Workarounds for Windows 11 on Incompatible Hardware

[phaZed]

No, that would be cost. The majority of people buy cheap PCs. They can't afford to buy a Mac or an expensive PC.

Doesn't look like it. The average computer per unit sales cost is between $780-860. So, with a $599 Mac Mini still not selling, something else must be going on.

That's why cars are basically all the same when it comes to where they put the steering wheel, brake pedals, etc. There are minor changes each time they redesign a vehicle, but the way you operate it remains the same (hence the word operating system).

Well, I appreciate the analogy, but I think this one fails. The reason the steering wheel and pedals stay the same is primarily because it has to work with the unchanging anatomy of a human being - that, and that the NHTSA have standards that must be adhered to(Such as which side the drivers seat is on, or which side the turn signal stock is on. A software system (OS) is not the same as physical machinery controls.

As for XP, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a learning curve to going to Windows 11 - but it's not very complicated once learned. Let's face it, I still have these folks from XP, too - and they can't generally "correctly" use XP after 20 years, either. The amount of times I see an XP desktop full of Icons for every program, and every PDF and file they download is stunning. No concept of organization or where things are. But still, if you look at OS usage rates, most people have already moved from XP, or 7 or Vista or 8... the majority have moved on. Edge cases will always exist and people will always have favorites - but it doesn't make something new, "unusable", or even "desired" after one becomes semi-proficient with it. I liked XP. Would I go back? Hell no.

 

[Blues]

Doesn't look like it. The average computer per unit sales cost is between $780-860. So, with a $599 Mac Mini still not selling, something else must be going on.
View attachment 17078

The problem with average cost is that is majority of units sold exist on the extremes that mid range is not a viable market share and does not negate a cost argument. The chart is labels marker price per unit while not stating this is per unit sold so it could simply be per unit available to buy which is a useless figure to make the case that cost isn't an issue.

When we want to talk cost we need to begin comparing specs by price point between manufacturers as well is a Mac mini specs going to compare favorably or dis-favorably to a Windows PC in the same price point on average? Really the Mac vs PC why one dominates and the other doesn't just boil down to a single issue. Windows has had decades of dominance defeating that is not a simple task as people will accept changes to their home quicker than they will buy a new one. In the business space the dominance of Windows is even greater than in the consumer space so also many people will chose to use the same types of systems they deal with at work for at home as rarely do people want to have to know how multiple things work when knowing one is really enough. Cost I know has been a major issue for Apple in the past and while they don't have much if anything at the bottom level they do have equipment in more affordable ranges today than they once had so cost has hurt them and they may still have a stigma with cost. To me again with out really looking at spec to spec and comparing those prices how much it impacts them outside of reputation today I would say at best is a questionable claim and likely one that really doesn't exist anymore. I could also go on about the issues of why I currently won't recommend apple PCs to anyone except those with specific needs the are best fulfilled by apple at this time but this is really get off topic now.

To steer back to topic what MS, Intel, or anyone says won't much matter as there will be those who find ways to make things work as desired so MS opening up a degree of acceptance of that is to me just them saying "We see many people are bypassing our protections and instead of fighting that we will put a warning and watermark on the systems to cover our backsides and wash our hands of it"

 

[Sky-Knight]

"We see many people are bypassing our protections and instead of fighting that we will put a warning and watermark on the systems to cover our backsides and wash our hands of it"

And this approach is:
Legally safer, as programmatic bombs are the stuff that create class actions.
Technically easier, no control is the easiest control to implement and maintain.
Ethically superior, See the impact of the above two realities play out across the ecosystem.

So you're exactly right, Microsoft isn't going to go out of its way to enforce every Windows 11 installation meet the documented requirements. They aren't going to do that any more than they ever have!

It's just "unsupported", which will cause unknown problems, which will generate unknowable risk, and therefore have an undefined investment required to manage the situation.

Users will eventually be annoyed into compliance, for the same reason they choose to give up old cars... maintenance costs skyrocket after a point and you either keep dumping money into the pit, or you get something better. Car analog is a bit off though... because with a car eventually you replace everything and it's "new" again. We can't "replace" software like that universally.