So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother telling you.

Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this switched off.

On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article <op.1gt5zbmtmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):

> So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother
> telling you.
>
> Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM
> (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this
> switched off.

you’re very late to the party.

1. MS _does_ tell people. The requirement for a TPM was clear from the first
announcements. MS went so far as to set up a page on their site.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-11-requirements
and this page was the very first hit in a search for ‘hardware requirements
win 11”. Note the date on the page: 30 Nov 2021. Oh. Wait.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-system-requirements is
the 3rd hit in that search. That page dates from August... The second hit
also cites the requirement for a TPM, but is undated. All three of the first
3 hits are from MS. Did you actually do a search?

2. It’s not the TPM that’s the problem; my main WinBox has a TPM, but
won’t run Win 11 because it has TPM 1.2 and Win 11 requires TPM 2.0 or
later. (Yes, I know, there’s a way around that requirement. I don’t feel
like forcing installation of an OS, of all things, onto unsupported
hardware.)

3. Having the TPM turned on is very common in the corporate world. And with
those who want to run BitLocker encryption. If you don’t have TPM 1.2 or
later, running BitLocker becomes... annoying.

On 1/30/2022 8:19 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother telling you.
>
> Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS.  Most computers have this switched off.

If you click the dialog in Windows 10 (where it is offering
you Windows 11), it tells you. The PCHealthCheck application
has the details. I think there's also a web page link you
are offered as well, with the same sort of detail on it.

https://i.postimg.cc/q7rZXsfL/PC-Health-Check-For-Win11-TPM.gif

This is the code it downloads for the PCHealthCheck. Todays version.

Name: WindowsPCHealthCheckSetup.msi
Size: 14233600 bytes (13 MiB)
SHA1: C5AC13685297298D437381548D77EB8CE04EF2B3

Paul

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:49:00 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

> On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
> (in article <op.1gt5zbmtmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>
>> So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother
>> telling you.
>>
>> Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM
>> (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this
>> switched off.
>
> you’re very late to the party.
>
> 1. MS _does_ tell people. The requirement for a TPM was clear from the first
> announcements. MS went so far as to set up a page on their site.
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-11-requirements
> and this page was the very first hit in a search for ‘hardware requirements
> win 11”. Note the date on the page: 30 Nov 2021. Oh. Wait.
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-system-requirements is
> the 3rd hit in that search. That page dates from August... The second hit
> also cites the requirement for a TPM, but is undated. All three of the first
> 3 hits are from MS. Did you actually do a search?

Why would I do that? I was waiting for it to appear in Windows Update. I have 7 PCs. I've only seen it mentioned on the 2 oldest ones, which said "not compatible" - not sure if that's the TPM or because they're old.

> 2. It’s not the TPM that’s the problem; my main WinBox has a TPM, but
> won’t run Win 11 because it has TPM 1.2 and Win 11 requires TPM 2.0 or
> later. (Yes, I know, there’s a way around that requirement. I don’t feel
> like forcing installation of an OS, of all things, onto unsupported
> hardware.)

Does the way around involve buying a TPM chip? If not, let me know what I can do. One of my PCs is old enough to use DDR2.

> 3. Having the TPM turned on is very common in the corporate world. And with
> those who want to run BitLocker encryption. If you don’t have TPM 1.2 or
> later, running BitLocker becomes... annoying.

But most people have home machines and TPM is switched off. I wasn't even aware it existed if you didn't buy a TPM adaptor. I built (6 years ago) a PC for someone who wanted TPM, I bought a little 1 inch square card to plug into the MB to do it.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:53:12 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 1/30/2022 8:19 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother telling you.
>>
>> Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this switched off.
>
> If you click the dialog in Windows 10 (where it is offering
> you Windows 11), it tells you. The PCHealthCheck application
> has the details. I think there's also a web page link you
> are offered as well, with the same sort of detail on it.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/q7rZXsfL/PC-Health-Check-For-Win11-TPM.gif
>
> This is the code it downloads for the PCHealthCheck. Todays version.
>
> Name: WindowsPCHealthCheckSetup.msi
> Size: 14233600 bytes (13 MiB)
> SHA1: C5AC13685297298D437381548D77EB8CE04EF2B3

Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs? I went into windows update on all of them and checked for updates. Is it because I have updates disabled through devious means and only check manually?

On 1/30/2022 9:00 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:53:12 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2022 8:19 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother telling you.
>>>
>>> Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS.  Most computers have this switched off.
>>
>> If you click the dialog in Windows 10 (where it is offering
>> you Windows 11), it tells you. The PCHealthCheck application
>> has the details. I think there's also a web page link you
>> are offered as well, with the same sort of detail on it.
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/q7rZXsfL/PC-Health-Check-For-Win11-TPM.gif
>>
>> This is the code it downloads for the PCHealthCheck. Todays version.
>>
>> Name: WindowsPCHealthCheckSetup.msi
>> Size: 14233600 bytes (13 MiB)
>> SHA1: C5AC13685297298D437381548D77EB8CE04EF2B3
>
> Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs?  I went into windows update on all of them and checked for updates.  Is it because I have updates disabled through devious means and only check manually?

