Now let's hope it's an automatic upgrade for as many Windows 10 users as possible.
It's one thing to force an update that just makes background improvements. It's another thing entirely to force a UI update that breaks your workflow.
Most of us just got the people we support used to the new design now they're going to up and change it completely again.
My Grandmother has basically given up using the computer because she doesn't have the mental energy to relearn a UI every time some MBA comes along wanting to "disrupt" the status quo.
It's basically akin to the company that manufactures your car showing up at your house while you're sleeping, moving the steering wheel to the center of the car, re-arranging buttons on the console, blacking out two of the windows because it looks cool, then leaving a nice little note on your front porch: "We upgraded your car, it's so much better!"
There have already been posts showing that there's an option to put the start menu back on the left if you want that. Hopefully there will be options to deal with other inconveniences. As it stands, this already looks like it fixes many of the complaints people had about Windows 10; in that regard, parts of it are exactly what many people asked for.
I don't want people to deal with a UI they dislike. I also don't want developers having to deal with a no-longer-evergreen OS. Windows was the last OS to move to the evergreen model; when Windows 10 came out, it was a great relief to many developers, who saw a point on the horizon where there was only one version of Windows they would have to support, and it would always be up to date.
Remember, the alternative isn't just "oh well, I guess we'll support Windows 10 and Windows 11". One alternative is "guess we'll build a web app instead", or "guess we'll drop support for Windows 10" (in which case people still need to upgrade, but they blame app developers instead of Windows).
I'm sure the option will exist to not upgrade, at least for a while. But if the default is to upgrade, app developers get much less of the blame if they expect and depend on that upgrade.
If developers don't want to support multiple versions of an OS, there are plenty of domains where that isn't an issue. The desktop seems like a weird place to complain about this issue, though, since this is a challenge inherent in the fact that users have choices and freedoms.
Completely disagree with your attitude here.
I absolutely believe that the "you're welcome to try" part of that is important, assuming there's no known issue (which there may sometimes be). Developers also have an upper bound on available support bandwidth. I don't think apps (or websites) should prevent users from even trying, unless there's some specific technical reason (e.g. a known incompatibility that's producing substantial support burden just to triage, or a library or API that simply doesn't exist on the older version). I do think it's reasonable to say "please upgrade and try again, and if you're still experiencing the issue we'll take a look".
Along the same lines, if a user reports an issue to a website where it doesn't function properly in Chrome 12, or Firefox 9, it's entirely reasonable for the site to respond with "please upgrade, we don't support outdated browsers". It's a little more questionable for a site to say that about a version released the previous month, unless the site is a tech demo for bleeding-edge technology. But at no point do I think a site should actually block users attempting to use older browsers; at most, it's reasonable to show a "not supported or tested, might not work" message.
That sounds like a problem for software developers, not my grandmother. Now she can't use _any_ software because she has to relearn the OS every few years. She doesn't have that much time left on this earth and I don't blame her for not wanting to expend the mental energy on learning something that's just gonna change for no apparent reason a few years down the road.
All of this bias towards churn is probably great for my career options so I guess that's something. But stories like this make me really feel for the millions of less tech-interested users who get frustrated by big changes like this. Within the tech bubble it's easy to forget how many things we take for granted as simple are actually quite hard for many people.
Windows 11 is based on the mainline branch after the above (though it too has been cut into its own release branch now). of course, some changes might be ported back and forth between releases.
So machines not eligible to be upgraded to Windows 11 will stay on Windows 10 and get 21H2 and who knows how many more updates.
> Trusted Platform Module (TPM) version 2.0
Possibly most AMD motherboards don't have TPM integrated? I don't know a lot about TPM though.
Someone said...
> enable tpm in your bios i did it and it worked for me, I have a 3080, 5800x, 16gb of ram
EDIT: My motherboard (Asus Prime X470 Pro) lists TPM as a separate module you buy, but the connector is present. $12 module, for example: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1237446-REG/asus_tpm_...
The manual does list an fTPM setting as well, but I have not tested that yet.
Ryzen CPUs do have TPM onboard - at least my Ryzen 3800X does have it. It's disabled by default for some reason.
Funny enough, Apple laptops don't have it so Windows 11 won't be usable in BootCamp on Intel Macs.
Supposedly the fTPM should work with Ryzen CPUs and offer TPM 2.0, but I can't confirm now either.
Similar deal to yours, my Gigabyte x570 board offers TPM cards: https://www.gigabyte.com/us/Motherboard/TPM-Card. I am assuming this is unnecessary tho, but good to know.
Screenshot of the security processor page: https://i.imgur.com/ZWtq8EO.png
Screenshot of the PC health check: https://i.imgur.com/Rb3eZIc.png
no gaming motherboard I've ever had has had a TPM
edit: seems like the intel PTT bios option counts, so maybe not a huge problem (though it's off by default everywhere)
edit: Looks like TPM 2.0 is not a hard requirement, only 1.2. This will likely still result in a lot of users left out of Windows, but the year of the Linux desktop may be delayed again. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/windo...
It's a free upgrade, just like 8 -> 10.
I assume Microsoft is doing this because of the hype that typically surrounds new Mac OS versions. I have no doubt that this could have been one of the evergreen updates, if only Microsoft hadn't been calling Windows 10 updates 'exciting' things like "21H2".
There's still win8 and win8.1 to worry about though, and win10 also has LTSC releases that stay supported for at least 10 years IIRC.
The promise of Windows 10 being the last Windows could have but an end to that nonsense.
The manufacturer of the MRI machine doesn't care. In their mind the "upgrade path" is to buy a new one. That might support the current iteration of Windows + their drivers until the next Windows is released. Sure it's nonsense but the hospital can't just not have an MRI machine. They need one and someone will capitalize on that need.
I suspect the 'replacement' or 'upgrade' market for such machines is very very low. Major capital expenditure intended to be amortized/depreciated over many years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/05/17/wanna...
And also that this problem definitely won’t get worse as more and more of these devices are built on platforms that want to require you to sign in with a cloud service…
>And also that this problem definitely won’t get worse as more and more of these devices are built on platforms that want to require you to sign in with a cloud service…
Which is why it's so important that not giving network access to medical machines becomes standard practice.