Windows 11 problems

[nlinecomputers]

I haven't touched a Win11 machine yet. But every article I read seems severely overblown.

The only Windows update I truly hated was Windows ME. That was a hot stinking mess.

Windows ME? Well, we are both officially f-ing old if you remember that.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@Metanis Lol the funny thing is, ME worked great! If and only if you were using an AMD CPU.

It was 98SE for Intel, and ME for AMD. Right up until Windows 2000 showed up and replaced it all.

@nlinecomputers and yeah, we've been at this too bloody long!

 

[sapphirescales]

@Sky-Knight @YeOldeStonecat WinRAR is still used extensively by many people (myself included). 7zip has its place, but I like the .RAR format and WinRAR itself is a very nice program. And, for all intents and purposes, WinRAR is free since it doesn't enforce its licensing requirements.

Windows 11 is probably the worst launch Microsoft has ever done. Yeah, ME/Vista/8 all sucked, but Microsoft didn't try to artificially prevent users from upgrading unless they had basically a brand new computer. Program compatibility was bad in Vista, but it certainly didn't break rock solid programs like WinRAR.

I'll be staying far, far away from Windows 11 for at least a year. I think we've got another steaming turd of an operating system like ME/Vista/8.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@sapphirescales 7Zip does .rar too, and does all the things WinRAR does... except better... and no licensing complications.

As for the rest, that's pure BS. The listed OS's made no attempt to support "old" hardware, because the hardware was advancing so quickly no one bothered to even try.

This time around it's security requirements, not speed... it's different.

 

[sapphirescales]

7Zip does .rar too, and does all the things WinRAR does... except better

It's no better or worse than WinRAR. I just prefer the UI of WinRAR way more than 7zip.

As for the rest, that's pure BS. The listed OS's made no attempt to support "old" hardware, because the hardware was advancing so quickly no one bothered to even try.

Yeah, but the difference is it wasn't an ARTIFICIAL limitation. You needed the 16MB of RAM to run Windows 98. Without it, it just wasn't going to run. Windows 11 can run on a freaking Pentium 4. The only reason why Microsoft is preventing it is because they want to encrypt everyone's data and tie everyone into a Microsoft account. And of course it reduces their maintenance costs. Microsoft has always supported old hardware. Back in the 90's when technology was moving super fast most computers couldn't upgrade to the latest version of Windows if they were more than 5 years old. But that was the freaking 90's. Ever since Windows Vista, Microsoft has supported old hardware for 10+ years. Now they only want to support 3 year old hardware, which is freaking ridiculous. "Security" my a$$.

EDIT: I should mention that I'm not expecting Microsoft to continue to support a Pentium 4. Heck, I'm glad they've done away with 32 bit altogether. But there's no reason why a 3rd gen i5 or newer shouldn't be supported.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

how about quickbooks getting many calls from my many bookkeeper clients they are saying as soon as they upgraded to windows 11 it either crashes very often or will not launch. got them to roll back to windows 10 no issues after.

Yeah, I run Quickbooks 2021 Premier myself..on my Windows 11 rig, zeeeeeeero problems. And out of our ~200 biz clients, a small handful of which are likely upgraded to 11 by now, no calls.

Windows 11 is really just a fluffy soft skin on Windows 10. Rounded menus and windows, task bar in the middle...it's like the GUI got brushed up by an ex Apple Mac person. But that's about it. No big changes in its core.

I've been doing pretty much nothing but business clients for ~30 years, I'm used to holding back about a year for OS's...and not embracing the latest and greatest. Going back to service packs even back when they were common (Windows NT 4 went all the way to service pack 6.0a if I recall). But enough of the overhype and "world is ending!". Win11 is mostly just a GUI upgrade and it's really not horrible. No sky is falling.

Can't wait for QB's 2022 so we can enjoy full 64 bit Quickbooks though...get that extra memory usage and performance!

 

[britechguy]

These are the standard teething pains of any new Windows release.

Wait a short while before diving in and you don't have to deal with them at all.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@sapphirescales TPM and upgraded instruction sets in CPUs are not an artificial requirement. There are real security gains, performance gains, and power consumption gains to be had here. Everything you said is nothing but pure unadulterated blather. I'm TIRED of the crypto threat, and you want MS to keep supporting crap that's allowing it to proliferate around longer. Your ignorance is patently painful.

