it from the Home edition for the general public, however I don't see this happening.

TPM 2.0 compliant hardware has been available since 2014, and major name brands incorporated TPM 2.0 into their offerings back then. TPM 2.0 is not a problem except for people who want to continue to run 10-year old computers with Windows 11.

The most serious issue with Windows 11 is that Microsoft requires 8th gen or newer Intel CPUs or AMD equivalent, claiming that older processors lack hardware instructions, hence run too slowly. IMHO, this is a large steaming crock of horse manure, as others have shown running Windows 11 without issues on older hardware.

 

[Ben Myers]

My test platform wasn't exactly a low end platform so I might not have been able to see the performance I was leaving on the table, and given the following from M$ Website:

Hardware requirements
To install or upgrade to Windows 11, devices must meet the following minimum hardware requirements:

• Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with two or more cores on a compatible 64-bit processor or system on a chip (SoC).
• Memory: 4 gigabytes (GB) or greater.

I'm not entirely sure what the additional processor requirements would be, some secret M$ sauce no doubt.

Microsoft's stated minimum hardware requirements for Windows 11 are pure nonsense, as they have been with nearly every Windows announcement. I defy anyone to be even the slightest bit productive with Windows 11, 1GHz CPU and 4GB or memory, and a 5400 rpm hard drive, while we are at it. When I outfit a computer for a client these days, 16GB is the minimum, unless the computer hardware itself limits memory capacity. As for CPUs, Intel i5 or faster, although the newer 10th gen i3 CPU is not too shabby either.

Microsoft has explained its processor requirements, albeit vaguely, so I won't bother to retell their story.

 

[bviktor]

Corporations would happily destroy the planet to make their shareholders happy in the short term. If they really cared about sustainability they would not have required TPMs in Windows 11.

Oh boy, you're so wrong on so many levels, where do I even begin?

After years of release, you still can't let go of this FALSE narrative about TPM, can you? It's Windows 8 and the start menu whining all over again. You just never move on, do you? Never. Even though you apparently don't have any idea WHY that TPM requirement is there in the first place. Neither do you care. Look up FDE, and why it's important, and why it's necessary for a TPM chip to provide the unlock part. Newsflash: it's here to stay.

Windows 11 supports anything released in the past 5 years. By 2025, when Win10 is EOL, it'll be 7 years old hardware.

Windows 10 support ends in 2025, TEN YEARS after its release. Why do you think companies should support old version till eternity? FOR FREE? It'll be supported till 2029 for Enterprise, FYI. So the "oh no, poor corporations must throw out all hardware" is also wrong, of course. By that time, Win10 will be 14 years old, and all supported hardware will be up to 11 years old.

BTW have you ever thought about which one is cheaper, a new PC for the employee, a one time cost, or the multiplied, recurring labor costs, because it takes more time to perform the same tasks on decade old junk?

Why do you feel entitled to the very latest software on ancient hardware anyway? Do you complain to gaming companies as well, when they dare to publish system requirements? How dare they? I wanna play CoD on my AMIGA! Sustainability or something.

Also, has it EVER occurred to you that new hardware gets more efficient? A Ryzen 7000 CPU consumes half the power, yet is twice as fast as a Coffee Lake CPU. That's 4 times the efficiency. So yeah, people being so adamant to keep their old junk are destroying the planet by burning 4 times more oil, coal, and gas, to provide the electricity required.

And don't even dare bringing up the RE argument. Not until we're on 100% RE, 100% of the time. Not to mention that producing solar panels and wind turbines has its own emissions, so regardless of the energy source, we should ALWAYS strive for minimum energy consumption.

it's also worth mentioning how "productive" you are on an old piece of junk, compared to something recent. It's a waste of life. Do you enjoy waiting half a minute for YouTube to start? Does it make you more efficient and motivated in your things?

In any case, you can STILL bypass these requirements with the click of a button, literally. Or you could always install Linux, of course. For free. Yet, here we have you, still complaining about TPM chips, and throwing around buzzwords like sustainability, without the slightest idea.

 

[wontolla]

I'll switch from W10 directly to Linux if the Steam OS version is available or Mint if not. A lot of HW is not W11 compatible and it could be working for years.

 

[bondflavor]

32gb is the new standard. I mean you can't possible stay for this long on 16GB hoping it is enough. 8GB used to be enough. Now 16 is barely enough.

Err... what? Enough for what, exactly? 8 GB is plenty enough for most people, and 16 GB is more than enough for almost everyone. Very few people actually need 32 GB RAM.

Oh boy, you're so wrong on so many levels, where do I even begin?

-snip-

Is this satire? This seems like satire.