While we now know that Microsoft will only provide support for the new OS to the processors from both Intel and AMD that are in its list of supported CPUs, the company also stated that users on unsupported systems could still go ahead with an install using ISOs if they are interested. But this in return would leave their systems in an unsupported state.
It has been reported that this unsupported state may even mean that such PCs won’t also receive critical security updates. So when a user does want to upgrade to Windows 11 from such existing systems, the following formal agreement, or something similar, would be popping up.
The notice basically states that installing Windows 11 on such PCs is “not recommended”, and that they are “not entitled to updates”. I could muster up some respect for Microsoft if their cut-off was a hard cut, but this wishy-washy situation is terrible for consumers.
You already do, with all commercial software these days. It’s just another EULA.
They’ll backpedal this and allow updates. If they don’t there could be a mass migration to Linux or BSD as people realize Windows 10 on their perfectly working hardware is getting less attention from MS, and will either have to upgrade their hardware (which with the way things are lately if they are still rocking old enough hardware already, they will likely keep it until it dies) or install an alternate operating system.
It will be interesting to see if ‘turning it up to 11’ is what finally cuts Windows dominance. Then again people keep buying the crap they are shoveled… so…
Doubtful.
Ah, so is this finally the year of the Linux desktop?
Give me a break. The users will click through it as usual, their systems will have problems as a result, and IT folks like myself will have continued job security.
I’ll roll the dice and say there will not be some mass-exodus to Linux or BSD if Microsoft enforces their `no updates for you!` fud/rhetoric. There won’t be a big bump in new pc sales either. People will either revert to Windows 10 or they’ll continue with Windows 11 and complain until Microsoft ultimately caves on their threats – which they surely will.
friedchicken,
Historically speaking, it has been very difficult for microsoft to get people to upgrade on their own. This may all be a case of using reverse psychology to manipulate people. If you make upgrades a trivial affair, they’re not special, but if you withhold them, people will want what they can’t have.
I think the likelihood of MS reversing this policy may be pretty good. It could save face AND increase demand. But on the other hand there may be something more nefarious going on and the TPM requirements could be a chess move setting MS up for a future power play using hardware based DRM to give microsoft much stronger control over end user PCs. Obviously TPM will almost certainly be used to enforce app store restrictions, hollywood restrictions, etc. But things could get worse than. A hypothetical example would be that MS office could use TPM to create office documents that can only be openned using official microsoft software that cannot be reverse engineered, thereby forcing more users to keep using microsoft software and cutting off the viability of switching to alternatives. This could all be done under the guise of giving the user “security”.
That scenario is certainly within the realm of possibility but I’m not convinced that’s what their long-term plan is, or that it would even result in a favorable outcome regardless of whether we’re talking people, companies, or governments. Microsoft doesn’t _need_ to take that kind of risk. You have to be careful trying to force people into things. There can be a fine line between compliance and them taking their business elsewhere.
I still use Window 7 when I have to use window’s software, I do everything else in Haiku. The idea that a lack of upgrades will force people to Windows 11 does not match to what happened in the past when Microsoft upgraded their OS. People will only change when they see a REAL benefit to upgrading.
Just out of curiosity, what kinda stuff do you do in Haiku?
> People will only change when they see a REAL benefit to upgrading.
Really?
There is a real benefit of using 8.1( yeah 8 was bad), 10 or 11 over win 7, 10 and 11 massively.
It’s not that they don’t allow upgrades, it’s that use of windows 11 on such hardware is not officially supported. This could well mean that future updates simply don’t work (ie they could depend on features which are only present on the newer hardware).
You’re free to run unsupported software, but you do so at your own risk. What they don’t want is users running unsupported configurations and then loudly complaining when things break.
bert64,
There’s some hardware where you are not free to run unsupported software. I had one such PC where I could not run any distros unless they were signed by microsoft keys because it was secure boot locked. I certainly hope this does not become pervasive, but we have to be cautious because it is a possibility. (I realize you’re talking about windows itself being unsupported, but even so this “You’re free to run unsupported software” may not always be such a reliable assumption).
