I laughed out loud when the Ryzen 7 1700X (8c/16t @ 3.4GHz) in my main desktop didn't meet the minimum system requirements.
It's just 5 years old now, and I have a funny feeling it'll be more than powerful enough for a while yet.
It's just 5 years old now, and I have a funny feeling it'll be more than powerful enough for a while yet.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/where-to-buy-tpm-2.0-for-w...
Win11's line in the sand requirements aren't nearly as "bad" as Vista/XP/ME in terms of disruption. Honestly I wish they'd gone a step further and required ECC support.
That's a non-starter because Intel upsell ECC as an "enterprise"/"prosumer" feature and regular, non-high-end/workstation/server processors don't support ECC. Sadly Intel is still the CPU market leader, so that would have meant Win11 not being able to run on most existing hardware at launch.
AMD's CPUs have ECC support but the motherboard manufacturers don't support it.
Intel has been shipping TPMs in CPUs for a while. That begs the question, is Intel dictating requirements to Microsoft or is Microsoft dictating them to Intel?
Oh dear, why is Microsoft upgrade assistant and documentation so misleading? I just got a new CPU!
I can go into the UEFI settings and enable fTPM on the system. It still doesn't make it see the system as supported.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/mi...
It is only 2nd gen Ryzen and up.
P.S. By reverse logic, I have disabled (f)TPM to block the upgrade on some machines.
Of course, then I looked into what windows 11 provided and decided I'd wait a bit either way.
It was something like 5 or 6 BIOS expeditions before I had all the right features enabled.
Windows 11 is meh... They fixed some of my issues with 10 and created new ones. I wouldn't rush anyone to adopt it, it's a Vista/XP/ME style release. I'm expecting Windows 12 to be the keeper.