> Windows 10 is used by 42.8% of all Windows computer users worldwide. By contrast, when support for Windows 8 ended in January 2016, only 3.7% of Windows users were still using it. Only 2.2% of Windows users were still using Windows 8.1 when support ended in January 2023.
> Many of the computers still running Windows 10 can’t upgrade to Windows 11. In 2022, hardware researchers found that 43% of all computers running Windows 10 could not move to Windows 11 — which equaled around 400 million computers at that time.
Wow. This is actually pretty troubling. I naively assumed Microsoft was just following previous practice and that this wasn't a big deal, but this is actually... insane.
The choice of windows 8 as comparisson seems deceptively disingenious to me. It is well known as an unpopular OS, that has been skipped by many. Windows 7 is much more in the position of windows 10.
Taking [1] as a source, win 7 in 2025 has a marketshare of about 2%. In 2020 it had 20%. If we look at 2016 specifically [2] win 7 is still at 47% at the end of the year (and win XP at 6%, while this source gives win8.1 at 10%).
Running unmaintained Windows releases is a tradition.
> Many of the computers still running Windows 10 can’t upgrade to Windows 11. In 2022, hardware researchers found that 43% of all computers running Windows 10 could not move to Windows 11 — which equaled around 400 million computers at that time.
Microsoft presumably could -- at any time -- abandon these requirements via an update and a new installer. It's unclear to me why they're being so aggressive in this area, and represents a real closing door for a proper OS for anyone not using an alternative. (macOS, Linux, etc.)
> It's unclear to me why they're being so aggressive in this area..
A signed bootloader with TPM is the first step to implementing an OS that can only run signed code. The long term goal is to be like Android (who recently flipped to requiring all APK's to be signed by Google. Almost zero user push back) and iOS in this regard. MS is looking down the road and they want a locked down OS as well. They will pitch it as enhancing security and protecting children more than likely.
There is a good chance that in 5-10 years Linux will be the only platform that allows unsigned code to run. I hope I am wrong.
The articles about this tend to be misleading in that most computers failing the minimum requirements are failing the memory requirement not the TPM requirement, which is a lot less dire of a situation than having to replace your CPU since it is often much more straightforward to add RAM.
Presumably MS wants to do more things using toolkits that are more memory hungry.
" requirements are failing the memory requirement not the TPM requirement"
IT worker here, managing a ~400 computer install at the company I'm employed at. Laptops, desktops, some very old (10 years) and some relatively new(ish).
It's processor and TPM, not memory, in every single case of the nearly 150 computers I have to replace.
Really? I thought it was very clear Microsoft wants to turn Windows into a mobile like OS where everything is locked down, you are restricted on what software you can run and the system is more like a digital surveillance apparatus and data usurping hell hole than an actual product that works for your interests.
Not if the computer is not eligible and you have to buy a new computer that comes with Windows, and the computer manufacturer pays a license fee to Microsoft.
Yep. And if you click the 'parent' links a few times - that 400 million is the number of not-eligible-for-upgrade computers. How convenient for MS's bottom line, eh?
Nope, windows 11 was extremely shoehorned in and the public has no obvious need or benefit for it, which is why they tried to auto update everyone and then force an out of support situation.
This is the same microsoft that said win 10 would be the last version of windows and that they'd basically be patching and working on different versions of it forever.
It was said by somebody that works for Microsoft on stage at a Microsoft conference [1].
> “Right now we’re releasing Windows 10, and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10,” Nixon continued. “And it’s really brilliant. So I can say things like, yeah, we’re working on interactive tiles and it’s coming to Windows 10 in one of its future updates, right.”
> Microsoft didn’t deny what Nixon said, but it also didn’t back up the “last version” of Windows, either.
For all reasonable intents and purposes "Microsoft" said this was the case then had to walk it back.
It was an announcement made by MS surrogates and it was promoted as true internally at MS, I personally head it through the grapevine from current MS employees. They really did try to get people to believe it as part of their billion devices push. I didn’t believe it because I know MS lies all the time, which is probably why they don’t make official statements about such things and generally work through surrogates.
Maybe next time they can create a poly market bet.
Let's say it was true. What does it even mean for users? macOS was on version 10 for something like 20 years. There were big changes in that time and compatibility for older hardware was dropped along the way.
Version numbers like this are arbitrary. They could have released Windows 11 as Windows 10 21H2 and it would have changed nothing about the scenario where some people can't update and their version would stop receiving security updates.
Even if it was true, 10 years is a long time. You can't trust anything any company says will still be true after 10 years - even if you have the same COE, their priorities and supporting executive team are likely to be different in 10 years.
I already said I didn't believe it for those reasons and others. It was a cynical lie to boost short term adoption that was clearly going to bite them in the ass later. Imagine if they now say Win11 will be the last version of Windows, no one would believe them and it would have no effect. The lack of trust creates problems in adoption of windows features, UI frameworks, App Stores etc. and this has very very negative consequences for the Windows ecosystem which is in a very sick state - I think maybe terminal. Also internally the internal departments lie to each other as well. Not even other departments will take dependencies and if you have no users for your features you lose the ability to justify funding - the perception becomes reality and a huge amount of effort and opportunity is wasted.
But windows 10 was marketed as being different. They said that you would continue getting updates for "the lifetime of the device". They even said it was the last version of windows, and it would just keep receiving updates. And then they changed their minds and made windows 11, which didn't even run on most hardware that was running windows 10.
I wonder if that could be grounds for a false advertising suit.
The worst part is that Win 11 very much does run on the hardware, see any of the requirement bypass solutions out there for proof.
