I still consider Windows 7 to be the high-water point for Microsoft OS’s. Trying to shoehorn an ‘app store’ into Windows has caused me nothing but trouble and fractures too many things. I suspect this will only get worse with Windows 11, so unless it has some killer features I really need, they are going to have to drag me kicking and screaming across the Win 11 threshold
Which will probably happen at some point.
I’ve ignored whatever app store is built into Windows 10. No idea if that will be possible with Windows 11.
And, BTW, I remember a statement from Microsoft that Windows 10 would be the last new major OS release and that future improvements would be within Windows 10. Anyone else remember that? And what happened to that?
It’s still more or less true. They just decided to bump the version number to 11 instead of 10.1. It’s still a free upgrade that’ll get installed via Windows Update, like all of the previous updates. This one comes with some visual tweaks as well, but under the hood it’s still just Win10.
I usually won’t upgrade to a new major iteration of Windows in the first six months, but I like to upgrade relatively soon and don’t like to hold on to old OSes, so I would likely upgrade in the 6-12 month range after release.
I downloaded the preview to a VM, and have been reporting things that I hope will be tweaked.
From what I’ve seen, I’m torn between options 2 or 3. I’m never going to upgrade within that first six months: I even delay versions of Windows 10 by a year. There are no killer features on Windows 11 that would give me a pressing need to upgrade. (Direct Storage is a potentially good feature to upgrade over, but (1) I don’t have a GPU that can use it and will likely even upgrade to one that doesn’t, as I can’t justify the cost. and (2) There was already talk of AMD and Nvidia including it in their drivers anyways.)
The main issue I see most people complaining about is that they locked the taskbar to the bottom of the screen, with no other options. While I’m sure most people leave it on the bottom, quite a few users, especially those with extra wide monitors. Or people who use smaller monitors and want to have the taskbar auto-hide. I’ve seen a ton of people saying they’d never switch as long as the taskbar is fixed. Microsoft better be listening.
Most of the things Microsoft seems to care about are touch-related, and those aren’t useful to me. I like the idea of widgets, but they don’t work right in a VM, and I want them to be on the Desktop. The little indicator that an app on the taskbar is running has gotten much too small, making it much less obvious. It’s also not obvious that the start menu button has been pressed.
The start menu comes with way too many pinned apps, but that’s fixable. And it should allow smooth scrolling if you have more than one page of pinned apps (but I won’t). It is otherwise actually better than Windows 10, which surprised me. The animation when it opens makes it look like a menu, which was my main gripe with it. But the thing I like is that searching doesn’t seem to prioritize web content. That’s nice. The “All apps” part is better arranged, not shoving things into folders, but it does still allow folders if you want them. And the “Recommended” section seems to restore the ability to have your recently used documents show up, along with recently used apps being there by default. I’ll be find with it as long as it doesn’t include “suggestions” from Microsoft. But, so far, it doesn’t seem to.
I found a download online (from WinAero) to allow me to install the new Store preview, and it seems okay. That’s where they stuck most of the apps they had previously installed with Windows, which is good. The weird banner on top is wasted space in my opinion, and is trying to advertise a Netflix show as “free,” but the rest is nicely laid out.
One annoyance that is a preview-specific issue is that they still left in the requirement to activate in order to mess with the Personalization options. This seems dumb. You shouldn’t update your actual current OS to Windows 11, so you can’t use that activation. So you’d basically have to pay for a Windows 10 Pro license to try out all the features Windows 11. It’s a preview copy: just have it expire. Set it up with an activation that will only last until a certain date.
Because of that, I’m stuck in light mode and unable to test certain UI aspects. And that’s dumb when the UI is the main thing that actually is appealing about Windows 11, as it does look a lot better, more like Windows 7 (at least, once you move the taskbar buttons back where they should be).
I was on the “never upgrade” train, assuming that another version of Windows would come out before Windows 10 went out of support (as happened with Windows 7. There was a Windows 8, but Windows 10 came out before Windows 7 expired.) But I’m not so harsh on it now. If Microsoft can tweak some things, it might be decent.
But, still, it has nothing in it to warrant upgrading before it has a few Feature Updates under its belt. I made that mistake back when I upgraded from Windows 7 to Windows 10, but I won’t do that again.
And, yes, I’m not sure why they don’t call this Windows 10.1. It is bigger than a feature update, but not really a new OS. It is essentially a service pack.
My understanding is that hardware manufacturers asked/begged Microsoft to make it a new version as new versions help sell new computers and laptops.
But that is far from official and just a reasonable sounding rumor.
I doubt that. The same list of CPU requirements say that Windows 10 requires a 5xxx CPU, but it runs just fine on a 2xxx CPU. We also know for sure that Windows will allow TPM 1.2, and some of the wording suggests they may allow it to work without any TPM—just they won’t guarantee it will work. I know that my VM does not implement TPM, and yet the preview runs just fine.
