In a surprising turn of events, Microsoft has reversed its decision to enforce the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 2.0 requirement for installing Windows 11. This policy, recently defended just a week ago, sparked widespread frustration as millions of otherwise capable systems were arbitrarily deemed incompatible, leaving many users feeling alienated. This backpedaling showcases yet again […]
I think this is the source for the article
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-on-devices-that-don-t-meet-minimum-system-requirements-0b2dc4a2-5933-4ad4-9c09-ef0a331518f1
That page does not mention tpm, and on the requirenments page TPM 2.0 is still listed:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/windows-11-specifications
EDIT: OK I see it now, it says that the requirenments are still in place, but that they are not enforced. But it also notes that future updates may not be available to computers that does not fullfill the requirenments
A non enforced requirement sounds like it is not a requirement.
I see it more like that Microsoft are saying something like "Fine, you can install Windows 11 without meeting the official minimum requirenments, but we can’t promise that future patches won’t break your system.
I mean if I was a shitty corporation that wanted to onboard new clients I would do a sweet bait and switch later once they are dependant on the new system… And I don’t just mean Microsoft, it is common now
I think it’s just scare tactics to get people to buy a new computer. I really doubt that Microsoft will withhold updates because it will cause huge security problems.
It’s more about manufacturers, they want all new laptops to have a tpm, if those mobo/laptop manufacturers want the shiny “compatible with win11” stickers they have to add a tpm.
They’re not withholding, this is a normal lifecycle for their OS’es (technically this one is already an extended deadline due to covid). The fact that Win10 had a 10 year life is the first time they have done so (LTS builds not withstanding). The amount of vulnerabilities and patching necessary to keep that husk going isn’t worth the squeeze to them.
Even Linux builds are lucky to reach 10 years of support on a given kernel.
Mint Life Cycle
Ubuntu Life Cycle
I guess it’s fine. I was concerned because of the processor requirements, but the real quality bottleneck was spinning drives.