They are intentionally cutting that hardware off from support to force hundreds of millions of upgrades so that they can reap the licensing fees and cram more of their Edge/AI shit down the throats of everyone that has been avoiding it so far.
Only if you measure the life cycle starting from the initial release.
Windows 10 dropped out of support only 3 years after its successor (Win11) was available; when Windows 8.1 still had 7 more years of support after its successor (Win10) was released.
There's a lot of users who never upgrade windows but instead just get whatever is the latest whenever they buy a new computer. If these people bought a new computer every 5 years, they were always fine in the past, but now for the first time run out of support (because Win10 was "the latest" for an unusually long time period).
If someone has a newer PC, they should be able to upgrade to Windows 11 for free.
If they have an older PC, then they must have already enjoyed quite some period of the 10-year Windows 10 support lifecycle.
Unless Microsoft were to go to an Apple-esque annual release cycle, regularly dropping support for older hardware, I'm not sure how they could ever manage this.
Except those OSs would work on any machine. They’d be slow in some cases but would still work. Windows 11 has requirements that either require BIOS tweaks or a whole new MB (or new machine).
Windows 11 can be made to work on machines which do not meet those requirements without much - if any - effort. I installed it on a KVM yesterday, running it in 4 GB of memory with 64 GB of storage (42GB free after install, debloat, upgrade to latest and clearing the C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download (might have an 's' after it, don't remember, don't care) directory) on a 2016 HP Spectre with an i5 CPU (2 cores, 4 threads with hyperthreading enabled, 8 GB/256 GB). That is not a powerhouse but it runs no worse than Windows 10. It will probably never be used but that's another story. I installed it on that machine for my 20yo daughter who has gone full Linux and did not see the need for it. I only put it there 'just in case' she needs it for her studies (preparatory year for vet college) and 'cause I can.
There's 2 clear signs here from what I can see: if Linux does just fine for my non-technical 20yo daughter it will do fine for most people. Also, she has never really used Windows, only Linux (at home) and Chromebooks (at school and university) and does not feel the urge to start using it 'cause she does not stand to gain anything from it. Microsoft has lost the battle for the personal computer - or should that be 'for general purpose operating systems' - as far as I can see and any breaking change - like this Windows 11 your-hardware-need-not-apply thing - will cause more people to leave the platform.
That Windows 11 VM will probably be removed in a few months time when it becomes clear she does not need it so why keep it around? Bye bye, Windows, we hardly knew you and she did not know you at all but your time has passed. Let's just hope that the passing of Windows does not also lead to the passing of general purpose computing and the further advance of locked-down computing appliances. There's no love lost for Microsoft from me, having been there when it rose to power using all the dirty tricks in the book and then some but they were a strong factor in the commoditisation of general purpose computer hardware - PCs and servers, laptops and notebooks - for which I will grudgingly give them some respect, also because I got to profit from the flotsam and jetsam caused by the ever-increasing hardware demands by repurposing 'old' hardware which then often outperformed the new and shiny only because I ditched Windows and installed Linux on it.
My daily driver is a desktop computer that still runs triple-A video games but can't be upgraded because the motherboard doesn't have a TPM. Combined with the unbelievable hostility MS seems to have for customers and the fact that any .NET development you need to do these days no longer requires windows this will push me out of their ecosystem. It's wild to think that in less than 20 years I've gone from MS everything to MS nothing.
I'm in the same boat. Windows 11 was so unbelievably bad that I switched to Mac overnight, after 25 years on MS. Mac isn't perfect but the hardware is top notch and they're not trying to embed ads into the OS.
The only things I miss from Windows now are videogames, ShareX, and Everything. But Raycast and iStat Menus, while different, are awesome in their own way.
While using Windows 11 for my gaming PC (my only windows device) I used a debloat script [1] to keep it free of all the garbage it came with. I eventually moved to EndeavorOS and never looked back.
What's more flabbergasting is that there are no real alternatives to Windows that are as accessible (price wise and technically speaking). Macs are too expensive. Linux is out of the question for the average user since drivers tend to not work out of the box on several machines, and more importantly because Microsoft Office does not work on Linux. Most people (who aren't retired) need a computer where they can create and edit documents (pptx, docx, xlsx) that they can share with others. Linux prevents them from doing this. Using only Google docs has not caught on for the average user, sadly.
> because Microsoft Office does not work on Linux.
Hasn't Microsoft Office (or whatever concoction of 365, copilot and other eterprise-ish words they call it today) been turned into a web app over the last 15 years? Isn't it perfectly usable for like 99% of users?
Since this is “hacker” news. Just to let everyone know it is trivial to remove the tpm checks from the installer. You can do it manually or just download rufus and it has an option to remove them for you when you write an iso to a usb drive for install. Its a totally artificial requirement to drive sales. Windows 11 runs just fine on the older hardware. Like others have said windows ltsc is another great option. That being said…I agree its VERY annoying.
Unfortunately, the ‘best’ option for her is to get ESU until she can replace the device. It’s free for private EU users, and I hope it will be expanded globally.
The awful thing about all this is that they’re essentially turning a (perceived) perpetual license into a subscription license.
I’d expect to see a lot of scammers attempting to fleece unsuspecting users around upgrades and support.
This was my plan for my dad's PC, but, while he uses an iPad he uses for the vast majority of his browsing/email/etc, he uses his PC to do his taxes and the taxes of quite a few other people. TurboTax is dropping support for Windows 10 for next year's edition. Based on everything I've seen, it simply won't run (or that's how they are communicating it). So now I need to replace my dad's 3 or 4 year old computer only because of TPM. TT is saying they're doing this because Windows 10 support is ending, which obviously it isn't. Bad decision making on both ends, but the outcome is the same: I have to basically get rid of a very nice computer.