Just like your insistence to use WinRAR instead of 7zip... in a commercial setting... without licensing... Yeah there's no enforcement, but that's still a violation of licensing and you know it. So proof of bad ethics, made right there in the same post too. Only made worse when a legally freely available option with superior functionality, and near identical UI is staring you plain in the face.

But whatever, you do you.

 

[sapphirescales]

TPM and upgraded instruction sets in CPUs are not an artificial requirement. There are real security gains, performance gains, and power consumption gains to be had here.

No one said otherwise. But preventing users from installing Windows 11 on systems without TPM 2.0 is ridiculous. The REAL reason why Microsoft is limiting these older computers is because they want to encrypt everyone's data and force them to use a Microsoft account. There's no reason to block older computers from using Windows 11 except greed on Microsoft's part. IF they had rewritten Windows from the ground up I could see why they would limit it to newer CPUs and technologies (for example, Windows on ARM), but there's no reason why they couldn't continue to support computers older than 3 years.

It is a 100% artificial limit because Windows will run just fine without it. Microsoft just doesn't feel like supporting it because in their minds, unless you're using a practically brand new computer and signed up with their subscription services, you can just go rot in a corner and die.

 

[fincoder]

you want MS to keep supporting crap that's allowing it to proliferate around longer.

Nobody is arguing MS should keep supporting old hardware forever. @sapphirescales says as much in the post.

The "artificial" or arbitrary nature of the requirements is where the line is drawn. I'm sure there are even more benefits in 9th or 10th gen CPUs, but they've drawn the line before 8th gen. There are systems with 7th gen and maybe even 6th gen that have TPM 2.0. So the line was drawn somewhat artificially.

And while Celeron N4000 and similarly slow processors remain acceptable to Windows 11, no argument can be made regarding performance gains.

Your post is true for most business environments, but forcing the retirement of 7 year old systems in 2025 is not great for lower income home users. It will restrict the ability of tinkerers and refurbishers to make use of computers with sufficient performance to run Windows 11 at low cost.

A fairer approach would be set the arbitrary cutoff at say 6th gen as a compromise. Then at 2025 the unsupported systems would be over 10 years old which is a more reasonable retirement age in this era of higher performance. They could warn about reductions in performance and security to help convince users to upgrade, not to force them. Natural attrition would mean just a few more years before their desired security-level was achieved.

 

[nlinecomputers]

TPM is not the issue. Spectre and Meltdown are. 8th gen and higher are patched against them.

 

[VISA MC]

It is a 100% artificial limit because Windows will run just fine without it. Microsoft just doesn't feel like supporting it because in their minds, unless you're using a practically brand new computer and signed up with their subscription services, you can just go rot in a corner and die.

We tested this in our office. I wouldn’t do it on a client computer, but I used the windows 11 media creation tool burned an ISO to USB. Installed 11 just fine on an i5 (unsure of gen), 8gb of ram and a solid state which has been our standard specs for refurbs, or better.

Machine runs just fine. We ran a few graphics programs, streamed videos. There is no performance loss when compared to Windows 10. I mean we didn’t run any specific benchmarks, but I would sport the machine as a daily driver without too many complaints.

It’s a dumb limit. It should have been an option at least for the foreseeable future. If the client doesn’t want their stuff encrypted, let them make that choice instead of leaving them in the dark.

 

[fincoder]

@nlinecomputers Older generations have software patches for spectre & meltdown, so it's not like they're vulnerable unless running Windows 10 v1507 without any updates. I assume the initial release of Windows 11 would be pre-patched for spectre & meltdown.

Sure it's better to have hardware without the vulnerability, but natural attrition would take care of that over a few extra years.

Microsoft's end-of-support for 7-year-old hardware will virtually guarantee that there are less secure systems running Windows 10 without future patches after October 2025. The logic is not so clear as some are making out. There might be more vulnerable systems overall because of the decision to cut off 7th gen and older.

 

[britechguy]

There is not a standard that Microsoft could choose that would make everyone happy, and comments in this very topic demonstrate that very clearly.

As a result, since they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, they might as well do as they see fit. And they have.

 

[nlinecomputers]

@nlinecomputers Older generations have software patches for spectre & meltdown, so it's not like they're vulnerable unless running Windows 10 v1507 without any updates. I assume the initial release of Windows 11 would be pre-patched for spectre & meltdown.