Regarding breakages, it’s one thing for hardware/software combos to not be supported, but it’s quite another to actually interfere with it working. From the reports I’ve been reading, it sounds like microsoft will allow users to install/run from an ISO without any hacking, but they’ll actively block updates. To be perfectly honest, I don’t think this policy is going to stop anyone from loudly complaining.
I’m still not sure this isn’t a manipulative stunt, and that microsoft’s intention may have always been to add support down the line before windows 10 expires. If enough people keep wanting to use their old PCs and it looks like microsoft’s you-can’t-has-updates policy remains a sore point, I agree with others that microsoft may well end up backtracking and supporting the hardware.
Realistically a lot of old CPUs are still very usable today for typical consumer applications. While CPUs have been getting more and more cores, most consumers don’t really need that. Even for gaming, the GPU is typically the bottleneck and not the CPU.
“This is the OLDEST CPU I have… Is it usable in 2021??”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dioUVOCCndY
Windows EULAs commit to a support period during which updates will be made available to licensed users for free. This new wording to the tune of “we can neither confirm nor deny that you’ll get updates during the support period” is novel for a Windows EULA and hence newsworthy. It’s also highly irresponsible on Microsoft’s part..
Thom is right, they should have made it a hard cut-off. That way you ‘d have to modify the ISO to install it on an “unsupported” machine, which means knowingly running an unsupported modded version, which means you should know what you are getting yourself into.
And like all EULAs it would be completely invalid, unless they give your the software for free, then it counts as TOS, which are legal. But agreeing to a one-sided contract _after_ purchase is not protected by most courtsystems
Another point regaurdless of EULA’s which have no force in law in the UK or EU is Microsoft trying to wriggle out of claims of fitness for purpose. The thing is 99% of these alleged security updates are to fix a product which was broken at the point of sale. Throw in Microsoft being a monoply and abuse of that monoply at the consumer and vendor level and an interesting narrative emerges. Why should Microsoft get away with setting low expectations as they have done from the year dot?
Then there is the question of regulators and politicians. Are regulatory officials happy being called incompetent and inadequate? Are politicians happy with their citizens being ripped off to the tune of hundreds of millions? Every day Microsoft get away with this it shows up how weak and cowardly they are.
As for corporate donations softening views are politicans really happy looking like beta males on the take?
This is FUD. Unless microsoft sold the hardware, microsoft has no standing at all on the manufacturer warranty.
Microsoft probably isn’t this evil, but they could theoretically use this clause to deliberately break old PCs if they wanted to while claiming users agreed to take the risk for any damages.
The quoted bit is just stating reality. OEMs are not going to support you if you install an unsupported OS and will not cover any potential issues under warranty. I have had systems that were upgraded to 10 where various things broke and the OEMs don’t give a crap and will not help in the slightest.
The reality is that someone who sells milk can’t change the conditions on your refrigerator’s warranty – they’re completely separate products from completely separate companies (even if you do put the milk in your refrigerator).
If you put a 50 liter can of milk on a glass shelf in the fridge, or use force to press a large bottle of milk into a slim shelf on the fridge door, you have likely voided the warranty and are on your own if the fridge breaks, however.
If a computer is sold with Windows 10 pre-installed, you can’t expect Windows 11 to be supported on it. Installing Windows 11 shouldn’t actually break the computer, though. You should be able to reinstall Windows 10 to make it work again. In that way, installing Windows 11 doesn’t really void the warranty.
Tuxie,
There could be thousands of ways a fridge can break, some will be covered and some won’t be. The point being the milk vendor doesn’t call the shots. In some jurisdictions a warranty may even be legally mandated such that neither the manufacturer nor milk vendor are allowed to deny coverage as long as the consumer didn’t mishandle the product. Using excess force, as in your example would probably be considered abuse that isn’t covered, but that’s between the manufacturer and the consumer protection laws. The milk vendor’s statements are irrelevant.
It’s important to recognize that people run “unsupported” software and hardware all of the time and that this doesn’t automatically void a warranty. There needs to be a causal relationship such that the unsupported modification was the cause of damage.
If they sold you the hardware then they are required by law in many countries to solve any issues the hardware has, irrespective of what software you run on it. Obviously only problems caused by actual hardware faults and not incompatibility, so you may have to reinstall the original software to demonstrate/prove the fault.