I'm holding out as long as possible, hoping that reason re-enters the game, but I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed. Not a good solution for mom and dad. I am starting to think i should just put Ubuntu on my mom’s computer. All she cares about is “it doesn’t change”. Eg the two icons she clicks on done move and do the same thing every time.
Sure, if they don't make it everybody else's problem.
Not to defend MS too hard, but they supported Windows XP with security updates for 18 years. At some point software needs to be "finished", and once it is, all responsability falls upon the user.
The enterprises with competent IT that will airgap their XP machines to keep running the control plane for their factory probably "know better" than MS, the power user who refuses to use a Linux distro for their Pentium 3 box or who will disable Windows Defender and run random scripts on the internet to "debloat the OS" without understanding it, or the ones who run LTSC and then complain that their games aren't working - they all absolutely don't know better, but unfortunately they tend to be the louder voices in the conversation.
I disagree. If there is a fundamental architectural issue with the current platform that is getting in the way of progress, the right thing to do is to fix it.
By ‘progress’ I mean compatibility with new innovations like DirectX or some new instruction set that enable dumb things like transparency, or spacial audio, as well genuinely useful things.
You simply can’t bolt that onto an 18 year old system without breaking things irreversibly.
It also means depreciation of insecure ways of doing things. MS’ attempt to get TPMs into every desktop is clumsy, but it serves a greater good.
None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
> None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
It has the opposite effect. People do not like the fancier look.
It also depends on what you mean by progress. if it is genuinely better for customers why do you have to force them to use it?
I think the article's point is that many on Windows 10 would upgrade to 11 if they could. Their computers are simply not supported and to get around that requires some technical skills.
Vista had a number of QOL improvements, and later in the cycle once the drivers and apps were fixed to stop demanding admin access all the time, and the terrible Intel GPUs that struggled with XP and died under Vista were replaced, it was pretty good.
Arguably better than XP. 7 and 10 didn't really give most folks much better experience, they benefited from Vista already forcing everyone to update their crap.
My XP system was my best ever system. I had so many things in it. I still have my old XP laptop, it still works but I can connect it to the internet. Even when I do, usually browsers don't show anything properly anymore because the last xp supporting versions are from I think 2016-2018? Not sure about that one. But I love my XP computer. I wish there was a way to completely move the system to a virtual machine.
I prefer Mac too, but don’t forget that Apple typically only supports devices for seven years befote being declared ‘vintage’, after which time they will be ineligible for updates.
Windows 10 on the other hand was released over ten years ago now.
Not the best comparison, but it’s increasing more difficult to separate their OS support lifecycles from their M* hardware.
I did not know that, but I'm basically using this as a bridge to either fully use Linux more than I already do, or switch to windows 12 when it becomes a thing, if it's not worse, so I don't care about very long term support at this time. Plus I get access to a different ecosystem to help keep things fresh in the meantime.
Yes I am. I prefer the window placer thingy in win11.
As I use an ultra wide monitor, having the menu centered works better for me, too. Win11 seems more performant and snappier to me, but that might be an illusion. Other things I amnot sure exist in win 10, as it has been a long time since I ran it on my personal hardware: Passkey support with windows hello.
In the end, the chances seem so minimal, I am surprised how much disdain people have for win11, when it feels nearly the same as win10 to me.
Windows 11 fixed a lot of issues I was having, particularly in things like driver support and bluetooth connectivity. It also has a lot of little UI touches that are improvements (like volume control or game management) - particularly on a laptop. Also, the settings and configuration menus have gotten usability updates for the first time since Vista.
I haven't noticed any bugs or problems (or even the intrusive advertisements that I have heard so much about). But then again, I didn't try Windows 11 until two years after it was released, so it could be that I just missed out on a bad launch.
At the end of the day, it's like 95% the same as Windows 10 (although on my other PC I am still running an unactivated free version!)
Microsoft isn't ending Windows 10 support, it's all just marketing to encourage people to move over. They already partially backed out by saying they will provide updates for (At least) 1 more year if certain conditions are met, but they will probably end up giving everyone the critical security updates anyway. The quantity of windows 10 machines still being used is just too large to allow some vulnerability to permanently smear microsoft because 40% of all windows PCs got hacked or something.
I expect that they will cave in to some degree and expand the free ESU program to private consumers outside the EU.
Don’t forget also that Office 2019 is also going EOL (among other things) on 14 October. Despite Microsoft’s efforts, people still use and even prefer their non-cloud products at home and enterprise.
The most exposed component of Windows is going to be the Edge browser, but throw in an unpatched Outlook and Word, and there’s a potential blood bath brewing after the first few vulnerabilities are disclosed.
> people still use and even prefer their non-cloud products at home and enterprise.
You can still buy office as single-purchase standalone versions. I think the most recent version is 2024.
I worked on a project migrating away from office 2003... in 2022. In my opinion, people use outdated versions of Office because they want to, as it fulfils their needs, not because they can't buy standalone versions.
> Many of the computers still running Windows 10 can’t upgrade to Windows 11. In 2022, hardware researchers found that 43% of all computers running Windows 10 could not move to Windows 11 — which equaled around 400 million computers at that time.
My understanding is that Microsoft has more or less phased out the requirement in question (that a CPU has TPM 2.0).