It also does not seem that DirectX 12 or WDM 2.0 are actually required, same as Windows 10 didn’t actually require DirectX 11. You may lose some polish in the UI, but it works fine. My VM software only really implements DirectX9, and maybe a small bit of Dx10.
The fact that Microsoft stated the requirements at “dual core CPU running at 1.0 Ghz or higher” and the fact they made Windows 11 a free upgrade suggests to me that they want to continue the idea of having everyone on the same version of Windows. There are very few single core computers out there, and I don’t think any dual core CPUs run slower than 1.0Ghz.
I’m seeing these “requirements” as more like the requirements they put on games these days. Even the minimum requirements are higher than the actual minimum to play the game. They’re more like “this is the minimum you need to use all the features of the OS.”
At least, I hope so. Windows 11 will die if it requires large numbers of people to by a new PC. As I said, there are no real killer features.
It’s not about what will function; it’s about what they allow. They are obviously making a big security push and seemingly want to make a clean break with older configurations that have significant security gaps.
It’s possible they will change their mind due to customer pushback, and may make different decisions between consumer and enterprise versions. But that doesn’t appear to be the current plan. The preview doesn’t tell us anything about what their final decision will be.
Well, sure. But I’m giving evidence that they won’t disallow older processors.
When I followed the link to tell me more about the Insider preview, they said they are implementing the same restrictions on the Windows 11 preview as they will on the final OS, so that you will be able to genuinely tell if it will run on your system.
The one source for the claim that Windows 11 will require Intel’s eighth generation of processors is on a page where they claim the current version of Windows 10 requires a fifth generation processor. But this just factually is not true. Even the manufacturer said “Windows 10 is not supported on this device”, but it works, without any tweaking.
So you have this dubious source, combined with Microsoft repeatedly saying that the CPU requirements are rather low: just a dual core 64-bit processor running at 1.0Ghz or higher. It seems unlikely that you will actually need an 8xxx or higher processor.
I personally suspect they list 8th gen as minimum because they are the earliest Intel processors to have a TPM 2.0 module built-in. But, seeing as Microsoft has already backtracked and said that TPM 1.2 will at least be supported, and that TPM can be enabled on many motherboards either out-of-the-box or with an added module, there’s no real reason to require an 8xxx CPU.
It’s not impossible that Microsoft would be so boneheaded as to not allow such a large portion of PC users to upgrade to their latest OS, but that would be a departure from what they’ve figured out before–e.g. with Windows XP and Vista. They’ve also made a huge deal about how they want as many people as possible to use their new OS.
I won’t go out on a limb and say there will be a way to install Windows 11 without hardware TPM support. But I am rather confident that you won’t be required to have an 8xxx CPU. Not unless Microsoft has become quite stupid.
I also, BTW, predict that Microsoft will allow the taskbar to be moved.
The current claim is that Microsoft won’t guarantee that a computer without TPM will work. But I bet they will. Heck, if push comes to shove, they can implement TPM in software.
Where is that? I’m seeing the opposite:
In the updated documentation, Microsoft has removed the reference to a “hard floor” for Windows 11 that would’ve allowed PCs with TPM 1.2 to still install the new OS.
Now, Microsoft says the compatibility requirement for Windows 11 is, in fact, a TPM 2.0 chip. “This article has been updated to correct the guidance around the TPM requirements for Windows 11,” Microsoft says on the documentation page.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. It’s about Spectre/Meltdown mitigation. It’s impossible to work around those problems without some level of hardware support.
Probably somewhere in that time-frame. Though I guess it might not be 11 by then.
I’ve been loosely an every-other-generation upgrader and I’ve luckily hit on the better versions. Win95>WinXP>Win7>Win10. Frankly as long as it is supported and does what I want it to do (and I’m not a power user) I prefer to minimize learning new products as much as possible. I don’t find figuring out a new OS to be all that onerous, but I do find it annoying and I’m big on minimizing annoyances in my life.
So I have the specs, but barring an unforeseen meltdown or some unsupported bit of software I just can’t live without (unlikely) I’ll probably stick with Win10 until its official demise.
None of the above.
I’ll upgrade if and when I absolutely have to.
This computer came with Windows 10, and I spent a good long time at the beginning changing and rearranging all the pre-configured stuff that came with it. I hate the way Microsoft insists on doing your thinking for you. Like someone buttoning up your clothes and brushing your teeth for you. Everything is now exactly the way I want it. I’d like to enjoy that for a few more years.
Actually, I’m similar. I skipped WinME, Vista and Windows 8.
7 for me.