If you do a "winver", you're probably not running the qualifying
Windows 10 version (whatever that is).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history

19041.xxx May 2020 Update \
19042.xxx October 2020 Update \___ Much code sharing.
19043.xxx May 2021 Update / Servicing Stack Updates (SSU)
19044.xxx November 2021 Update / help guide behaviors like Windows 11 dialog

A recent change, was putting the SSU inside the Cumulative from
Patch Tuesday. If you gate off the Patch Tuesday items,
then the temporal SSU (issued on the same Patch Tuesday)
are not available to you.

SSU installs, gate off other software. For example, some of the
Windows Updates I've done manually, say "Not For this OS" if
the necessary SSU is missing. Once you installed the separate KB
which is the SSU, then the Windows Update you were trying to do, would
work.

In any case, you don't have to "tease" your remaining PCs.
You can download a Windows 11 ISO, right click and mount it as a
virtual DVD drive (the terminology has changes in Windows for this,
so it's not as "logical" as it was a year ago). When you run
Setup.exe, it runs the same PCHealth code and issues a summary
of the reasons you are not ready.

If a PC *was* in fact ready, it will still not race off on its own.
It will put up a summary screen, stating it will keep your personal
files and programs. When you see that screen, you can cancel. You
are not forced to go forward and do an Upgrade Install from that ISO.

Windows 11 is x64, and not a good candidate for upgrading a Win 10 PC
which is installed as x86 version. Part of the reason for that, is
the 4GB minimum RAM footprint claimed in the requirements (which
is really about 2.8GB or so).

Paul

On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article <op.1gt7q7ovmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:49:00 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
> > (in article <op.1gt5zbmtmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> >
> > > So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother
> > > telling you.
> > >
> > > Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM
> > > (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this
> > > switched off.
> >
> > you’re very late to the party.
> >
> > 1. MS _does_ tell people. The requirement for a TPM was clear from the first
> > announcements. MS went so far as to set up a page on their site.
> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-11-requirements
> > and this page was the very first hit in a search for ‘hardware
> > requirements
> > win 11”. Note the date on the page: 30 Nov 2021. Oh. Wait.
> > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-system-requirements
> > is
> > the 3rd hit in that search. That page dates from August... The second hit
> > also cites the requirement for a TPM, but is undated. All three of the first
> > 3 hits are from MS. Did you actually do a search?
>
> Why would I do that?

so that you could find out information about the OS prior to doing an update.
> I was waiting for it to appear in Windows Update. I have
> 7 PCs. I've only seen it mentioned on the 2 oldest ones, which said "not
> compatible" - not sure if that's the TPM or because they're old.

probably part of the other hardware requirements, which you’d know about if
you looked. Odds are that they have CPUs older than 8th gen. Machines with
CPUs older than 8th gen won’t install Win 11... unless you pull a trick.
All of my WinBoxes have CPUs which are too old. I could force the install,
but I won’t be installing an OS onto unsupported hardware.
>
>
> > 2. It’s not the TPM that’s the problem; my main WinBox has a TPM, but
> > won’t run Win 11 because it has TPM 1.2 and Win 11 requires TPM 2.0 or
> > later. (Yes, I know, there’s a way around that requirement. I don’t feel
> > like forcing installation of an OS, of all things, onto unsupported
> > hardware.)
>
> Does the way around involve buying a TPM chip?

that’s one way. There’s also a way to play with the BIOS. And a way to
edit the installer script so that it doesn’t look for TPM 2.0. And probably
other methods. There are a _lot_ of idiots who absolutely, positively, MUST
run Win 11 and will go to considerable lengths to get past any roadblocks MS
puts in the way. Me, I say that my WinBoxes will stay with 10, or earlier,
until they stop working. Unless I just reformat them and slap Ubuntu on them.
> If not, let me know what I can
> do. One of my PCs is old enough to use DDR2.
>
> > 3. Having the TPM turned on is very common in the corporate world. And with
> > those who want to run BitLocker encryption. If you don’t have TPM 1.2 or
> > later, running BitLocker becomes... annoying.
>
> But most people have home machines

lots of gamers use systems which need TPMs. And there are a _lot_ of corp
machines. An awful lot of ‘education’ systems have TPMs, as well. Odds
are excellent that the majority of WinBoxes have TPMs on.
> and TPM is switched off. I wasn't even
> aware it existed if you didn't buy a TPM adaptor. I built (6 years ago) a PC
> for someone who wanted TPM, I bought a little 1 inch square card to plug into
> the MB to do it.

that’s one way. A lot of gamer motherboards shipped with TPMs, and of
course any machine aimed at ‘business’ use. Dell and HP are _still_
selling ‘business’ and ‘education' machines which have TPMs, usually
1.2, but have CPUs too old for Win 11.

On 1/30/2022 9:35 PM, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote

>> Does the way around involve buying a TPM chip?
>
> that’s one way. There’s also a way to play with the BIOS. And a way to
> edit the installer script so that it doesn’t look for TPM 2.0. And probably
> other methods. There are a _lot_ of idiots who absolutely, positively, MUST
> run Win 11 and will go to considerable lengths to get past any roadblocks MS
> puts in the way. Me, I say that my WinBoxes will stay with 10, or earlier,
> until they stop working. Unless I just reformat them and slap Ubuntu on them.

TPM chips
---------

There are TPM 1.2 only chips.
There are chips which run TPM 1.2 or TPM 2.0.