Likewise. 3950 cpu, 32gb ram, 2080 GPU. This runs everything 1440p just fine.
The system was built 6 years ago but things just haven't moved fast in hardware. It doesn't have a TPM 2.0 module though so no Windows 11. One nice thing about that fact is that i never get the upgrade nags since it fails compatibility checks.
Part of me is hoping we get some third party OS patches if anything major crops up. This has happened for previous versions of Windows.
I plan to continue running this as-is past October 14. If something serious enough does crop up with no third party mitigations or fixes I'll move to Linux. I could technically install a TPM 2.0 module on the motherboard but i don't want to. Not enough benefit to me as someone that's never installed malware (I'm extremely cautious about what i allow to run on it to the extent of not running various binary distributed game mods).
Not a fair comparison. Hardware security device has nothing to do with general compute power. It's like saying "What do you mean 'my Ferrari is not a good firetruck'??? It can go 0 to 100 in 4 seconds!"
I currently have Windows 10 and refuse to upgrade to Windows 11. There is no way I'm going to allow the malware that is Windows 11 into my house. I thought they had turned a new leaf over the last few years but I guess not. Ramming things down my throat is not how I'm going to live my life so Microsoft can fuck right off. I'm already half off Windows because I switch between Windows and MacOS throughout the day so if need be I will just throw away my Windows machine and consolidate on Apple.
This is clearly a problem caused by the suspicious absence of governments. Semms they are wetting their appetite over locked surveilanceware. This is the new business model of M$$$
While the Win10 eol annoys me on a personal level, I don't know what good extending the support would do; it would just kick the bucket forward with no real solution. If MS added another year of free support then we would be just in the exact same situation next year. Windows 10 is going away some day, so might as well stick with the original eol date.
I cannot help but believe TPM2 and this change is being pushed by the MPAA or more likely some governments. Yes I know I am in tinfoil hat territory, but I see no real reason for the need of TPM 2.0.
Look at the latest changes in iPhone hardware for security. Some are saying the iphone is unhackable now.
There are no reasons such improvements couldn't work for Windows and I am guessing this is their best idea for raising the floor of hardware protection they can assume is available.
I agree the push, which is quite disruptive, must be influenced by someone higher up. But I think its as simple as "Windows is insecure" is something they want to make untrue.
All the security issues patched in software have either been there since it was released or are introduced with feature updates. As a security veteran, the end of patching is hardly as dire as this imagines.
Update:
Patching has always been security theater for systems where security actually matters (national security), because it's assumed nation states already know vulnerabilities often years before there's a public disclosure or patch. These patches have always been to deal with nuisance actors impacting non-critical users. Besides, the user getting tricked is always the biggest risk, and patching does nothing at all for that.
If you care about security, don't get on the internet. The device you're using right now is probably already trivial compromised by unpatched vulnerabilities, if not known only by a state actor than a spyware company. Pretending this isn't the case is worse than discontinuing vanity security theater.
This is like everyone freaking out because they're shutting down the TSA. The idea that patches are important and effective is more dangerous than not patching.
> Windows 10 is used by 42.8% of all Windows computer users worldwide. By contrast, when support for Windows 8 ended in January 2016, only 3.7% of Windows users were still using it. Only 2.2% of Windows users were still using Windows 8.1 when support ended in January 2023.
> Many of the computers still running Windows 10 can’t upgrade to Windows 11. In 2022, hardware researchers found that 43% of all computers running Windows 10 could not move to Windows 11 — which equaled around 400 million computers at that time.
Wow. This is actually pretty troubling. I naively assumed Microsoft was just following previous practice and that this wasn't a big deal, but this is actually... insane.
The choice of windows 8 as comparisson seems deceptively disingenious to me. It is well known as an unpopular OS, that has been skipped by many. Windows 7 is much more in the position of windows 10.
Taking [1] as a source, win 7 in 2025 has a marketshare of about 2%. In 2020 it had 20%. If we look at 2016 specifically [2] win 7 is still at 47% at the end of the year (and win XP at 6%, while this source gives win8.1 at 10%).
Running unmaintained Windows releases is a tradition.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desk...
[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desk...
> Many of the computers still running Windows 10 can’t upgrade to Windows 11. In 2022, hardware researchers found that 43% of all computers running Windows 10 could not move to Windows 11 — which equaled around 400 million computers at that time.
Microsoft presumably could -- at any time -- abandon these requirements via an update and a new installer. It's unclear to me why they're being so aggressive in this area, and represents a real closing door for a proper OS for anyone not using an alternative. (macOS, Linux, etc.)
> It's unclear to me why they're being so aggressive in this area..
A signed bootloader with TPM is the first step to implementing an OS that can only run signed code. The long term goal is to be like Android (who recently flipped to requiring all APK's to be signed by Google. Almost zero user push back) and iOS in this regard. MS is looking down the road and they want a locked down OS as well. They will pitch it as enhancing security and protecting children more than likely.
There is a good chance that in 5-10 years Linux will be the only platform that allows unsigned code to run. I hope I am wrong.
I suppose you're right, and this was the major motivator that pushed Steam towards investment in Linux.
The articles about this tend to be misleading in that most computers failing the minimum requirements are failing the memory requirement not the TPM requirement, which is a lot less dire of a situation than having to replace your CPU since it is often much more straightforward to add RAM.
Presumably MS wants to do more things using toolkits that are more memory hungry.
" requirements are failing the memory requirement not the TPM requirement"
IT worker here, managing a ~400 computer install at the company I'm employed at. Laptops, desktops, some very old (10 years) and some relatively new(ish).
