Most corporate PCs can’t install Windows 11, study says

Topic

New Reply

ISSUE 18.42 • 2021-11-01 PUBLIC DEFENDER By Brian Livingston Microsoft has issued many, shall we say, evolving requirements for Windows 11 — confusing
[See the full post at: Most corporate PCs can’t install Windows 11, study says]

4 users thanked author for this post.

Luxi Turna, OscarCP, jefobr, abbodi86

Reply | Quote

Replies

Most corporate PCs can’t install Windows 11, study says

I wonder if this is really a surprise to anyone save those who still think all businesses replace PCs every 3-4 years just because they are, well, 3-4 years old. TPM and secure boot have been in PCs far longer than the supported CPUs have been available. It would have been a much bigger surprise if the CPU were not the biggest stumbling block.

I also wonder how many machines failed because they are not set up for secure boot. Not they are incapable of secure boot, only that it is not in use. My one and only Windows 11 qualified PC was an example and enabling secure boot required reinstalling Windows. My research indicated there is not a reasonably straightforward way to convert from “legacy boot” to secure boot while preserving the disk’s contents.

As I wrote in my October 18 column, there are few, if any, compelling new features in Win11 for most people, aside from cosmetic changes.

For my money, those “cosmetic” changes in Windows 11 are a major reason to avoid it for as long as possible. Microsoft has yet again crippled a very usable and, most importantly, customizable interface. Did it learn nothing from Windows 8? Apparently, it did not.

4 users thanked author for this post.

GreatAndPowerfulTech, Luxi Turna, HiFlyer, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Something’s still not clear to me. Windows 11 aims at a more secure environment. Therefore the need for TPM 2.0. Machine’s not offering this won’t install Windows 11. Sounds fair. But if machines that don’t adhere to the specification still can run Windows 11 by means of a registry hack, what’s the implication for Windows 11 enhanced security?

4 users thanked author for this post.

Luxi Turna, Seff, HiFlyer, jefobr

Reply | Quote

Because it’s not supported I don’t see businesses using this method to run 11.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I also suspect that there will be a lot of used business PCs that get the hack. I checked, and the Dell Optiplex 990 I got my dad still has a TPM in it: it’s just 1.2 instead of 2.0. It’s not like the average user will even notice or care if they can’t update Windows, which seems to be stupidest part of all of this.

Reply | Quote

That’s probably updatable to 2.0

Susan Bradley Patch Lady/Prudent patcher

Reply | Quote

Actually, the 990 is not cannot be, but here is an article on Dell machines that can be upgraded from TPM 1.2 to 2.0.

Dell computers that can upgrade from TPM version 1.2 to 2.

It’s a bit academic because these machines have CPUs that don’t make the cut.

Reply | Quote

My household has two servers (Synology and Netgear), three desktops running Windows 10, and two laptops. One laptop and one desktop do not qualify.

I have left all Microsoft OS PCs except the laptop running Windows 10 and force upgraded the laptop whose CPU was no longer supported by HP.  Windows 11 seems to run fine on it but I may revert it back to Windows 10 to get updates.  What frosts my cake is the laptop was manufactured in early 2018 and has a 7th gen i7 Intel processor.  Its than capable for any application or game.

Seems like a ploy to make more money to me.  I think Microsoft may have to rethink support and deployment.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

I’m watching MS go the same way as IBM did in the 80’s. Misunderstanding their market and the changing needs and as a result totally screwing itself as a company. It’s not just this latest debacle over Windows 11, but making cosmetic changes to Office applications that hinder functionality and destroy years of corporate knowledge and user training. Introducing products without adequate market testing or design. Destroying functional systems – looking at Onenote in particular as an example.

Not trying to start an Apple war here, but having been accused of being an MS fanboi many times and having used MS since Dos 2.0 (or earlier). I made the decision to switch to Apple last year when my SP4 was unrepairable after less than 4-years. While I still have a couple of Windows devices, they are mostly shut down and only used for rare circumstances when I need something that is windows dependent (some older Astronomy stuff mainly). I’m sitting inside Apple’s walled garden (which is far from perfect) and watching what happens with MS with great relief that I no longer need to worry about their constant stuff ups.

