...how many of those machines have a deliberately disabled TPM to prevent the upgrade from taking place.

At least 3 as far as I know.

And their point?

Like others I have refused it. The PCs I have are (mostly) working just fine. I don't need another great upheaval and "new improved (shite)" user interface to help me do things.

It is no surprise that so many are not fit for Windows 11. If does not bring any benefits to most people and a world of pain.

Why would you ditch perfectly good hardware? This is the argument that was at the top of the list when the requirements for Windows 11 first became known.

Creating landfill due to shoddy software is insane and not just an affliction of Microsoft/Windows.....

It's turned off on mine because:

Ubuntu on primary nvme,

windows 10 on secondary nvme for World of Warships, some Steam games which don't like proton and a couple of MS Store games. Temporary until I get gpu pass through working in kvm/Xen....

I got 2 systems fully capable of Windows 11 which are staying put on Windows 10 for the forseeable future.

I don't see the benefits of Windows 11 worth the time for me to backup everything and do a full fresh install. I don't bother with upgrades, I rather do a full install to remove all the cruft.

Win11 is a waste of time purely from the standpoint that it doesn't seem to offer anything worthwhile. I've got Win11, it works, it games and i can code on it but I see not really advantage day-to-day over Win10. I'm sure under the covers there's patches here and there, a few features and MS have continued the irritating thing of hiding more useful dialogues under a heap of simplistic kludge, however when it comes down to it the only people winning are MS shareholers. I'm lucky as I got my Win11 off MSDN, so someone else footed my upgrade bill, others not so lucky.

The point is not for you. It is for Microsoft. If people are not giving enough money to Microsoft, something will be taken from Windows 10 to prod them in the required direction.

The one feature in Windows 11 that I might find useful is running Linux GUI applications under WSL2 in the Windows desktop as if they were Windows applications.

Other than that, the one time I had to use Windows 11 was an unimaginably awful experience.

I run Linux GUI apps daily. Not gonna get a new and expensive Win11 box to do that when my 7 year old ThinkPad does it faster and better without Win11 and a copy of my go to Linux distro........

My other daily driver is an even older HP EliteBook portable workstation. Came with Win10, won't go to Win11. And again, I'll not be replacing this second user clunker just for Win11.

I replace my (generally) second user hardware when it no longer lights up. Not when M$ says.

That, in the light of this fairly unsubtle shakedown by Micro$oft, businesses have still not switched to Linux.

They look like frightened rabbits frozen in the middle of the road looking at the approaching headlights and wondering what to do.

Now is the time for a major ad campaign, touting the advantages of other operating systems, that unlike Microsoft, just work... For far less money, updates and all.

Knock MS market share down a couple of pegs, or more. Yeah, I know complacency is hard to overcome, but for each conversion, makes the next a bit easier.

It's not in anyones interest to run such an ad, other than those with a grudge and no money (me included). All those involved in shifting computer kit make money by promoting MS. No money to be made promoting "free stuff" so it won't happen.

Many businesses will have blocked the update as they will do it when they are ready,

Many consumers don't have the compatible hardware yet so will get Win11 with their next new device.,

A small proportion of techies aware of the situation have blocked the update.

The operating system is only a small part of the the puzzle.

It is that minor but hugely significant detail that is why so many businesses have not switched to Linux. Just not paying for a Microsoft Windows license is a pittance. There is everything else that is tied in, Office 365 being the notable whammy.

What appears obvious to highly skilled people posting here is not representative of the real world.

Retail users of computers simply will not bother with Linux as it is seen as too difficult and a pain in the arse. If computers were sold with Linux installed along with an Office application people might start to switch on price however most people go with what they know. If they know Linux then they are in the minority and can sort it out already.

From a business perspective what other options are there that offer what Microsoft can?

Google Workspace on Chrome but I am not sure that is really much of an improvement.