It's processor and TPM, not memory, in every single case of the nearly 150 computers I have to replace.
> It's unclear to me why ...
Really? I thought it was very clear Microsoft wants to turn Windows into a mobile like OS where everything is locked down, you are restricted on what software you can run and the system is more like a digital surveillance apparatus and data usurping hell hole than an actual product that works for your interests.
This is exactly what they plan. Google got zero push back when they went this direction earlier this year with Android.
> It's unclear to me why ...
Multiply 400 million (or whatever the current number is) by Microsoft's average profit per Windows 11 license sold.
400 million * 0 = 0
the upgrade is free
Not if the computer is not eligible and you have to buy a new computer that comes with Windows, and the computer manufacturer pays a license fee to Microsoft.
Yep. And if you click the 'parent' links a few times - that 400 million is the number of not-eligible-for-upgrade computers. How convenient for MS's bottom line, eh?
Nope, windows 11 was extremely shoehorned in and the public has no obvious need or benefit for it, which is why they tried to auto update everyone and then force an out of support situation.
This is the same microsoft that said win 10 would be the last version of windows and that they'd basically be patching and working on different versions of it forever.
That was never an official MS statement, not that this makes the situation any better
It was said by somebody that works for Microsoft on stage at a Microsoft conference [1].
> “Right now we’re releasing Windows 10, and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10,” Nixon continued. “And it’s really brilliant. So I can say things like, yeah, we’re working on interactive tiles and it’s coming to Windows 10 in one of its future updates, right.”
> Microsoft didn’t deny what Nixon said, but it also didn’t back up the “last version” of Windows, either.
For all reasonable intents and purposes "Microsoft" said this was the case then had to walk it back.
[1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/394724/why-is-there-a-window...
End of that article: "give Nixon a break, too: He made an enthusiastic, throwaway comment that ended up being understood as company policy."
It was an announcement made by MS surrogates and it was promoted as true internally at MS, I personally head it through the grapevine from current MS employees. They really did try to get people to believe it as part of their billion devices push. I didn’t believe it because I know MS lies all the time, which is probably why they don’t make official statements about such things and generally work through surrogates.
Maybe next time they can create a poly market bet.
Let's say it was true. What does it even mean for users? macOS was on version 10 for something like 20 years. There were big changes in that time and compatibility for older hardware was dropped along the way.
Version numbers like this are arbitrary. They could have released Windows 11 as Windows 10 21H2 and it would have changed nothing about the scenario where some people can't update and their version would stop receiving security updates.
Even if it was true, 10 years is a long time. You can't trust anything any company says will still be true after 10 years - even if you have the same COE, their priorities and supporting executive team are likely to be different in 10 years.
I already said I didn't believe it for those reasons and others. It was a cynical lie to boost short term adoption that was clearly going to bite them in the ass later. Imagine if they now say Win11 will be the last version of Windows, no one would believe them and it would have no effect. The lack of trust creates problems in adoption of windows features, UI frameworks, App Stores etc. and this has very very negative consequences for the Windows ecosystem which is in a very sick state - I think maybe terminal. Also internally the internal departments lie to each other as well. Not even other departments will take dependencies and if you have no users for your features you lose the ability to justify funding - the perception becomes reality and a huge amount of effort and opportunity is wasted.
Apparently that quote comes from Jerry Nixon at a Build conference in 2015. This is kind of splitting hairs on what counts as "official".
Another difference, though, is that Windows 8 was atrocious. Windows 10 was pretty good, certainly better than 8 or 11 (and I'd argue better than 7).
Windows 10 has had the same support lifecycle as Windows 8/8.1, 7, and Vista (as well as Windows XP, although that applied retroactively).
It very much is them following previous practice.
But windows 10 was marketed as being different. They said that you would continue getting updates for "the lifetime of the device". They even said it was the last version of windows, and it would just keep receiving updates. And then they changed their minds and made windows 11, which didn't even run on most hardware that was running windows 10.
I wonder if that could be grounds for a false advertising suit.
The worst part is that Win 11 very much does run on the hardware, see any of the requirement bypass solutions out there for proof.
They are intentionally cutting that hardware off from support to force hundreds of millions of upgrades so that they can reap the licensing fees and cram more of their Edge/AI shit down the throats of everyone that has been avoiding it so far.
This is the most important comment in the thread.
Only if you measure the life cycle starting from the initial release.
Windows 10 dropped out of support only 3 years after its successor (Win11) was available; when Windows 8.1 still had 7 more years of support after its successor (Win10) was released.
There's a lot of users who never upgrade windows but instead just get whatever is the latest whenever they buy a new computer. If these people bought a new computer every 5 years, they were always fine in the past, but now for the first time run out of support (because Win10 was "the latest" for an unusually long time period).
If someone has a newer PC, they should be able to upgrade to Windows 11 for free.
If they have an older PC, then they must have already enjoyed quite some period of the 10-year Windows 10 support lifecycle.
Unless Microsoft were to go to an Apple-esque annual release cycle, regularly dropping support for older hardware, I'm not sure how they could ever manage this.
Except those OSs would work on any machine. They’d be slow in some cases but would still work. Windows 11 has requirements that either require BIOS tweaks or a whole new MB (or new machine).
None of that is necessary, you can bypass the requirements from the installer:
https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/bypass-windows-11-tpm-re...