It’s really sad to see such a great company go down this path of self-immolation.

7 users thanked author for this post.

GreatAndPowerfulTech, Aendie, WarningU2, HiFlyer, OscarCP, wdburt1, fk5353

Reply | Quote

Just to acknowledge that I posted this. I didn’t realise that I was not logged in when I posted.

Reply | Quote

> It’s really sad to see such a great company go down this path of self-immolation.

it’s sad to see, but we’ve been seeing it for a long time — ever since frat boy Balmer took over. If Gates still ran the place and they treated their employees right for a change, they probably would have invented time travel by now.

==[ Know, when you see her, nothing can free her. ]==

Reply | Quote

Good article!! I run a (dual-boot) PC and an older ASUS N551VW laptop with an Intel i7-6700HQ CPU rated at 2.60 GHz with 16 GB RAM perfectly capable of running Windows 10 Pro, i.e. it has a 64-bit processor (with a 64-bit operating system) faster than 1 GHz clock speed. Yet Microsoft excludes it from a Windows 11 upgrade (only CPUs from ix-7xxx are compatible). Which CPU instructions do CPUs >= ix-7xxx have that an i7-6700HQ doesn’t have that Windows 11 essentially requires? Despite the fact that I don’t want Win11 on my laptop, I’d like to understand the “disqualification arguments” from Microsoft.

2 users thanked author for this post.

WarningU2, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

System requirements from the article…
“A Microsoft account and an Internet connection to enable first-time setup of Windows 11 Home Edition.”

No more local accounts? If so is it just for Home Edition, can Pro users still use local accounts?

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Just Home, but there are workarounds, e.g.:

Set up Windows 11 Home with an offline account

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

The installer doesn’t make it easy, but you can set 11 Pro with a local account.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

jefobr wrote:

My household has two servers (Synology and Netgear), three desktops running Windows 10, and two laptops. One laptop and one desktop do not qualify.

I have left all Microsoft OS PCs except the laptop running Windows 10 and force upgraded the laptop whose CPU was no longer supported by HP.  Windows 11 seems to run fine on it but I may revert it back to Windows 10 to get updates.  What frosts my cake is the laptop was manufactured in early 2018 and has a 7th gen i7 Intel processor.  Its than capable for any application or game.

Seems like a ploy to make more money to me.  I think Microsoft may have to rethink support and deployment.

I have the same feeling about an HP Z-book.

There is presumably some reason why Microsoft has disowned older CPUs (the microcode issues from several years ago being one), but it doesn’t really seem to be about simply processing power.

That said, I agree the Microsoft should drop the hard line on upgrading existing PCs that run Windows 10. If the machine doesn’t perform acceptably after the upgrade, then its owner can revert to Windows 10, scrap the machine, convert it to Linux or use it as an end table. But, baring some technical reason why such a machine cannot run Windows 11, Microsoft should allow upgrades on such machines without hacks or other such trickery. The overall state of cybersecurity is not going to be enhanced by millions of PCs running Windows 10 after 10/14/2025.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

0patch.com still supports Windows 7. It is expected to also support Windows 10 when Microsoft moves to paid Enterprise support only. 0patch is the real deal.

GreatAndPowerfulTech

Reply | Quote

Susan Bradley wrote:

Because it’s not supported I don’t see businesses using this method to run 11.

You might be surprised but I bet some businesses, nonprofits, charities, etc. will upgrade to Windows 11 via the hack, which is pretty trivial as hacks go, simply because they cannot afford to replace their PCs. After all, the choice is between running unsupported (no patches, no updates) Windows 10 (after 14 Oct 2025) or running unsupported (which may or may not have patches and updates) Windows 11. As long as Microsoft allows those machines to update, it’s something of a no-brainer for them.

If/when Microsoft stops allowing updates and patches for Windows 11 on unholy hardware, then – maybe – the calculus will change for them.

Reply | Quote

You’re missing the other likely options for Windows 10 users after October 2025, namely the purchase of a subscription with MS for paid monthly updates or the purchase of support from a third party company such as 0patch. In  other words, Windows 10 will continue to be supported the same way as Windows 7 is today, that is perfectly adequately but just not for free.