Hardware which can be physically damaged by rogue software would be a huge liability, as someone would certainly write and spread some malware to intentionally destroy the hardware.
It’s not about standing, it’s just notifying end users that changing operating systems typically voids your OEM warranty. Lots of people out there who put Linux on their PC, sent it in for repairs, and then got the claim rejected because that voids their warranty.
This isnt surprising and is broadly similar to the normal policy when installing a Beta. If a beta makes your PC overheat and break, Microsoft are not liable.
Adurbe,
Actually a lot of click-wrap EULAs dispel all liability even for official production-ready releases:
A lot of people criticize the software industry for being able to get away with this. Even if the software was directly responsible for breaking your computer, they could disclaim liability under the terms of the EULA. IMHO wording like this should automatically be declared null and void by the courts; standards need to be set higher than this.
There are jurisdictions in which this waiver may have little to no legal force. Even the EULA disclaimer of warranty is often limited by consumer laws. MS is playing a strange game here.
As far as I’m concerned Microsoft management are power tripping and their lawyers and accountants and PR people should be ashamed of themselves. It’s not just their attitude but lack of professionalism. Everything about this from day one has been questionable and Microsoft’s hiding behind disingenuous waffle only low information types would swallow is insulting.
Two points: Microsoft’s EULA has no force in law within the UK and most of the EU and probably elsewhere. By leaving systems poorly secured I feel that Windows must be banned from sale within the UK. If Huawei is enough to trigger alleged security concerns and be banned from critical networks then Microsoft must be banned too. Fair is fair after all.
I don’t think they’ll ever give a damn about their attitude, regarding how much they earn comparing to the average Joe that needs a PC for working or pure leisure. Only numbers matters at that point.
I see things differently : only they ensure enough locked down PC are out there to slowly ouster FOSS competition, people would slowly wondering if an alternative really worth the hassle to fight for. Especially considering the failure desktop Linux is and always has been (ie. recent non theme-able Gnome).
That’s just gonna generating more e-waste as these computers won’t be able to be repurposed for something else than a Windows machine. Pretty much like old Chromebooks or Android tablets though.
It is possible to install alternate operating systems on some Chromebook devices: https://mrchromebox.tech/#devices . They even seem to support Windows, which makes the older Samsung Galaxy Chromebook a very nice machine (
$350for a fanless i5 system, currently in clearance, update: the price seem to have changed).Android is similar, some devices can be unlocked to install alternative operating systems. But they tend to be other Android OSS variants. I never saw full Linux support let alone Windows on those tablets.
MrChromebox coreboot works quite well on a Baytrail Chromebook, had some problems with USB and audio but that’s fixed now.
@Kochise
Linux simply needs to get its head around the management issues and consumer facing experience. Also lobby. Microsoft spend millions on lobbying and lawyers for a reason but they don’t have everythign their way. Ultimately consumer power matters even if Microsoft have eroded it and created a “Windows insider” army of low information fanboi’s. Lobbying and organised campaigns do make a difference and can get you buy in at the political and regulatory level.
It’s not like the old days when you could talk one to one with an expert online who would then tell the CEO and have them manage it, or have an expert journalist make a case as new media have made everything fungible. You have to do it yourself.
HollyB,
Microsoft lobbying history aligns almost perfectly with the government anti-trust threat upon them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/totals?id=D000000115
Before that they were just another company doing their own thing. When they became large enough to be a financial target, I think they had to learn the rules of the game.
I don’t like it personally. Other concerns with Microsoft aside, every industry eventually learns they need to have lobbying power in Washington (look at farmers, oil/energy, cars, with their incentives and subsidies).
@sukru
Google and Microsoft and others are spending tens of millions boosting their lobbying presence in the UK and EU ahead of anticipated regulatory action. Beyond a certain point you can forget about the US and Washington. The EU is a massive lever and influences regulatory action worldwide and it’s more likely to be along clear legal paths which prioritise consumer rights and human rights and the environment.
The upcoming EU digital services directive is directly aimed at challenging sociopathic social media companies which monitize hate. With the troublesome Tory government in the UK out of the way the German’s are going all in on this.
On social policy arguing with the German’s is like arguing with the Bundesbank. The US won’t get very far.
TTIP was loathed across the EU.