But will the average windows user be able to figure that out? Most people are a lot less tech savvy than this crowd
Windows 11 can be made to work on machines which do not meet those requirements without much - if any - effort. I installed it on a KVM yesterday, running it in 4 GB of memory with 64 GB of storage (42GB free after install, debloat, upgrade to latest and clearing the C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download (might have an 's' after it, don't remember, don't care) directory) on a 2016 HP Spectre with an i5 CPU (2 cores, 4 threads with hyperthreading enabled, 8 GB/256 GB). That is not a powerhouse but it runs no worse than Windows 10. It will probably never be used but that's another story. I installed it on that machine for my 20yo daughter who has gone full Linux and did not see the need for it. I only put it there 'just in case' she needs it for her studies (preparatory year for vet college) and 'cause I can.
There's 2 clear signs here from what I can see: if Linux does just fine for my non-technical 20yo daughter it will do fine for most people. Also, she has never really used Windows, only Linux (at home) and Chromebooks (at school and university) and does not feel the urge to start using it 'cause she does not stand to gain anything from it. Microsoft has lost the battle for the personal computer - or should that be 'for general purpose operating systems' - as far as I can see and any breaking change - like this Windows 11 your-hardware-need-not-apply thing - will cause more people to leave the platform.
That Windows 11 VM will probably be removed in a few months time when it becomes clear she does not need it so why keep it around? Bye bye, Windows, we hardly knew you and she did not know you at all but your time has passed. Let's just hope that the passing of Windows does not also lead to the passing of general purpose computing and the further advance of locked-down computing appliances. There's no love lost for Microsoft from me, having been there when it rose to power using all the dirty tricks in the book and then some but they were a strong factor in the commoditisation of general purpose computer hardware - PCs and servers, laptops and notebooks - for which I will grudgingly give them some respect, also because I got to profit from the flotsam and jetsam caused by the ever-increasing hardware demands by repurposing 'old' hardware which then often outperformed the new and shiny only because I ditched Windows and installed Linux on it.
My daily driver is a desktop computer that still runs triple-A video games but can't be upgraded because the motherboard doesn't have a TPM. Combined with the unbelievable hostility MS seems to have for customers and the fact that any .NET development you need to do these days no longer requires windows this will push me out of their ecosystem. It's wild to think that in less than 20 years I've gone from MS everything to MS nothing.
I'm in the same boat. Windows 11 was so unbelievably bad that I switched to Mac overnight, after 25 years on MS. Mac isn't perfect but the hardware is top notch and they're not trying to embed ads into the OS.
The only things I miss from Windows now are videogames, ShareX, and Everything. But Raycast and iStat Menus, while different, are awesome in their own way.
Have you heard about Crossover for running Windows games or Mac? I just discovered it since I did the same thing you're doing.
It is troubling because:
* Windows 10 (IoT LTSC) will actually be supported to 2032.
* Microsoft is forcing hardware requirements that are just there because reasons as Win 11 IoT/LTSC have lesser requirements.
* Because Microsoft sold Win 10 till 2023, so it is basically shooting it down after 2 years.
* Because Win10 still has 40% of market share.
I haven't run windows in half a decade at this point.
I had Win11 running in a vm, and just the amount of ads it would show in the task bar or notifications at idle leaves me flabbergasted.
While using Windows 11 for my gaming PC (my only windows device) I used a debloat script [1] to keep it free of all the garbage it came with. I eventually moved to EndeavorOS and never looked back.
[1] https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat
They keep putting new stuff in as well!
Most recently, ads on your lock screen which aren't obvious how to disable.
And, even when you do find out how to disable them, they randomly re-enable them after updates or reboots just so you stay miserable.
Ah yes, the Facebook dark pattern. "Oops we reset it to defaults! Again! So sorry!"
Except nobody apologizes anymore; we've gotten used to it.
What's more flabbergasting is that there are no real alternatives to Windows that are as accessible (price wise and technically speaking). Macs are too expensive. Linux is out of the question for the average user since drivers tend to not work out of the box on several machines, and more importantly because Microsoft Office does not work on Linux. Most people (who aren't retired) need a computer where they can create and edit documents (pptx, docx, xlsx) that they can share with others. Linux prevents them from doing this. Using only Google docs has not caught on for the average user, sadly.
>Using only Google docs has not caught on for the average user, sadly.
I'm not sure I'd agree. Most people I know use Google docs by default since nearly everyone can access and unlike M365, it's free.
But most enterprises that I've had experience with use Microsoft Office and not Google Sheets?
> because Microsoft Office does not work on Linux.
Hasn't Microsoft Office (or whatever concoction of 365, copilot and other eterprise-ish words they call it today) been turned into a web app over the last 15 years? Isn't it perfectly usable for like 99% of users?
Indeed, I'm regularly dumbfounded that enterprise users put up with this. In a business environment, it would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
They should be using Windows 11 Enterprise, where those features can be disabled easily with Group Policy.
> implying the outsourced IT dept. or anyone with authority over them gives a fuck anymore
Enterprise licenses have some of this disabled by default. At minimum, a competent IT group can configure these by group policy.
Since this is “hacker” news. Just to let everyone know it is trivial to remove the tpm checks from the installer. You can do it manually or just download rufus and it has an option to remove them for you when you write an iso to a usb drive for install. Its a totally artificial requirement to drive sales. Windows 11 runs just fine on the older hardware. Like others have said windows ltsc is another great option. That being said…I agree its VERY annoying.
Sure, if it was for my own computer I'd do it.
What about my mother who is not technical enough to fix Windows when it will inevitably break in a future update?
Should I setup win11 for her only for me to come back urgently in a few months when the install breaks?
Unfortunately, the ‘best’ option for her is to get ESU until she can replace the device. It’s free for private EU users, and I hope it will be expanded globally.