Reply | Quote

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/survey-majority-pcs-in-enterprise-not-windows-11-compatible/

🙂

Susan Bradley wrote:

Because it’s not supported I don’t see businesses using this method to run 11.

I do see businesses using the hack to install Windows 11 even just for testing current software / network compatibility before investing in new hardware.

Reply | Quote

MS has created, again, unnecessary problems for users of the software they bought from this company, in particular their sure-bet, big money-makers corporate (private and government) users. “Users” = “costumers.” Technology, when it comes to software, has to move with the times, in particular to deal with the increased need for better computer security. No question about that. But big questions concerning how to go about it. Take, for example, Apple’s recent move to use AMD-like RISC-type CPUs, because they are faster and more efficient than CISC ones, such as Intel’s. But Apple has made it very easy and painless to the users of Macs with Intel-CPU (like my own) to continue using them for “years to come”, by introducing “Universal” OS and applications that now come in two versions, for Intel macs and for the new “M1” Macs. “Years to come” is vague and could mean just another two or three years in actual fact, who knows? But it does give us time to move on without having to start ditching our still perfectly working computers soonest and go and buy new ones when at a higher than usual price, because of such factors as the current high price of CPUs and other chips.

While many Windows users might have not been scrupulously observant of the best practices when it comes to how they have setup their computers or how often they have replaced them with new ones, the fact remains that these are all paying customers, and a pretty sound business principle is that “the customer is (often) right.” So MS management seems to be going, as correctly pointed out here already by Anonymous #2399176  , the way of IBM in the 80’s, as I see it for some of the same reasons, and for some worse ones as well. Not only not paying attention to the way things are going in their market, because of unfavorable economic factors and a disruption of manufacturing and distribution, due in part to the pandemic, has resulted, for example, in an undersupply of CPU chips, with a corresponding rise in their price and that of new computers. But also for what looks from here as plain brain-dead decision-making by top management.

I think this company and their software, Windows in particular, no longer deserves the degree of customer loyalty that they have been enjoying for decades.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I wonder if the survey also established how many of the corporate machines surveyed were still running Windows 7?

Reply | Quote

For the first time I have no intention of installing the latest and greatest on the 4 machines in our household.   Windows 11 is for me a non starter.

I recently purchased a new “gamer” machine pre built  through cyberpowerpc, as I couldn’t get the components individually without considerable effort and cost.   I actually was very pleased with the end result.  I received a AMD Ryzen 5 5600X 6 core 3701 MHz with  12 logical processor.   The PC has a RTX 3060 Nvidia video card plus the machine has 16 GB of RAM.   I was surprised that an update from MS recently flagged this 6 month old machine as incapable of upgrading to Windows 11.

I honestly haven’t really looked at the bios to see if I can configure it to upgrade.  I did note that sysinfo says the following about device encryption support:

Reasons for failed device encryption TPM is not usable .  PCR 5 binding is not supported.  Hardware Security Test interface failed and device is not Modern Standby , un-allowed DMA capable bus/devices detected TPM is not usable.

Well that’s a slap in the face.

So no MS … I’m not upgrading.

Can I change the bios, edit the registry or whatever else is required on this machine and the other’s  … sure.    But why?   Just so you can comply with US gov’t requirement to meet some standard.  No  I’ll make the plunge and move to Linux like so many other of my colleagues that are dumping MS.

Guess it’s time to change your name perhaps ?

Reply | Quote

I used Windows 11 as an Insider. I was hoping all the time MS will address the taksbar feedback, but they didn’t. There’s nothing especially compelling about Windows 11 and I like my taksbar on the right. So now I’m on 10 21H2.

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

1 user thanked author for this post.

MHCLV941

Reply | Quote

WarningU2 wrote:

I was surprised that an update from MS recently flagged this 6 month old machine as incapable of upgrading to Windows 11.

Perhaps CyberPowerPC can provide some insight into the problems. It sounds like TPM 2 is present on the machine but somehow not configured correctly. If you’re inclined to chase it a bit, perhaps there’s a BIOS update that would resolve this?