TPM module firmware
-------------------

For a TPM 2.0 chip, you could have

TPM 1.2 firmware
TPM 1.2 + bug fix firmware
TPM 2.0 (implicit bug fix) firmware

Some manufacturers have the wrong firmware
in the module, which causes grief when the
Windows 10 "TPM" status page gets a sniff.

BIOS support for TPM header
---------------------------

Motherboards come with LPM or SPI bus headers.
The headers have several different pin counts
(vendor lock-in attempt).

The BIOS on my motherboard, only supports a
TPM chip plus TPM 1.2 firmware. The BIOS is
unprepared to initialize a TPM 2.0 level device.
No BIOS upgrade is available to remedy this, either.

*******

Motherboards can also have software TPM implementations
with various names, such as "fTPM". This is the
more sane approach to TPM, compared to the jazz above.

So generally speaking, you cannot "buy your way out of
the corner they've painted you into". There are plenty
of scalpers and dickheads who will sell you the wrong
thing though. Some people have bought TPMs, where it
turns out the wrong firmware was inside (in other words,
the UPC product code for the device received, was not
the same as what was advertised on the web).

In cases where you don't need a TPM (you have an fTPM),
the motherboard company may also make a physical TPM.
That's what I have in the Test Machine right now, is
an SPI TPM 2.0 module. I was shocked, while standing
at the computer store checkout, to have the clerk tell
me "yes, we gottem, we even have a pile of them, why
are you buying one?". That's the response I got when
I asked.

*******

This is what it looks like, when you attempt to use a
Windows 11 DVD to Upgrade Install on a running Windows 10 System.

Use "Download Original" as they have reduced the resolution of
the picture in the frame you cannot see by detault. The picture
shows how the Windows 11 DVD presents your PCHealth info.

https://i.postimg.cc/x1v2pM3T/Health-Check-Via-Installer.gif

Paul

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

> Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs? I went
> into windows update on all of them and checked for updates.

Maybe you have just been lucky. It has been “offered” on mine, but they
are all too old, have no TPM and I don’t want 11 anyways.

>Is it because I have updates disabled through devious means and only check manually?

Nope. I always have updates blocked too. As soon I check, annoying
Windows 11 crap pops up that says “This PC doesn’t currently meet the
minimum system requirements to run Windows 11”.

I (1) could not be happier and (2) could not care less.

On 1/30/2022 8:58 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> But most people have home machines and TPM is switched off.  I wasn't even aware it existed if you didn't buy a TPM adaptor.  I built (6 years ago) a PC for someone who wanted TPM, I bought a little 1 inch square card to plug into the MB to do it.

Six years ago would be a TPM 1.2 adapter.

It's quite possible, because you did it six years ago,
that the combination actually works. And would pass
the "TPM" status page on Windows 10.

For Windows 11, TPM 2.0 is preferred, but TPM 1.2 is
acceptable. I don't know if the status page says
anything about the TPM 1.2 "firmware bug" or not. The
module manufacturers just don't seem to have any
support model for their modules, when it comes to
firmware.

Then there's the issue of whether the CPU is more than
three years old or not. The machine I'm typing on (the
"Replacement For The Typing Machine Machine"), the CPU is
too old for Windows 11. But just fine for Windows 10.

It's the new machine that is buzzword compliant (5600G).
It has enough toys to pass.

Paul

On 1/30/2022 11:04 PM, Paul wrote:
> On 1/30/2022 8:58 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> But most people have home machines and TPM is switched off.  I wasn't
>> even aware it existed if you didn't buy a TPM adaptor.  I built (6
>> years ago) a PC for someone who wanted TPM, I bought a little 1 inch
>> square card to plug into the MB to do it.
>
> Six years ago would be a TPM 1.2 adapter.
>
> It's quite possible, because you did it six years ago,
> that the combination actually works. And would pass
> the "TPM" status page on Windows 10.
>
> For Windows 11, TPM 2.0 is preferred, but TPM 1.2 is
> acceptable. I don't know if the status page says
> anything about the TPM 1.2 "firmware bug" or not. The
> module manufacturers just don't seem to have any
> support model for their modules, when it comes to
> firmware.
Question from curiosity: If the firmware could be updated, wouldn't that
provide a path to avoid all the protection afforded, in theory, by the
TPM? Steal a machine, "update" the firmware to your needs, steal
information from the machine, move on to the next, etc. TPM are really
cheap if I'm not mistaken, so making update sufficiently protected might
but that cost in jeopardy.
> Then there's the issue of whether the CPU is more than
> three years old or not. The machine I'm typing on (the
> "Replacement For The Typing Machine Machine"), the CPU is
> too old for Windows 11. But just fine for Windows 10.
>
> It's the new machine that is buzzword compliant (5600G).
> It has enough toys to pass.--
Jeff Barnett

On 1/31/2022 2:30 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

> Question from curiosity: If the firmware could be updated, wouldn't that provide a path to avoid all the protection afforded, in theory, by the TPM? Steal a machine, "update" the firmware to your needs, steal information from the machine, move on to the next, etc. TPM are really cheap if I'm not mistaken, so making update sufficiently protected might but that cost in jeopardy.
>
> Jeff Barnett

That firmware is not the only code store
in the TPM. The TPM needs to have a boot
loader in ROM, which carries out basic device
verification. It will, at a minimum, do a
checksum of the firmware flash portion of
the device.