The awful thing about all this is that they’re essentially turning a (perceived) perpetual license into a subscription license.
I’d expect to see a lot of scammers attempting to fleece unsuspecting users around upgrades and support.
This was my plan for my dad's PC, but, while he uses an iPad he uses for the vast majority of his browsing/email/etc, he uses his PC to do his taxes and the taxes of quite a few other people. TurboTax is dropping support for Windows 10 for next year's edition. Based on everything I've seen, it simply won't run (or that's how they are communicating it). So now I need to replace my dad's 3 or 4 year old computer only because of TPM. TT is saying they're doing this because Windows 10 support is ending, which obviously it isn't. Bad decision making on both ends, but the outcome is the same: I have to basically get rid of a very nice computer.
I'm holding out as long as possible, hoping that reason re-enters the game, but I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed. Not a good solution for mom and dad. I am starting to think i should just put Ubuntu on my mom’s computer. All she cares about is “it doesn’t change”. Eg the two icons she clicks on done move and do the same thing every time.
Would it be viable for there to be a community security patches project?
Many Microsoft customers would still stay on Windows XP if they could.
Yes, they would. And it valid for them to want to do so.
And the fact that software developers think that they "know better" is part of the problem with our software world today.
> And it valid for them to want to do so.
Sure, if they don't make it everybody else's problem. Not to defend MS too hard, but they supported Windows XP with security updates for 18 years. At some point software needs to be "finished", and once it is, all responsability falls upon the user.
The enterprises with competent IT that will airgap their XP machines to keep running the control plane for their factory probably "know better" than MS, the power user who refuses to use a Linux distro for their Pentium 3 box or who will disable Windows Defender and run random scripts on the internet to "debloat the OS" without understanding it, or the ones who run LTSC and then complain that their games aren't working - they all absolutely don't know better, but unfortunately they tend to be the louder voices in the conversation.
Exactly. If customers prefer your old product to your new product there is something wrong.
It is not just MS that does this.
I disagree. If there is a fundamental architectural issue with the current platform that is getting in the way of progress, the right thing to do is to fix it.
By ‘progress’ I mean compatibility with new innovations like DirectX or some new instruction set that enable dumb things like transparency, or spacial audio, as well genuinely useful things.
You simply can’t bolt that onto an 18 year old system without breaking things irreversibly.
It also means depreciation of insecure ways of doing things. MS’ attempt to get TPMs into every desktop is clumsy, but it serves a greater good.
None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
> None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
It has the opposite effect. People do not like the fancier look.
It also depends on what you mean by progress. if it is genuinely better for customers why do you have to force them to use it?
I think the article's point is that many on Windows 10 would upgrade to 11 if they could. Their computers are simply not supported and to get around that requires some technical skills.
They almost wilfully neglected to state that users can buy extended support at $50 per seat.
That was recently waived for private EU users, and I’m half expecting them to expand it more broadly.
Vista had a number of QOL improvements, and later in the cycle once the drivers and apps were fixed to stop demanding admin access all the time, and the terrible Intel GPUs that struggled with XP and died under Vista were replaced, it was pretty good.
Arguably better than XP. 7 and 10 didn't really give most folks much better experience, they benefited from Vista already forcing everyone to update their crap.
My XP system was my best ever system. I had so many things in it. I still have my old XP laptop, it still works but I can connect it to the internet. Even when I do, usually browsers don't show anything properly anymore because the last xp supporting versions are from I think 2016-2018? Not sure about that one. But I love my XP computer. I wish there was a way to completely move the system to a virtual machine.
Are you familiar with disk2vhd? I've used it to virtualize several older OS installs
Rather than support Microsoft's bad decisions, I bought my first Mac instead of a Windows PC.
I prefer Mac too, but don’t forget that Apple typically only supports devices for seven years befote being declared ‘vintage’, after which time they will be ineligible for updates.
Windows 10 on the other hand was released over ten years ago now.
Not the best comparison, but it’s increasing more difficult to separate their OS support lifecycles from their M* hardware.
I did not know that, but I'm basically using this as a bridge to either fully use Linux more than I already do, or switch to windows 12 when it becomes a thing, if it's not worse, so I don't care about very long term support at this time. Plus I get access to a different ecosystem to help keep things fresh in the meantime.
Does anyone actually like Win11 over Win10? Win11 does nothing special. Who (other than MS) is happy with this plank-walking mandate?
Yes I am. I prefer the window placer thingy in win11. As I use an ultra wide monitor, having the menu centered works better for me, too. Win11 seems more performant and snappier to me, but that might be an illusion. Other things I amnot sure exist in win 10, as it has been a long time since I ran it on my personal hardware: Passkey support with windows hello.
In the end, the chances seem so minimal, I am surprised how much disdain people have for win11, when it feels nearly the same as win10 to me.
I run each on different PCs.
Windows 11 fixed a lot of issues I was having, particularly in things like driver support and bluetooth connectivity. It also has a lot of little UI touches that are improvements (like volume control or game management) - particularly on a laptop. Also, the settings and configuration menus have gotten usability updates for the first time since Vista.
I haven't noticed any bugs or problems (or even the intrusive advertisements that I have heard so much about). But then again, I didn't try Windows 11 until two years after it was released, so it could be that I just missed out on a bad launch.
At the end of the day, it's like 95% the same as Windows 10 (although on my other PC I am still running an unactivated free version!)