Windows 2000 was reliable and fast and it was quite pleasurable to use. It didn't get in my way very much. I didn't have any security problems with it (though I know others who did). My Windows rating: 9/10, nearly 10/10.

Windows XP. Initially I had some problems with it. Later I had no problems at all. It got in the way a little bit but not very much. My rating: 9/10.

Windows Vista. Didn't use it. Saw some other people struggling with resource requirements. Probably a bit ahead of the typical PC of the time.

Windows 7. Considerably heavier on resource requirements. Why the hell does it use that much memory as soon as I start it up and am not yet running any apps? But pretty reliable. Not anywhere near as snappy as Win2k, which is my gold standard for judging Windows. 7/10.

Windows 8. Didn't use it. Saw it in the shops and played with it for a couple of minutes. Immediately hated the tiles and knew this crap was not for me. My rating 3/10 (biased opinion based on about 5 minutes of use).

Windows 10. Why does this thing need so much resources? I am only trying to run a few apps. Other than that it was/is pretty stable. 6/10.

Windows 11. Haven't used it. I've seen the requirements and can't be bothered to have a slow arse experience just to run the latest Windows.

I guess the point of this tome is that Windows seem to have become crap++ since Win2k, a little bit at first with XP (which was actually not bad), but it went down the crapper completely after Windows 7. Why is this? What is going on at Microsoft? Do they hate their customers? Why inflict this effed up repugnant sh*t (thanks Jules) on people?

You say it was always crap then give 2K 10/10 ... doh!

In general, early to mid-term adopters usually found resource/performance problems as that was always the Wintel yo-yo model of software driving hardware upgrades to get reasonable performance.

What is interesting is that we hit the buffers - a 5-7 year old machine can run most of the stuff users want to run pretty well so, to push more hardware, MS had to invent artificial barriers to os upgrade that require hardware upgrades but are not reliant on perceived performance hikes. Win 11 is a just a failed cash machine.

A great many people would run Win7 with security updates and be happy but that doesn't make Wintel money ...

I'm still working daily on a Lenovo ThinkPad running Window 7 because it's easy to work with and doesn't stall everything to "upgrade" by adding new bugs. But this morning I found that a new Microsoft Bluetooth mouse will not work with it. Essentially these days it seems that Microsoft does not support its users, it's just busy making everyone buy new hardware and trash their original hardware.

The history of evolution suggests that Microsoft is no longer a "farmer" and has now become a "hunter-gatherer" - we're all just Microsoft's lunch these days.

It's always crappier because ElReg commenters aren't the market they're targeting.

Average users want the handholding that each new version provides. They are consumers, not producers.

Of course Windows 2000 was half decent on the desktop - it was a pared-down server OS. Most home users at the time were being encouraged to use Windows ME, which was awful.

...would you want to? Win11 may be slightly less eye-bleedingly ugly than Win10, but it's a bug-ridden mess. There are some quite serious bugs in the initial setup wizard that can make it take 2-3 attempts to even setup a new machine and get to a usable desktop. This has bitten us a few times recently, with brand new factory-fresh machines. Never had any such issues with Win10, hideously ugly though it was.

This page has been left intentionally blank.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Hardware requirements? That'll be the same fictitious hardware requirements that can be relatively easily averted?

Windows 11 is nothing more than an annoying marketing gimmick to try and force hardware churn for no benefit to the end user whatsoever. There is nothing in it that shouldn't be there as part of a regular update to Windows 10.

I think I speak for most MSP's when I say, we'd be a damn site keener to roll out and deploy/upgrade to Win11 if it didn't still feel like it was in public beta....

Windows 10 was meant to be the 'last version of Windows'?

I don't think Win 10 or even 11 is ugly. But then I don't much care what it looks like- I see programmes and a desktop. The programmes look how their publishers make them.

The desktop is my background with my icons ( I do wish they'd fix the recycle bin refresh bug though, so that I don't have to amend the registry each time I change the icons).