If the firmware changes and the TPM CPU notices
that, it's just going to invalidate all the keys
in the thing. It would be like punching the TPM reset button
in the BIOS screen.

The purpose of the TPM, is as a root of trust.
A side effect of owning a TPM, is that it could
be used for Denial of Service attacks. Invalidating
it on purpose so you can't use the machine until
you get that fixed.

Summary: The TPM is just a nuisance :-)
As users, it's just a huge if-then-else
state table to have to discover and memorize.

One of the reasons for me owning a TPM, is
to find out "how much of a nuisance".

If you know the TPM you got off Ebay needs
updating, you would update it before installing
the "secure" OS. You would prefer not to be updating
it after the secure OS is installed.

If you're using an "fTPM", it is also possible
that updating the BIOS UEFI image could result in
the fTPM being reset. We won't know for sure, until
the trouble report comes in :-)

Paul

On 2022 Jan 30, Paul wrote
(in article <st7l16$puq$1@dont-email.me>):

> On 1/30/2022 9:35 PM, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
>
> > > Does the way around involve buying a TPM chip?
> >
> > that’s one way. There’s also a way to play with the BIOS. And a way to
> > edit the installer script so that it doesn’t look for TPM 2.0. And
> > probably
> > other methods. There are a _lot_ of idiots who absolutely, positively, MUST
> > run Win 11 and will go to considerable lengths to get past any roadblocks MS
> > puts in the way. Me, I say that my WinBoxes will stay with 10, or earlier,
> > until they stop working. Unless I just reformat them and slap Ubuntu on
> > them.
>
> TPM chips
> ---------
>
> There are TPM 1.2 only chips.
> There are chips which run TPM 1.2 or TPM 2.0.

And you usually can’t tell in advance which chip you have. One of may
reasons why I decline to screw with the TPM on my machines.
>
>
> TPM module firmware
> -------------------
>
> For a TPM 2.0 chip, you could have
>
> TPM 1.2 firmware
> TPM 1.2 + bug fix firmware
> TPM 2.0 (implicit bug fix) firmware
>
> Some manufacturers have the wrong firmware
> in the module, which causes grief when the
> Windows 10 "TPM" status page gets a sniff.

yep.
>
>
> BIOS support for TPM header
> ---------------------------
>
> Motherboards come with LPM or SPI bus headers.
> The headers have several different pin counts
> (vendor lock-in attempt).
>
> The BIOS on my motherboard, only supports a
> TPM chip plus TPM 1.2 firmware. The BIOS is
> unprepared to initialize a TPM 2.0 level device.
> No BIOS upgrade is available to remedy this, either.

so you might have trouble with Win 11, depending on how anal the installer
is.
>
>
> *******
>
> Motherboards can also have software TPM implementations
> with various names, such as "fTPM". This is the
> more sane approach to TPM, compared to the jazz above.

yep. One of my WinBoxes has software TPM. It’s set to 1.2. I see no
particular reason to change it, that particular machine has a 6th gen Intel
CPU and won’t be running Win 11 without my forcing the issue anyway. Which
means that it won’t be running Win 11 unless MS relaxes the requirements,
as I won’t be forcing an OS onto unsupported hardware.

Now, if for some reason other than Win 11 I need TPM 2, then I’ll do the
software fix. But at this late date I doubt that there’s be a reason for me
to monkey around with very low-level pre-boot stuff. Doing that can cause
your system to not boot. If it’s not broke, and it isn’t, I’m bloody
well not going to fix it.

Other people feel that they MUST have New Shiney, no matter what. I tend to
stand well back, out of splatter range.
>
>
> So generally speaking, you cannot "buy your way out of
> the corner they've painted you into". There are plenty
> of scalpers and dickheads who will sell you the wrong
> thing though. Some people have bought TPMs, where it
> turns out the wrong firmware was inside (in other words,
> the UPC product code for the device received, was not
> the same as what was advertised on the web).
>
> In cases where you don't need a TPM (you have an fTPM),
> the motherboard company may also make a physical TPM.
> That's what I have in the Test Machine right now, is
> an SPI TPM 2.0 module. I was shocked, while standing
> at the computer store checkout, to have the clerk tell
> me "yes, we gottem, we even have a pile of them, why
> are you buying one?". That's the response I got when
> I asked.
>
> *******
>
> This is what it looks like, when you attempt to use a
> Windows 11 DVD to Upgrade Install on a running Windows 10 System.
>
> Use "Download Original" as they have reduced the resolution of
> the picture in the frame you cannot see by detault. The picture
> shows how the Windows 11 DVD presents your PCHealth info.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/x1v2pM3T/Health-Check-Via-Installer.gif
>
> Paul

