Windows 10 Now Advising Users About Lack Of Windows 11 Eligibility

[callthatgirl]

Wait, Microsoft has support for home users with Windows 10

 

[britechguy]

There were other options for Microsoft

Can't disagree there. But they made their choice, and that's the point. There is no way to make everyone happy here.

 

[Sky-Knight]

I would agree with that, if it was the same as previous releases when the perfectly usable hardware was able to upgrade to the new Windows version. Any rare compatibility issues were the responsibility of chipset makers and users themselves, Microsoft were under no obligation to release patches for their new OS on old hardware.

The problem isn't the OS becoming unsupported, it's that users are prevented from upgrading to the newer OS. We all know how well Windows 11 works on unsupported PCs of sufficient performance.

WTF are you on about? It wasn't that long ago every single released version of Windows required new hardware. You must be young in this industry to be 100% stuck in the XP forward days where the hardware just got faster, but didn't DO anything substantial.

Well guess what, TPM is REQUIRED your alternative is to not use Windows. The CPUs that don't have that module have ancient instructions and are slow, and problematic as well for other reasons. These things happen from time to time, and honestly, I'm just happy it hasn't happened more frequently.

And no, Windows 11 DOES NOT WORK on the younger hardware in an unsupported way. The security features are utterly disabled, and Microsoft has spoken, if you want to use their product you will do so with the toys they demand.

It's time to put our big boy pants on, and upgrade some gear. Recycle the rest, or stop using the Microsoft ecosystem.

 

[fincoder]

You must be young in this industry to be 100% stuck in the XP forward days

You must be stuck in the past if you think the last 20 years has no bearing on what we should expect now.

TPM is REQUIRED your alternative is to not use Windows. The CPUs that don't have that module have ancient instructions and are slow

Many unsupported CPUs are faster than Windows 11 supported CPUs, so clearly performance is not the reason.
The code is already in the OS for dealing with CPUs without more recent instructions, and it's robust so is unlikely to be a source of instability. I mentioned above MS could have just issued a disclaimer about older hardware not being as secure, upgrade at your own risk.

I'm not personally fussed about this, not sure why you're resorting to personal language. My clientele is home and very small business users, many of which are struggling. Then there's the wastefulness of junking PCs that still perform well, the extra landfill etc. I think the requirements should have been more strict in regards to performance (e.g. 6th gen mobile CPUs and higher, and SSD) and the TPM requirement scrapped.

Recycling is not a great option. Re-use or continuing use is far better for the environment.

 

[DRPCNZ]

So not going to support past 2025. Need to upgrade to 11 to stop all the security issues. If AI is so darn good how come it can't stop them form being exploited. Be the only useful think that I coould see AI being of use for. I certainly don't need it to tell me to eat glass, or always putting reddit at the top of the search list after the sponsered ads

 

[Sky-Knight]

You must be stuck in the past if you think the last 20 years has no bearing on what we should expect now.

Many unsupported CPUs are faster than Windows 11 supported CPUs, so clearly performance is not the reason.
The code is already in the OS for dealing with CPUs without more recent instructions, and it's robust so is unlikely to be a source of instability. I mentioned above MS could have just issued a disclaimer about older hardware not being as secure, upgrade at your own risk.

I'm not personally fussed about this, not sure why you're resorting to personal language. My clientele is home and very small business users, many of which are struggling. Then there's the wastefulness of junking PCs that still perform well, the extra landfill etc. I think the requirements should have been more strict in regards to performance (e.g. 6th gen mobile CPUs and higher, and SSD) and the TPM requirement scrapped.

Recycling is not a great option. Re-use or continuing use is far better for the environment.

It's not about performance, it's about features, support, and life cycles. The Intel Coffee Lake (Generation 8) platform was first released October of 2017, and discontinued December 24th, 2021. AMD's offerings in this space that have the appropriate instruction sets are slightly younger. The youngest of this specific line of Intel CPUs released Q4 of 2019.

None of them are being made anymore...

At the time of Windows 10's ten's retirement, these platforms will have reached the ripe old age of 5. Endpoints are supposed to be refreshed every 3-5 years. Everyone has gotten used to 5-10 years. I get the environmental argument, but that's where we need better recycling technologies. The kernel patches to mitigate the CPU vulnerabilities in question, MURDER performance. The only way to make these platforms "safe" is to reduce them to 486 era CPU performance. This has NOT happened. Which is why Specter and Meltdown style attacks continue to be, and will remain possible. We're nowhere near done seeing new risks discovered in the predictive execution space too!