Sure it's better to have hardware without the vulnerability, but natural attrition would take care of that over a few extra years.

Microsoft's end-of-support for 7-year-old hardware will virtually guarantee that there are less secure systems running Windows 10 without future patches after October 2025. The logic is not so clear as some are making out. There might be more vulnerable systems overall because of the decision to cut off 7th gen and older.

I agree. And if you note You can install 11 on older hardware and so far you get updates. You just have to fresh install. This like the Windows 7 to 10 upgrades will allow technically savy users, like us, to go-ahead and upgrade. Even though Microsoft said they will not support it.

 

[VISA MC]

There is not a standard that Microsoft could choose that would make everyone happy, and comments in this very topic demonstrate that very clearly.

As a result, since they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, they might as well do as they see fit. And they have.

I think by simply making it optional would appease the vast majority if not 100%. I mean realistically if I am ok with less security on my machine and slower performance due to using old hardware what’s it to you?

Why don’t they go after these $199 walmart specials? We had a very low-income client come in with a computer 14 months old. All in one, i3, 4 gb of ram and a 1TB 5400rpm spinner. Why anyone would even make it is beyond me, but this client got to buy another one from us because she couldn’t use it. I took payments from this particular customer and she is very happy with our i5, 16gb ram 500gb ssd machine. The extent of this clients use is very basic. Now she will either be forced to buy again or live without security updates because of this silly restriction. A slightly slower machine she can live with (not i3, 4gb, spinner slow) but now she will be left behind on security updates.

On a side note, I have clients with huge homes, 6 figure cars that are almost 90 days past due. This client is on government money and makes it a point to come in the day after her money is deposited to pay her bill.

 

[nlinecomputers]

There is not a standard that Microsoft could choose that would make everyone happy, and comments in this very topic demonstrate that very clearly.

As a result, since they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, they might as well do as they see fit. And they have.

Microsoft has never arbitrarily put hardware limits in. Device manufacturers did so by not providing drivers. That and OS speed made practical limits. Microsoft has always wrote the OS to match hardware features as they came out. Apple has been the one that refused to support old hardware even though with hacks people have managed upgrades.

 

[nlinecomputers]

I think by simply making it optional would appease the vast majority if not 100%. I mean realistically if I am ok with less security on my machine and slower performance due to using old hardware what’s it to you?

Why don’t they go after these $199 walmart specials? We had a very low-income client come in with a computer 14 months old. All in one, i3, 4 gb of ram and a 1TB 5400rpm spinner. Why anyone would even make it is beyond me, but this client got to buy another one from us because she couldn’t use it. I took payments from this particular customer and she is very happy with our i5, 16gb ram 500gb ssd machine. The extent of this clients use is very basic. Now she will either be forced to buy again or live without security updates because of this silly restriction. A slightly slower machine she can live with (not i3, 4gb, spinner slow) but now she will be left behind on security updates.

On a side note, I have clients with huge homes, 6 figure cars that are almost 90 days past due. This client is on government money and makes it a point to come in the day after her money is deposited to pay her bill.

Windows 10 will get security updates until 2025. Frankly the core of both OS are identical. Likely the same exact patches will be issued to both. Just like some server patches roll out to client OSes as well.

 

[britechguy]

I mean realistically if I am ok with less security on my machine and slower performance due to using old hardware what’s it to you?

Most of the "older hardware" out there will be dead by the time Windows 10 reaches EOL. (It also won't surprise me, on bit, if Microsoft pushes back the EOL date as well).

And it's not about what it is to you, or me, or anyone else. The idea that it's reasonable, and not just for Microsoft, to maintain modern operating systems with semi-perpetual backward compatibility is not only unreasonable, but ill-advised.

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, . . .

 

[nlinecomputers]

There is a reasonable time and then there is planned obsolescence. For an OS that historically has easily supported systems as old as 10 years to suddenly drop it to 3 is unreasonable. Many businesses plan on at least a 5-year life cycle from their PCs. Many places purchased new PCs that were NOT the state of the art because in the past they would be supported. The PC manufacturers sold them. I have a two-year-old system that shipped with 7th gen tech. It was brand new when I purchased it. Made in 2019. It can't be upgraded.