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:27:50 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 1/30/2022 9:00 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:53:12 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2022 8:19 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother telling you.
>>>>
>>>> Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this switched off.
>>>
>>> If you click the dialog in Windows 10 (where it is offering
>>> you Windows 11), it tells you. The PCHealthCheck application
>>> has the details. I think there's also a web page link you
>>> are offered as well, with the same sort of detail on it.
>>>
>>> https://i.postimg.cc/q7rZXsfL/PC-Health-Check-For-Win11-TPM.gif
>>>
>>> This is the code it downloads for the PCHealthCheck. Todays version.
>>>
>>> Name: WindowsPCHealthCheckSetup.msi
>>> Size: 14233600 bytes (13 MiB)
>>> SHA1: C5AC13685297298D437381548D77EB8CE04EF2B3
>>
>> Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs? I went into windows update on all of them and checked for updates. Is it because I have updates disabled through devious means and only check manually?
>
> If you do a "winver", you're probably not running the qualifying
> Windows 10 version (whatever that is).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history
>
> 19041.xxx May 2020 Update \
> 19042.xxx October 2020 Update \___ Much code sharing.
> 19043.xxx May 2021 Update / Servicing Stack Updates (SSU)
> 19044.xxx November 2021 Update / help guide behaviors like Windows 11 dialog

I have 19044. I updated repeatedly until no more existed a couple of weeks ago, then again the other day.

> A recent change, was putting the SSU inside the Cumulative from
> Patch Tuesday. If you gate off the Patch Tuesday items,
> then the temporal SSU (issued on the same Patch Tuesday)
> are not available to you.
>
> SSU installs, gate off other software. For example, some of the
> Windows Updates I've done manually, say "Not For this OS" if
> the necessary SSU is missing. Once you installed the separate KB
> which is the SSU, then the Windows Update you were trying to do, would
> work.

I don't know what you men by "gate off".

> In any case, you don't have to "tease" your remaining PCs.
> You can download a Windows 11 ISO, right click and mount it as a
> virtual DVD drive (the terminology has changes in Windows for this,
> so it's not as "logical" as it was a year ago). When you run
> Setup.exe, it runs the same PCHealth code and issues a summary
> of the reasons you are not ready.
>
> If a PC *was* in fact ready, it will still not race off on its own.
> It will put up a summary screen, stating it will keep your personal
> files and programs. When you see that screen, you can cancel. You
> are not forced to go forward and do an Upgrade Install from that ISO.

Yes I'll use the ISO if it refuses to do anything, but I'll switch the TPMs on first. I was busy hard wiring power cables onto an old graphics card today. It's fixed! The socket had oxidised and I couldn't manage to clean it even with a fibreglass pencil. Running them at full power 24/7 in a damp environment wears out the connectors, which are probably cheap shit ones, but I could never find good ones unless they're attached to a Corsair PSU.

> Windows 11 is x64, and not a good candidate for upgrading a Win 10 PC
> which is installed as x86 version. Part of the reason for that, is
> the 4GB minimum RAM footprint claimed in the requirements (which
> is really about 2.8GB or so).

Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:35:11 -0000, Bob Campbell <none@none.none> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs? I went
>> into windows update on all of them and checked for updates.
>
> Maybe you have just been lucky. It has been “offered” on mine, but they
> are all too old, have no TPM and I don’t want 11 anyways.

I see no point in sticking to older versions of things.

>> Is it because I have updates disabled through devious means and only check manually?
>
> Nope. I always have updates blocked too. As soon I check, annoying
> Windows 11 crap pops up that says “This PC doesn’t currently meet the
> minimum system requirements to run Windows 11”.
>
> I (1) could not be happier and (2) could not care less.

If TPM doesn't make it appear, I'll just download the ISO. It had better be free....

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 06:04:02 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 1/30/2022 8:58 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> But most people have home machines and TPM is switched off. I wasn't even aware it existed if you didn't buy a TPM adaptor. I built (6 years ago) a PC for someone who wanted TPM, I bought a little 1 inch square card to plug into the MB to do it.
>
> Six years ago would be a TPM 1.2 adapter.
>
> It's quite possible, because you did it six years ago,
> that the combination actually works. And would pass
> the "TPM" status page on Windows 10.

I can't even remember who I did it for. I built a hundred machines.

> For Windows 11, TPM 2.0 is preferred, but TPM 1.2 is
> acceptable.

Cool, I didn't know that, that increases the chances of my older machines taking 11.

> I don't know if the status page says
> anything about the TPM 1.2 "firmware bug" or not. The
> module manufacturers just don't seem to have any
> support model for their modules, when it comes to
> firmware.
>
> Then there's the issue of whether the CPU is more than
> three years old or not.

THREE?! That discounts most of the world's computers from 11 then. And 5 (or possibly 6) of my 7.

> The machine I'm typing on (the
> "Replacement For The Typing Machine Machine"), the CPU is
> too old for Windows 11. But just fine for Windows 10.
>
> It's the new machine that is buzzword compliant (5600G).
> It has enough toys to pass.

What is 5600G?

On 1/31/2022 2:50 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> Christ, my computers aren't that old.  And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine.  4GB machines go in the bin.  Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.

It doesn't necessarily swap.

At one time, there was a process called "Memory Compressor"
that helped out.

But they've changed that, by the looks of it, because
yesterday when I tested, the machine was busy but there
was no sign of the Memory Compressor.

Part of the reason for that, is they were toying with the
idea of "encrypted memory", but I don't know what the
disposition of that feature is right now. If they mixed the
two features, they might have to decrypt, then compress, then
re-encrypt or something. Which is still possible.

The reason they don't like to swap, is they know that is
bad for the customer SSD if they do that. Sinovsky long
ago, promised they would do things so it wouldn't swap
like it does in earlier Windows. That's probably where
the Memory Compressor idea came from, a tradeoff of CPU cycles
for compacted memory.