Now, if you're on Linux, you're welcome to accept the risk. But when you're a global corporate monster being sued for every little thing... you need to defray liability. Microsoft has stated, they DO NOT WANT customers unwilling to upgrade. And considering I've lost two of my own SMBs worrying my hair off my head for the very same clients you're talking about, the people that ARE ALWAYS STRUGGLING! Seriously, that entire market segment is defined by struggle. There is no more struggle now, than there is anytime. All of this is now 100% whining, it makes zero business or financial sense. So yes, I'm going on the offensive here because objectively I'm tired of seeing people complain about it.

You've got a year to replace all your Win10 boxes that can't upgrade. Get to it, recycle the rest. There is no way out but through... or tiny companies with no budget can do the earth shattering thing of not using a Microsoft endpoint... oh... wait... every OTHER commercial offering in that space has an even SHORTER effective lifecycle. Not to mention the talent required to service it COSTS MORE.

SMBs that cannot afford to march forward will go under. Which is again... normal. I'm done "feeling bad" about it. I'm also done wasting my life trying to find ways around it just so I can make $10.

 

[britechguy]

SMBs that cannot afford to march forward will go under. Which is again... normal. I'm done "feeling bad" about it. I'm also done wasting my life trying to find ways around it just so I can make $10.

And having once been one of those SMBs, should go under. When you reach the point where normal costs of doing business, and getting a new computer every 5 years or so is one of those, is enough to tip the scale to failure, you should fail. If you don't fail from that, you most assuredly will from something else.

On a related note, I just made a comment on a pull request for an open source project where someone was asking for modifications to support Windows 7!! Windows 7?!! For the love of heaven, the project itself has dropped support for anything earlier than Windows 10. There seem to be certain people who believe that things can and should be backward compatible to whatever crappy systems they purchased a decade or more ago. That is simply not true, and software houses with backbone will say, "No, we won't do that. We don't do anything to maintain compatibility with out-of-support versions of Windows or any other software package." You simply can't keep up with what you must keep up with in order to remain viable if you keep the anchor of perpetual backward compatibility pulling you down and/or keeping you in place.

 

[fincoder]

It's not about performance

That's what I said. You mentioned performance as a reason for not allowing upgrades on older hardware: "The CPUs that don't have that module have ancient instructions and are slow".

None of them are being made anymore...

Irrelevant. 12th generation CPUs are still sold in PCs today, but probably won't be next year... has no bearing on whether Microsoft should support them or not.

Endpoints are supposed to be refreshed every 3-5 years.

Did you miss the part that where I mentioned my concern is home and very small office users? They were never "supposed" to refresh their hardware every 3-5 years.

I get the environmental argument, but that's where we need better recycling technologies.

I don't think you really do. Recycling should be the last resort (before landfill). In preference to recycling, continuing use and re-use is far more environmentally friendly.

The kernel patches to mitigate the CPU vulnerabilities in question, MURDER performance.

So now you're bringing up performance again? PCs with 6th and 7th gen CPUs are already running with those OS kernel patches and they're still quite fast, their performance is not "murdered". Whether a user accepts the slight reduction in performance with the kernel patches should be up to them.

Which is why Specter and Meltdown style attacks continue to be, and will remain possible.

Considering pre-8th gen CPUs are currently still running a supported OS, patches are available and will continue to be created for 17 months.

Microsoft's decision to ban Windows 11 from PCs with good performance and compatibility is simply bean-counting. I understand that's business, but while they have little competition they do have millions of users so a measure of public-relations comes into play. Even dictators need to keep politics in mind to some extent.

And I'm not talking about "SMBs". I'm talking about residential and very small offices, as I've said. Offices with 2-3 people or home business like farms and trades.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Did you miss the part that where I mentioned my concern is home and very small office users? They were never "supposed" to refresh their hardware every 3-5 years.

There is no difference in this reality between SMB / Home and Enterprise. All endpoints of the PC variety are by design to be replaced every 5 years. Apple Desktops are 4 years. Apple laptops are 3 years. Apple phones and tablets are TWO YEARS. Android devices are 2-3 years depending on manufacturer, and most tier one OEMs have a maximum support lifecycle of the major components of 10 years starting at the release of the line, not the point of sale. This too translates into a 5 year refresh window.

For the rest, honestly you've simply demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of what the Speculative Execution feature does in a CPU, and how it's being exploited. It cannot be fixed in a software update, it can be mitigated to some extent and the mitigations all involve discontinuing the use of Speculative Execution.