I'm more bothered with practicalities. Each successive version of Windows has made it more difficult for me to change and organise.

I do not want a start menu made up of an alphabetic list of programme names and other crap that the software publisher sees fit to throw into it. I don't even remember the names of some of the programmes-or what they do when I see the names. I want my software grouped by function so that if I need a programme that does something I can look in the right start menu folder, e.g. Graphics for an icon editor. I've nothing against calling a programme "Greenfish" - but it's hardly a helpful name when I need to use it in 18 months time and have to remember what it's called. Or Wise if I want to find my programme to set my PC to turn off in a couple of hours.

And so on

Sticking to 10 as long as I can. Hopefully they will extend it past 2025.

Disable Secure Boot - Windows 10 does not care but Windows 11 requires it and will not install if it is disabled.

We have 8000+ Windows devices & we are not even looking at Windows 11 yet.

Most, if not all of the PCs and Laptops have a TPM and can be upgraded but with support running until Oct 2025 why would we bother? It's a PITA for very little benefit so I imagine the project will be looked at in the first quarter of 2025.

Personally, I upgraded one at home to Windows 11, there is functionally very little difference so haven't bothered with any others.

Here for the two types of comment

1. Ongwtflol micro$haft0r

2. Linux

Almost all of the Windows machines around here are Win10 or earlier, in some cases much earlier, as there are XP machines for talking to very expensive hardware which still works but which isn't supported by versions of Windows beyond XP. We are in the process of moving all of our users to Mac and Linux, mostly Mac, as almost all of our required apps (other than the ancient stuff for talking to the above-noted ancient hardware) is available on Mac but not on Linux. We have some custom software; it is being rewritten for Mac and Linux. We have a very few Win11 machines, mostly because certain senior people are MS fanbois. Every time there's a problem with a Win11 system that isn't a problem with Win10, or there's a problem with a Windows system which isn't a problem with Mac or Linux, it's carefully documented, as is what it takes (money, time, effort, whatever) to fix it. Yes, there are problems with Mac or with Linux systems that aren't on Windows... it's just that they're documented, too, and there are a _lot_ fewer of them. There have been more problems with the tiny number of Win11 systems, all brought in despite my objections, in writing, in the last year than with all Mac and Linux systems, combined, notably including problems printing. The Windows fanbois tried to paint the Macs as expensive toys and the Linux boxes as useless paperweights... except that the expensive toys still work, and work for _years_, and the paperweights can do most of the work that the Windows boxes can, only faster and cheaper. The total cost of ownership of both Macs and Linux systems is demonstrably lower than the TCO of Windows systems, at least around here. Even if the Macs cost more to buy, they last longer and require less support, and I can prove it with actual numbers. MS is continually pushing Office; iWork and LibreOffice are free, and can do most of what we need Office for. Free is hard to beat, and a major reason for the lower TCO, you wouldn't believe what the Microsoft365 bill for a few thousand users is, even if we take all possible discounts.

We will be running Win10 until the last Win10 machines die. We will be running Win 7 and XP until the 3rd-party hardware and software which requires them die. We will not care if Win10 goes out of support, any more than we care that XP and Win7 are out of support. New machines will be either Win10, as necessary, or Mac or Linux. And we don't plan on buying many new Win10 boxes.

We have extensive experience keeping older, no longer supported, boxes off the Internet and in keeping items such as USB drives away (there are tools in the BIOS to turn USB and other ports off; use them, and if all else fails there's always a little epoxy, that always works) so that malware attacks are difficult. Yes, we can still be hit by malware, but Windows always was more vulnerable than Macs or Linux, so it's just more of the same, and the vast majority of Windows malware can't touch Macs or Linux, so the fact that we're gradually winding Windows down means that there will be fewer targets.

We will not be moving to Windows 11. Not now. Not ever.

Where do I buy one of these PCs that won't run windows 11?