One thing I can promise you, is Windows will never be as
bad as WinXP was at swapping/paging. It was dreadful, and it
fragmented the pagefile.sys (internal fragmentation, not
NTFS fragmentation). If you exited a program, it used to take
30 seconds to a minute, for the pagefile.sys to stop
"unwinding".

Paul

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:35:41 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

> On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
> (in article <op.1gt7q7ovmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:49:00 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
>> > (in article <op.1gt5zbmtmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>> >
>> > > So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother
>> > > telling you.
>> > >
>> > > Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled TPM
>> > > (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have this
>> > > switched off.
>> >
>> > you’re very late to the party.
>> >
>> > 1. MS _does_ tell people. The requirement for a TPM was clear from the first
>> > announcements. MS went so far as to set up a page on their site.
>> > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-11-requirements
>> > and this page was the very first hit in a search for ‘hardware
>> > requirements
>> > win 11”. Note the date on the page: 30 Nov 2021. Oh. Wait.
>> > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-system-requirements
>> > is
>> > the 3rd hit in that search. That page dates from August... The second hit
>> > also cites the requirement for a TPM, but is undated. All three of the first
>> > 3 hits are from MS. Did you actually do a search?
>>
>> Why would I do that?
>
> so that you could find out information about the OS prior to doing an update.

Uh, I just press "install" when one appears. I don't research them.

>> I was waiting for it to appear in Windows Update. I have
>> 7 PCs. I've only seen it mentioned on the 2 oldest ones, which said "not
>> compatible" - not sure if that's the TPM or because they're old.
>
> probably part of the other hardware requirements, which you’d know about if
> you looked. Odds are that they have CPUs older than 8th gen. Machines with
> CPUs older than 8th gen won’t install Win 11... unless you pull a trick.
> All of my WinBoxes have CPUs which are too old. I could force the install,
> but I won’t be installing an OS onto unsupported hardware.

No idea what "8th gen" refers to. I have a Ryzen 9 3900XT, an i5 8600K, and 5 very old things.

>> > 2. It’s not the TPM that’s the problem; my main WinBox has a TPM, but
>> > won’t run Win 11 because it has TPM 1.2 and Win 11 requires TPM 2.0 or
>> > later. (Yes, I know, there’s a way around that requirement. I don’t feel
>> > like forcing installation of an OS, of all things, onto unsupported
>> > hardware.)
>>
>> Does the way around involve buying a TPM chip?
>
> that’s one way.

Not spending money just to get 11.

> There’s also a way to play with the BIOS. And a way to
> edit the installer script so that it doesn’t look for TPM 2.0. And probably
> other methods. There are a _lot_ of idiots who absolutely, positively, MUST
> run Win 11 and will go to considerable lengths to get past any roadblocks MS
> puts in the way. Me, I say that my WinBoxes will stay with 10, or earlier,
> until they stop working. Unless I just reformat them and slap Ubuntu on them.

I would like 11 as long as it doesn't fuck something up. If it's just a matter of stopping it checking, and the OS will run ok with no TPM, then I'll do that.

In fact the older machines only run one program with no important data (it's all held on servers), so I can break something without much headache.

>> If not, let me know what I can
>> do. One of my PCs is old enough to use DDR2.
>>
>> > 3. Having the TPM turned on is very common in the corporate world. And with
>> > those who want to run BitLocker encryption. If you don’t have TPM 1.2 or
>> > later, running BitLocker becomes... annoying.
>>
>> But most people have home machines
>
> lots of gamers use systems which need TPMs.

Games don't need TPM!

> And there are a _lot_ of corp
> machines. An awful lot of ‘education’ systems have TPMs, as well. Odds
> are excellent that the majority of WinBoxes have TPMs on.

Why would you get TPM for education?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 20:40:41, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:35:11 -0000, Bob Campbell <none@none.none> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs? I went
>>> into windows update on all of them and checked for updates.
>>
>> Maybe you have just been lucky. It has been “offered” on mine, but they
>> are all too old, have no TPM and I don’t want 11 anyways.
>
>I see no point in sticking to older versions of things.

Conversely, I see no point in getting the latest just because it might
work - unless I see some obvious advantage to it (and that being
something I actually want).
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

so that the vendors can "serve you better". As if you were a tennis ball, I
guess. - Wolf K, in alt.windows7.general, 2014-7-21

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 19:50:55, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:27:50 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
[]
>> Windows 11 is x64, and not a good candidate for upgrading a Win 10 PC
>> which is installed as x86 version. Part of the reason for that, is
>> the 4GB minimum RAM footprint claimed in the requirements (which
>> is really about 2.8GB or so).
>
>Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put
>Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the
>minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop,
>slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy,
>and wearing out the drive.

I've been running 7-32 on this laptop with 3G for some years, without
problems; it's only started hitting the limit in the last year or two,
almost entirely due to huge/lazy/nosy scripts on webpages (running
something that deactivates other than the current tab after a definable
time mostly solves that).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

so that the vendors can "serve you better". As if you were a tennis ball, I
guess. - Wolf K, in alt.windows7.general, 2014-7-21

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:44:03 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 1/31/2022 2:50 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop, slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy, and wearing out the drive.
>
> It doesn't necessarily swap.
>
> At one time, there was a process called "Memory Compressor"
> that helped out.
>
> But they've changed that, by the looks of it, because
> yesterday when I tested, the machine was busy but there
> was no sign of the Memory Compressor.