Microsoft isn't ending Windows 10 support, it's all just marketing to encourage people to move over. They already partially backed out by saying they will provide updates for (At least) 1 more year if certain conditions are met, but they will probably end up giving everyone the critical security updates anyway. The quantity of windows 10 machines still being used is just too large to allow some vulnerability to permanently smear microsoft because 40% of all windows PCs got hacked or something.
Well, their current marketing completely contradicts that -
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/end-of-support
I expect that they will cave in to some degree and expand the free ESU program to private consumers outside the EU.
Don’t forget also that Office 2019 is also going EOL (among other things) on 14 October. Despite Microsoft’s efforts, people still use and even prefer their non-cloud products at home and enterprise.
The most exposed component of Windows is going to be the Edge browser, but throw in an unpatched Outlook and Word, and there’s a potential blood bath brewing after the first few vulnerabilities are disclosed.
> people still use and even prefer their non-cloud products at home and enterprise.
You can still buy office as single-purchase standalone versions. I think the most recent version is 2024.
I worked on a project migrating away from office 2003... in 2022. In my opinion, people use outdated versions of Office because they want to, as it fulfils their needs, not because they can't buy standalone versions.
For my users it's because they hate UI changes. That's it. That's the need.
> Many of the computers still running Windows 10 can’t upgrade to Windows 11. In 2022, hardware researchers found that 43% of all computers running Windows 10 could not move to Windows 11 — which equaled around 400 million computers at that time.
My understanding is that Microsoft has more or less phased out the requirement in question (that a CPU has TPM 2.0).
What's especially troubling is that my rig and many others can run games like Cyberpunk 2077 in full path tracing at 4K, but apparently not Windows 11
Likewise. 3950 cpu, 32gb ram, 2080 GPU. This runs everything 1440p just fine.
The system was built 6 years ago but things just haven't moved fast in hardware. It doesn't have a TPM 2.0 module though so no Windows 11. One nice thing about that fact is that i never get the upgrade nags since it fails compatibility checks.
Part of me is hoping we get some third party OS patches if anything major crops up. This has happened for previous versions of Windows.
I plan to continue running this as-is past October 14. If something serious enough does crop up with no third party mitigations or fixes I'll move to Linux. I could technically install a TPM 2.0 module on the motherboard but i don't want to. Not enough benefit to me as someone that's never installed malware (I'm extremely cautious about what i allow to run on it to the extent of not running various binary distributed game mods).
Not a fair comparison. Hardware security device has nothing to do with general compute power. It's like saying "What do you mean 'my Ferrari is not a good firetruck'??? It can go 0 to 100 in 4 seconds!"
The problem is really that the marketplace isn’t adopting Windows 11 to be honest.
I currently have Windows 10 and refuse to upgrade to Windows 11. There is no way I'm going to allow the malware that is Windows 11 into my house. I thought they had turned a new leaf over the last few years but I guess not. Ramming things down my throat is not how I'm going to live my life so Microsoft can fuck right off. I'm already half off Windows because I switch between Windows and MacOS throughout the day so if need be I will just throw away my Windows machine and consolidate on Apple.
This is clearly a problem caused by the suspicious absence of governments. Semms they are wetting their appetite over locked surveilanceware. This is the new business model of M$$$
While the Win10 eol annoys me on a personal level, I don't know what good extending the support would do; it would just kick the bucket forward with no real solution. If MS added another year of free support then we would be just in the exact same situation next year. Windows 10 is going away some day, so might as well stick with the original eol date.
Microsoft is trying to jam more AI garbage into more computers that nobody wants. It's just a greedy, invasive cash grab.
I cannot help but believe TPM2 and this change is being pushed by the MPAA or more likely some governments. Yes I know I am in tinfoil hat territory, but I see no real reason for the need of TPM 2.0.
Look at the latest changes in iPhone hardware for security. Some are saying the iphone is unhackable now.
There are no reasons such improvements couldn't work for Windows and I am guessing this is their best idea for raising the floor of hardware protection they can assume is available.
I agree the push, which is quite disruptive, must be influenced by someone higher up. But I think its as simple as "Windows is insecure" is something they want to make untrue.
So, in order to make Windows more secure, they are leaving behind 40% of their userbase on an unsupported (i.e. vulnerable) version?
Yes, I don't see how else they'd make any difference or get close to their goal without waiting 10 years for the computers to be slowly replaced.
Next step: you can't run unapproved software on Windows, and you need to provide government ID and a license to buy hardware that can run Linux.
All the security issues patched in software have either been there since it was released or are introduced with feature updates. As a security veteran, the end of patching is hardly as dire as this imagines.
Update:
Patching has always been security theater for systems where security actually matters (national security), because it's assumed nation states already know vulnerabilities often years before there's a public disclosure or patch. These patches have always been to deal with nuisance actors impacting non-critical users. Besides, the user getting tricked is always the biggest risk, and patching does nothing at all for that.
If you care about security, don't get on the internet. The device you're using right now is probably already trivial compromised by unpatched vulnerabilities, if not known only by a state actor than a spyware company. Pretending this isn't the case is worse than discontinuing vanity security theater.
This is like everyone freaking out because they're shutting down the TSA. The idea that patches are important and effective is more dangerous than not patching.
I really hope you're not a "security veteran."
Because you're guaranteeing to us that nobody will ever find another vulnerability in the existing codebase of Windows 10?
That's just a silly thing to say.
It actually is not dire, if you don’t expose your Windows installation open to the internet (and disabling ipv6).
You’re much more likely pwned by phishing or running malware from software updates.
You forget about browsers and malware and bad websites forcing downloads onto your machine.
That's not what I said.
How about instead of just the simple denial you clarify your original statement, because it's very confusing.