Reply | Quote

Seff wrote:

You’re missing the other likely options for Windows 10 users after October 2025, namely the purchase of a subscription with MS for paid monthly updates or the purchase of support from a third party company such as 0patch. In  other words, Windows 10 will continue to be supported the same way as Windows 7 is today, that is perfectly adequately but just not for free.

Not impossible, of course, particularly if the price is reasonable (Microsoft’s pricing for Windows 10 support is not, from what I understand) and there’s a serious effort to get the word out that this option even exists.

Reply | Quote

Seff wrote:

I wonder if the survey also established how many of the corporate machines surveyed were still running Windows 7?

I’d really hope any Windows 7 machines air-gapped so that the data collection tools don’t even know they exist.

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

Take, for example, Apple’s recent move to use AMD-like RISC-type CPUs, because they are faster and more efficient than CISC ones, such as Intel’s. But Apple has made it very easy and painless to the users of Macs with Intel-CPU (like my own) to continue using them for “years to come”, by introducing “Universal” OS and applications that now come in two versions, for Intel macs and for the new “M1” Macs. “Years to come” is vague and could mean just another two or three years in actual fact, who knows? But it does give us time to move on without having to start ditching our still perfectly working computers soonest and go and buy new ones when at a higher than usual price, because of such factors as the current high price of CPUs and other chips.

I generally agree with your assessment of MIrosoft’samazing tone-deafness, but it’s been so for at least 20 years. However, I do have to take you to task over your comparison with Apple quoted above.

Microsoft has given a minimum of FOUR years to make whatever transition one is inclined to make. That’s how long it will be supporting Windows 10 (to 14 Oct 2025 to be exact). It’s not “years to come” but it’s more time that you credit Apple with allowing for the transition of hardware and it’s a date certain around which one can plan. As for applications, what runs on Windows 10 will almost certainly run on Windows 11 (though there will no doubt be some exceptions).

Reply | Quote

MHCLV941: I am not crediting Apple with giving people two or three years to move to the new Macs with RISC CPUs, that even if it were true would not be ideal, but would be better than what MS is doing right now (subject to future “yes, buts” and policy tweaks, rethinks, hacks …) that is a subject of this thread. No: I am merely guessing.

What is undeniably is that Apple’s “for years to come” commitment is vague. But its commitments, for example on how long machines are going to be supported, have always been vague, not written and signed in blood anywhere. That is because of one overarching policy of Apple, in place more or less since the very start back in the early 80’s: playing with the cards very, very close to their chest. A good idea? For them, yes … But the fact has been, also throughout much of Apple’s existence so far, that machines have been supported for five years after the last one of the same model was sold by them, and that then these machines get some security updates for another two or even three after that, for a total of up to eight years. Whether this will be still so for people like me, who own Macs of the previous type, with Intel CISC CPUs, seems like a very good question right now. In my case, two or three years would be fine, because by then my Mac will be old enough to retire and for me to get a new one. Will we have that long? Who knows?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

So given the choice of purchasing a new laptop do I max it out and get Win11 installed or max it out and have it come with Win10?

Reply | Quote

10 Pro.

10 Home is an ad server with rather limited user control.

11’s not ready yet.  You’ll be able to upgrade for free for a long time, years, probably.

 

Reply | Quote

Thank you!!!

Reply | Quote

Well, yeah.  It’s not ready for general distribution yet much less business use.  It will be OK at some point.  How long did it take for Win 10 to overtake Win 7?  Years.  As I recall, businesses mostly skipped both 8’s and went directly to 10 from 7.  Win 8.1 worked fine; Win 11 is about where Win 8 was.  Win 11 may be supplanted; by what IDK.

JMO but I don’t spend a lot of time looking at window title bars, backgrounds, etc. Win 11 doesn’t seem to bring anything beside a different base theme that could already be approximated on Win 10 with some fiddling.  If themes are your thing, go to Linux, the number of themes available are good for a lifetime of playing.

Start with Breeze. 🙂

Reply | Quote

I’d argue that the CPU and TPM requirements are basically the same thing. Microsoft restricted the CPUs to the ones that are guaranteed to have a firmware TPM that supports TPM 2.0. It’s bizarre that they actually check the processor and not just the TPM.