In my Windows 10 task manager, it says 22.3 GB RAM in use, 479 MB compressed. So not very much of it. But then I'm pretty much using it flat out. It probably only compresses what it's not using much, or if it runs low on free RAM, like it does with a pagefile.

> Part of the reason for that, is they were toying with the
> idea of "encrypted memory", but I don't know what the
> disposition of that feature is right now. If they mixed the
> two features, they might have to decrypt, then compress, then
> re-encrypt or something. Which is still possible.
>
> The reason they don't like to swap, is they know that is
> bad for the customer SSD if they do that. Sinovsky long
> ago, promised they would do things so it wouldn't swap
> like it does in earlier Windows. That's probably where
> the Memory Compressor idea came from, a tradeoff of CPU cycles
> for compacted memory.
>
> One thing I can promise you, is Windows will never be as
> bad as WinXP was at swapping/paging. It was dreadful, and it
> fragmented the pagefile.sys (internal fragmentation, not
> NTFS fragmentation). If you exited a program, it used to take
> 30 seconds to a minute, for the pagefile.sys to stop
> "unwinding".

I have an 8 GB RAM PC with Windows 10 and a rotary drive, and I accidentally ran a program that used all 8GB. It slowed down so much I couldn't access the task manager to abort the program. Pretty stupid OS design. The interface should always have top priority.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:14:55 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft..uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 20:40:41, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:35:11 -0000, Bob Campbell <none@none.none> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why have I not even been offered Windows 11 on 5 of my 7 PCs? I went
>>>> into windows update on all of them and checked for updates.
>>>
>>> Maybe you have just been lucky. It has been “offered” on mine, but they
>>> are all too old, have no TPM and I don’t want 11 anyways.
>>
>> I see no point in sticking to older versions of things.
>
> Conversely, I see no point in getting the latest just because it might
> work - unless I see some obvious advantage to it (and that being
> something I actually want).

Why waste time seeing if you want the new things? Just have them all there. It's free. If I offered to replace your car with a newer version of it, would you say no?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:18:52 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 19:50:55, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
> (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:27:50 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> []
>>> Windows 11 is x64, and not a good candidate for upgrading a Win 10 PC
>>> which is installed as x86 version. Part of the reason for that, is
>>> the 4GB minimum RAM footprint claimed in the requirements (which
>>> is really about 2.8GB or so).
>>
>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put
>> Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the
>> minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop,
>> slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy,
>> and wearing out the drive.
>
> I've been running 7-32 on this laptop with 3G for some years, without
> problems; it's only started hitting the limit in the last year or two,
> almost entirely due to huge/lazy/nosy scripts on webpages (running
> something that deactivates other than the current tab after a definable
> time mostly solves that).

You'd have to use the PC very little to get away with that little memory. I installed windows 7 on a machine with 4GB and before I'd opened any programs it was swapping like crazy.

On 2022 Jan 31, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article <op.1gvn32zkmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:35:41 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
> > (in article <op.1gt7q7ovmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> >
> > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 01:49:00 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2022 Jan 30, Commander Kinsey wrote
> > > > (in article <op.1gt5zbmtmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> > > >
> > > > > So, I only found this out from a pirate website, Microsoft don't bother
> > > > > telling you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your computer will not get a Windows 11 upgrade unless you have enabled
> > > > > TPM
> > > > > (trusted platform module) in your computer's BIOS. Most computers have
> > > > > this
> > > > > switched off.
> > > >
> > > > you’re very late to the party.
> > > >
> > > > 1. MS _does_ tell people. The requirement for a TPM was clear from the
> > > > first
> > > > announcements. MS went so far as to set up a page on their site.
> > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-11-requirements
> > > > and this page was the very first hit in a search for ‘hardware
> > > > requirements
> > > > win 11”. Note the date on the page: 30 Nov 2021. Oh. Wait.
> > > > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-system-requirements
> > > > is
> > > > the 3rd hit in that search. That page dates from August... The second hit
> > > > also cites the requirement for a TPM, but is undated. All three of the
> > > > first
> > > > 3 hits are from MS. Did you actually do a search?
> > >
> > > Why would I do that?
> >
> > so that you could find out information about the OS prior to doing an
> > update.
>
> Uh, I just press "install" when one appears. I don't research them.

that’s a bad idea. In the past MS OS updates have broken hardware,
including but not limited to printers, scanners, assorted USB devices
including cell data network cards, 802.11 wireless cards, and Ethernet cards
(you may be detecting a theme...) and video cards. And, in one memorable
instance, sound cards. Just installing runs the risk of hardware not working.
MS OS updates have also broken software, including software from Adobe,
Quark, and even MS themselves. This especially applies to installers;
notoriously MS Office 2003 worked on Win 8 and up, but its installer had
problems.
>
>
> > > I was waiting for it to appear in Windows Update. I have
> > > 7 PCs. I've only seen it mentioned on the 2 oldest ones, which said "not
> > > compatible" - not sure if that's the TPM or because they're old.
> >
> > probably part of the other hardware requirements, which you’d know about
> > if
> > you looked. Odds are that they have CPUs older than 8th gen. Machines with
> > CPUs older than 8th gen won’t install Win 11... unless you pull a trick.
> > All of my WinBoxes have CPUs which are too old. I could force the install,
> > but I won’t be installing an OS onto unsupported hardware.
>
> No idea what "8th gen" refers to. I have a Ryzen 9 3900XT, an i5 8600K, and 5
> very old things.