Which reduces the CPU to the performance value of a 486.

Let me put it to you even more simple, the fact that your machines aren't unusablly slow means they're still vulnerable.

Every single one of those old designs needs to be recycled, there is no fixing them. Modern CPUs have hardware functionality to manage this risk, and that functionality is dependent on TPM modules. Microsoft is telling you, you must have these features as of October of 2025. That is the time when they will start to change their product to address this harsh reality, and they've chosen the means to deal with it too. They know it's a huge change, which is why they gave so much time! The fall update of 2024 has enforcement measures in it to prevent out of support units from being installed and upgraded. The clock is ticking.

 

[britechguy]

@Sky-Knight:

The short version: It is what it is.

I hear these, "But why do I haaaaaafta update/upgrade!!," plaints endlessly. And the answer is: Because (circumstances and manufacturers dictate).

Not everything in this life involves personal choice. Many things are foist upon us and when it's obvious that resistance is both futile and stupid, then do what needs doing and move along with life.

I also have no sympathy for anyone, residential or business, who is foolish enough to buy new (as of today's date) hardware that is incompatible with Windows 11. There's simply no reason to do that and the phrase, "You have been warned," applies.

 

[fincoder]

There is no difference in this reality between SMB / Home and Enterprise. All endpoints of the PC variety are by design to be replaced every 5 years.

I'd like some evidence to back up this statement. Anyone else here agree?
There are no disclaimers on the box when purchasing a PC indicating a maximum life of 5 years. I think that if manufacturers did do that there would be a market backlash or government regulatory intervention.

Let me put it to you even more simple, the fact that your machines aren't unusablly slow means they're still vulnerable.

Is it just a theoretical vulnerability that still exists or are there actual exploits that OS patches and security have been unable to prevent? What is the nature of those exploits? I haven't come across or heard about exploits affecting PCs with pre-8th gen CPUs, they must be exceedingly rare

Every single one of those old designs needs to be recycled, there is no fixing them.

I understand that, but my issue is when should they be recycled. They're in common usage now, will be for another 17 months, have been for a number of years. It's rather arbitrary to declare that they should be junked after October 2025. Another say 3-5 years would likely see them out naturally. Is there really going to be that much more security risk in the next 5 years compared to the last 5 years?

 

[Sky-Knight]

@fincoder I'm apparently incapable of explaining this in a way you understand. Please go educate yourself on Speculative Execution, what it does, and why Meltdown / Spectre is such a big deal.

The rest is... just willful ignorance. The boxes sold all tell you what the lifespans are, there is no such regulatory or market outcry. The time ranges I gave you have been the same for my entire career, they are not new. We've had a WONDERFULLY long run with the iSeries chips, especially with the free Windows 10 upgrades going out. It's gotten the market far too used to a lack of upgrade push, and while yes this one is a bit agressive... I understand why. It's required to defuse a massive structural and design vulnerability that's becoming easier to exploit by the second. Exploits that are being used, my SOC reports on them daily. They're being used to bust encryption, lift authentication tokens, and in some cases bypass network security systems to exfiltrate data.

Anyway, all of the above is utterly moot. Windows 11 has the system requirements it has. No one here has authority to define what those requirements are. You can meet the standard, or you can operate unsupported / not at all. I'm not here to argue any further, and I'm tired of talking in circles.

 

[fincoder]

Not everything in this life involves personal choice.

And corporations aren't always allowed to do whatever they want. This issue isn't just about personal choice, it's also about what our society chooses to be acceptable. I see it as a "right to repair" issue and environmental issue.

 

[sapphirescales]

3 Years has been a common upgrade cycle for many businesses. In recent years, a lot of businesses have pushed it to 5 years or even longer. I generally don't recommend keeping systems for longer than 5 years in a business environment. That being said, the upgrade cycle for consumers is more like 7-10 years and in some cases even longer. I still have a ton of E6420's out there that I've sold to regular people that still haven't died/come back to me yet. I'm talking thousands of them. I expect an avalanche of them in 2026 after Windows 10 support ends. I'm really hoping this warning will prompt people with unsupported systems to come in before then, otherwise I'm going to have a hard time sourcing enough replacement systems if everyone all comes in at once.

I believe in keeping systems and upgrading them for as long as possible, so long as they're not used in mission-critical environments. Though with businesses, even if the systems aren't mission-critical, it still makes sense to replace them after 3-5 years for reliability's sake before they start to die and end up causing the business downtime. Downtime is expensive, oftentimes more expensive than just replacing the computer before it breaks. Consumers on the other hand can live a day or two without their computers, so it makes sense to just keep them until they break, then either upgrade or replace them.