The actual CPU requirements are a 1.0 Ghz dual core with CMPXCHG16b instructions, which is all dual core processors except some early Core2Duos and older processors.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Aendie

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

Microsoft restricted the CPUs to the ones that are guaranteed to have

That are guaranteed to have needed security features that pre 8th Gen CPUs don’t have, like : virtualization-based security (VBS), hypervisor-protected code integrity (HVCI)..

1 user thanked author for this post.

Aendie

Reply | Quote

Alex5723 wrote:

anonymous wrote:

Microsoft restricted the CPUs to the ones that are guaranteed to have

That are guaranteed to have needed security features that pre 8th Gen CPUs don’t have, like : virtualization-based security (VBS), hypervisor-protected code integrity (HVCI)..

Windows 11 does run on older CPUs, so why is a gen 8 or later CPU actually requried? For that matter, it will also run on a machine without TPM at all.

Both features are certainly nice to have, mandatory in some circles, but why is Microsoft being so stiff about allowing existing machines to upgrade?

Reply | Quote

MHCLV941 wrote:

but why is Microsoft being so stiff about allowing existing machines to upgrade?

Bacause Microsoft wants it users (mostly government and enterprises) to have the highest security available.

Reply | Quote

Alex5723 wrote:

MHCLV941 wrote:

but why is Microsoft being so stiff about allowing existing machines to upgrade?

Bacause Microsoft wants it users (mostly government and enterprises) to have the highest security available.

That’s fine, but for many users, particularly many of them who are not “government and enterprises”, this will have the opposite effect. They will be running an unsupported OS in just under 4 years when they don’t have to be.

Reply | Quote

GreatAndPowerfulTech wrote:

0patch.com still supports Windows 7. It is expected to also support Windows 10 when Microsoft moves to paid Enterprise support only. 0patch is the real deal.

It may well be the real deal, but it’s also very much under the radar. The first reference to it that I can recall has been in this topic.

At first blush, I’m not inspired. The site (www.0patch.com) does not require HTTPS and does not have an option to see prices in USD nor dor exempting purchases by non-EU customers from EU VAT.

Reply | Quote

0patch has been providing patches for Win7 since it went EOL in Jan 2020. THey do a very good job of taking care of the vulnerabiliities, often times ahead of Microsoft. Their Pro version (paid, about $29/year US) also provides updates for other applications.

Reply | Quote

PKCano wrote:

0patch has been providing patches for Win7 since it went EOL in Jan 2020. THey do a very good job of taking care of the vulnerabiliities, often times ahead of Microsoft. Their Pro version (paid, about $29/year US) also provides updates for other applications.

Do they have a US-facing website? One that deals is USD pricing and does not charge VAT?

Reply | Quote

del

1 user thanked author for this post.

MHCLV941

Reply | Quote

So What!
The US is not the only source of safe, reliable, productive software.
In fact, the EU seems to have a better grip on privacy than the US where the approach is “scrape off anything you can get.”

Negative reasons for anything can be found if one looks hard enough.

Reply | Quote

Simon_Weel wrote:

Something’s still not clear to me. Windows 11 aims at a more secure environment. Therefore the need for TPM 2.0. Machine’s not offering this won’t install Windows 11. Sounds fair. But if machines that don’t adhere to the specification still can run Windows 11 by means of a registry hack, what’s the implication for Windows 11 enhanced security?

What’s disabled by the hack is the hardware check(s) during installation. There’s no indication that the hack tells Windows 11 not to use TPM and the other things if they are present.

Windows 11 even on “unsupported” hardware should be more secure than Windows 10, just not as secure as it would be on supported hardware.

Reply | Quote

PKCano wrote:

So What!
The US is not the only source of safe, reliable, productive software.
In fact, the EU seems to have a better grip on privacy than the US where the approach is “scrape off anything you can get.”

Negative reasons for anything can be found if one looks hard enough.

I never said it was nor do I think so there is a problem with EU-developed software.

However, I have made TWO, repeat TWO purchases from EU-based companies (AnyDesk and PowerDVD) using my UNITED STATES OF AMERICA address and BOTH companies charged VAT on the purchases.

You’ll have to forgive me – no, actually I don’t care if you do or not – but while I do not have an issue with the product, I do have concerns about EU-based software companys’ business practics.

Reply | Quote