8th gen is the year that CPU was introduced. The i5 8600K is 8th gen, you can
tell because its name starts with 8. A 8600K will probably be able to run Win
11, if the other hardware requirements (TPM 2, enough RAM, enough disk/SSD,
good enough video) are met. AMD doesn’t make things quite as easy to tell;
I think that a Ryzen 3900XT is 3rd gen, but Win 11 wants 4th gen so that one
may not work.
>
>
> > > > 2. It’s not the TPM that’s the problem; my main WinBox has a TPM, but
> > > > won’t run Win 11 because it has TPM 1.2 and Win 11 requires TPM 2.0 or
> > > > later. (Yes, I know, there’s a way around that requirement. I don’t
> > > > feel
> > > > like forcing installation of an OS, of all things, onto unsupported
> > > > hardware.)
> > >
> > > Does the way around involve buying a TPM chip?
> >
> > that’s one way.
>
> Not spending money just to get 11.

me either.
>
>
> > There’s also a way to play with the BIOS. And a way to
> > edit the installer script so that it doesn’t look for TPM 2.0. And
> > probably
> > other methods. There are a _lot_ of idiots who absolutely, positively, MUST
> > run Win 11 and will go to considerable lengths to get past any roadblocks MS
> > puts in the way. Me, I say that my WinBoxes will stay with 10, or earlier,
> > until they stop working. Unless I just reformat them and slap Ubuntu on
> > them.
>
> I would like 11 as long as it doesn't fuck something up. If it's just a
> matter of stopping it checking, and the OS will run ok with no TPM, then I'll
> do that.

it’ll install. it’s not supported, so it might not get updates, and it
might stop working for any reason or no reason at all, with or without
warning. And if you complain to MS, they’ll point out that you installed on
unsupported hardware.

I’m not going to install an OS onto unsupported hardware.
>
>
> In fact the older machines only run one program with no important data (it's
> all held on servers), so I can break something without much headache.

i’d be careful.
>
>
> > > If not, let me know what I can
> > > do. One of my PCs is old enough to use DDR2.
> > >
> > > > 3. Having the TPM turned on is very common in the corporate world. And
> > > > with
> > > > those who want to run BitLocker encryption. If you don’t have TPM 1.2 or
> > > > later, running BitLocker becomes... annoying.
> > >
> > > But most people have home machines
> >
> > lots of gamers use systems which need TPMs.
>
> Games don't need TPM!

the DRM for some of them does.
>
>
> > And there are a _lot_ of corp
> > machines. An awful lot of ‘education’ systems have TPMs, as well. Odds
> > are excellent that the majority of WinBoxes have TPMs on.
>
> Why would you get TPM for education?

When you’re the network admin for a school with a few hundred or a few
thousand machines, you want all the leverage you can get. Your typical urban
high school will have hundreds of computers; your typical community college
will have thousands. (Miami-Dade College is the largest higher-ed school in
the US; prior to the pandemic it had over 174,000, that’s One Hundred and
Seventy Four Thousand, students, and a Whole Lot of staff.) MS sells an
Education edition of Windows; it’s basically Enterprise, slightly cheaper,
for schools. And like Enterprise, it likes TPMs. Machines intended for the
‘education’ market are aimed at the same basic spec as machines aimed for
the ‘corporate’ market; high-school and earlier being at the low end.

I have Pro or Education editions of Windows on my non-server WinBoxes at
home. And, yes, I do have Active Directory servers. Education editions,
naturally. I’ve got Pro or Enterprise at the office, mostly Enterprise.

There are a _lot_ of ‘education’ machines with TPMs.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 21:30:43, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:18:52 -0000, J. P. Gilliver (John)
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 19:50:55, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
>> (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>>> Christ, my computers aren't that old. And I would never even put
>>> Windows 7 on 4GB machine. 4GB machines go in the bin. Using the
>>> minimum requirement means you've got the disk swapping non-stop,
>>> slowing the computer down by a factor of a billion, driving you crazy,
>>> and wearing out the drive.
>>
>> I've been running 7-32 on this laptop with 3G for some years, without
>> problems; it's only started hitting the limit in the last year or two,
>> almost entirely due to huge/lazy/nosy scripts on webpages (running
>> something that deactivates other than the current tab after a definable
>> time mostly solves that).
>
>You'd have to use the PC very little to get away with that little
>memory. I installed windows 7 on a machine with 4GB and before I'd
>opened any programs it was swapping like crazy.

It's my main computer; OK, I rarely process video, but I have two
browsers open, each with some tens of tabs, a mail/news client, and I
not infrequently process audio, and edit a 100-page document with
pictures (not at the same time) - so, basically, horses for courses.

I don't know if 7-32 is slightly less resource-hungry than 7-64.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

so that the vendors can "serve you better". As if you were a tennis ball, I
guess. - Wolf K, in alt.windows7.general, 2014-7-21