Nice to see a pragmatist of my own stripe! I feel the same way, and I’m normally a tech nerd. But I saw no reason to downgrade to Vista, and was able to avoid that whole fiasco, and stayed with XP long after support ended.
I eventually upgraded my XP PCs to Windows 7 simply because some important apps no longer worked. Specifically, XP did not support later versions of .NET Framework, and some root security certificates were no longer valid nor upgradeable. By now probably other things would have broken, too. I made sure that my newer PCs came with Win 7 pre-installed and not Win 8.x or 10. Also, Windows 7 added full MTP (Media Transfer Protocol) support for Android devices like phones and tablets, which XP did not have.
But Windows 7 has had no such issues and I intend to continue running it as long as possible. The only potential issue with Win 7, depending on its exact patch level, might be lack of support for Secure Hash Algorithm 2 (SHA-2) signing required by some apps to receive updates. But this can be fixed with available security update KB4474419. Everything I need works fine in Win 7 and there I will remain for as long as feasible. So I answered “never” in the OP poll for Windows 11, although the day will probably come when I have to move on from Windows 7.
I still reserve that honour for Windows XP in terms of introducing important new features and unprecedented stability. Windows 7 didn’t really offer much of anything new I cared about in terms of features, it was mostly under-the-covers advancements that fixed things that had become broken in XP, as noted above.
Only true if you skipped Windows 2000 (which I note that What_Exit ignored above). It had all the stability of the NT codebase, while also offering most of the consumer-friendly features in XP (a modern DirectX in particular). For some reason, Microsoft saved their big consumer push for XP. But other than the Fisher-Price looks, XP didn’t offer that much unless your starting point was Win9x.
I agree, except for the part about “most” of the consumer-friendly features of XP. And for consumers, Win9x was the point of comparison. (Ha! I also agree about the cartoonish appearance of XP, but that’s just Microsoft flipping from one UI style to another just to be different from version to version. I thought the Aero interface of Windows 7 was rather nice-looking, and it seems that some version of it is back in Windows 11.)
Microsoft really initially intended Windows 2000 to be that groundbreaking consumer product, and had to do lots of 'splaining to a confused marketplace about why they still had two product streams and why most consumers might not want Windows 2000. The problem was that it still had too many of the restrictions of NT and not enough consumer-friendly features. The genius of XP was in being able to provide both while retaining the protections and stability of the NT kernel.
But on the subject of older OSs and upgrades, I remember when nerdy geeks were lined up for hours to get their copy of Windows 95 when it first came out, with stores opening at midnight to make the first sales on the official release date. Windows 95 was no XP, but it was a pretty revolutionary advance over Windows 3.1 and I was happy to have it, even though it was initially so buggy I actually thought Microsoft might withdraw it. Windows XP was the ultimate revolutionary advance, and I exploited my contacts at Microsoft to get me beta versions long before it was even released.
Those were the days! But those are not the times we’re in today, IMO. I know of a major bank that went through a huge multi-million dollar upgrade project many years ago to convert all their branch systems, both customer-facing and back-office, from OS/2 to Windows 2000. They are still running Windows 2000 today, with a special support contract with Microsoft. I would venture to guess that a lot more computer users today are more like me and that bank, than like those who stayed up all night clamoring for Windows 95. ISTM that the useful advances in OS technologies have just plateaued. To the extent that new OS releases are more like maintenance releases at best, and sometimes just downright regressive (e.g.- Windows ME, Windows Vista, and, in the opinion of some, Windows 10) many of us take the attitude that “I’ll upgrade only when I absolutely have to”.
I voted waiting 6 months. Or longer.
Not in my experience. All my games worked just fine. Really the only problem I faced was the same as with Vista: many of the drivers weren’t ready at release time. Most reasonably new hardware worked fine, but companies dragged their feet on updating their older hardware. When XP rolled around, hardware makers had a couple extra years to finish their drivers, plus the older hardware was that much older, and people cared about it less. Of course, the same drivers worked on both 2000 and XP, so anyone running 2000 was already benefitting from the progress here.
XP did have a bunch of extra wizards and crap that I’m not sure benefitted anyone, but certainly appeared to be consumer friendly. Mainly though XP was just a big marketing effort. Win 2000 didn’t get a launch party with Madonna and Sting.
Well, that answers that question. My 3-year-old CPU is an i7-7700HQ and it’s not on the list. That’s fine with me. Microsoft is removing the ability to move the taskbar; in Windows 11 it’s stuck to the bottom of the screen. I’ve had mine docked on the right for years. I find it faster to use and you can also stack more icons in it. A lot can change in 4 years. (And, dang it, I got a high-end gaming laptop 3 years ago so that I could use it for years without needing to upgrade, so upgrading next year just for the sake of the OS means I lose half the lifetime I anticipated.)