The boxes sold all tell you what the lifespans are

I'm sorry but what are you talking about here?

 

[britechguy]

And corporations aren't always allowed to do whatever they want. This issue isn't just about personal choice, it's also about what our society chooses to be acceptable. I see it as a "right to repair" issue and environmental issue.

It's a done deal. It really is that simple.

Either deal, or don't deal, but the die has indeed been cast. In situations like this, bemoaning anything is pissing into the wind.

[BTW: I find this painfully wasteful, as you do, but I'm a realist and prefer to put my emotional and other energies somewhere that they might do some good.]

 

[fincoder]

In situations like this, bemoaning anything is pissing into the wind.

You're probably right and I don't invest much emotion into it at all.
I was only challenging Microsoft's "reasons" and how some people support Microsoft's decision as though it's the only option they had. It's the option that suited them the most, not necessarily society the most.

 

[britechguy]

It's the option that suited them the most, not necessarily society the most.

Which, when it comes right down to it, is how business (or at least American business) has operated for at least half of my life now. Once the idea took hold that "shareholder value" was the paramount thing, the only thing, that set the trajectory.

I can still remember (I grew up in coal and steel country before both industries imploded) when there was a clear social compact between the companies and the areas where they operated (though nothing could make up for the environmental damage caused by coal, even back then - the rivers in my area ran orange with acid mine drainage!). But at least there was the idea, now expressed as "stakeholder value," that had real expression to a far greater extent than it does now. Employees (and long term retention of same, even during lean times) were definitely part of business calculations to an extent that is unthinkable now.

You'll get no argument from me that the priorities of business are skewed, and I'm also not under the delusion that businesses are charities. But the scales have tipped tragically away from consideration of "the big picture" over the long term.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Yes, Microsoft has already started notifying Windows 10 users regarding incompatibility with Windows 11. Remember, Windows 10 is still as reliable operating system for several years to come.

Of course it is, Windows 11 isn't... it's Windows 10.

Fire up winver on Windows 11 23H2, and you can then open a CMD.exe window and run ver. The output is Version 10.0.22631.3447].

It's STILL versioned, Windows 10.

Literally the only reason we have 11, is the hardware requirements change to drive TPM, secure boot, and EFI. Which I refuse to be sorry for, no matter how much hand wringing people keep bringing up about it. Want to save the planet? FINE, get your crap onto Gen 8 or later platforms! Did you forget that Generation 8 game with massive power efficiency gains? This 12th gen desktop uses A QUARTER the power of the 4th gen it replaced. It's resulted in a drop of 3 degrees F on the average in ambient heat in my office too. That's a direct reduction on my power bill twice, once to run the unit and twice to pay to run the HVAC to COOL THIS MESS. I live in a desert... this junk matters!

An office of 3 machines will save the cost of a refurb 8th gen in power per year on the average. Which means net CO2 reductions too.

The "green" argument, is ALSO a losing one. UPGRADE YOUR JUNK!

 

[NviGate Systems]

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.

Myself personally I have moved to Linux and I am not changing my hardware for now, I understand the risk, I don't deal with client data anymore, so for my personal use, Linux will be fine, it's a risk I am comfortable with. I think that is essentially what it boils down to, we all have a unique sense of what risk we can tolerate. That of course may differ for companies who have to abide by law or insurance etc.

The comment/question regarding "where on the box is a lifespan"? For most systems now that message is in plain sight where no one bothers to look or read. EULA. You click "Agree" to use the computer, but almost certianly nobody bothers to read it. It could say you promise to give Microsoft your first born child, become a slave, allow Microsoft to name your pet, for all we know. However it does outline limited liability and other factors that by your accepting of it, outline how Microsoft supports a PC, and here we are. The EULA is finally in the limelight.

What IS interesting about this cut off, is that in previous years, the majority of hardware was still somewhat supported no matter how practical it was or was not, but now we have a hard cut off. There are refurbishers who have stock of PC's that will become dead weight, so I'm curious of the financial downfall that may arise if they don't blow out those machines now. Or perhaps they have now started only securing Gen 8 or later. I know eBay and Amazon are littered with crappy refurb boxes. I don't think they will dissapear. They likely will run hacked versions of Windows 11, which will be another disaster.

I did some research on Spectre, and with V2 here, the woes are not stopping. No reports of in the wild use, but I suppose it's a matter of time.