I don't think Microsoft would want to make that same mistake again. I would expect Microsoft start pushing Windows 11 automatically through Windows Update for anyone on Windows 10, or at least start pushing heavily through popups/notifications to start the update like they did with Windows 10.
That wouldn’t work if the person’s computer doesn’t support Windows 11, though, which is the entire argument the blog post is making. That because windows 11 won’t work people will just throw away their computers and create more electronic waste.
I think at the end of the day, they are happier with an illegitimate Windows user, than a non-Windows user. They'll nag, push, try everything to annoy, but they won't lock you out completely, because that could mean losing you for good.
Of course, I can only infer this from their past behavior.
Remember all the talk about "Windows as a service"?
Given what's happened so far, I fully expect them to try something like that at some point. "We only offer subscriptions of the latest version, and your current hardware doesn't meet our minimum requirements, so you'll have to replace it to continue using Windows." Maybe it'll trigger a mass exodus to Linux --- or perhaps more likely, back to older and cracked pre-subscription versions of Windows.
A similar scenario is not impossible. Somehow it has become acceptable to use a always-online workflows. There are complete lines of products that won't work at all if you're not online, and some will switch off after a certain time (like Adobe). There is an enormous push in that direction from all industries. People give in without any resistance. It's become normal and acceptable that pieces of code on all your devices connect to different services and send data you have no idea about. If an app stops working because you lose the internet connection, somehow it's not the problem of the app but yours. So I can imagine a scenario similar to the one you describe in a decade or two.
By cutting off at 8th Gen and TPM 1.2+2.0, they’re cutting off a lot of current and high end systems built by enthusiasts, while supporting far slower and inferior PCs.
That’s the problem. No one’s arguing they’re chasing off cheap Celeron, they’re trying to get rid of even some Threadrippers and multi-socket setups, that could have 128GB or more of RAM, for “performance”.
So, what's in those generations that might actually matter to Microsoft? As you say, it's unlikely to be about performance. Is it some instruction set, or feature flags? It's unlikely to be about virtualization capabilities, as Intel still happily sells the newest chips "differentiated" to be virtually challenged. Did those generations introduce some crypto algorithm/primitive that Microsoft doesn't want to go without? A new system management mode? On-die microphone?
Intel sales is desperate to stop brand loyalty vanishing, processors losing relevance, while Microsoft is trying to recuperate costs on cancelled Windows 10X code. Those are suspicions I have.
The “only the latest Intel enable $use_case” cliche is their default marketing narrative. Microsoft or AMD or NVIDIA normally don’t do that.
This is not the Windows Logo program, which is intended for OEMs.
There do not need to be any CPUID checks to exclude processors; just a random update will not work and Microsoft will shrug it off, well, that CPU is not on the supported list anyway.
> I don't think Microsoft would want to make that same mistake again.
The mistake of not pushing it? I still remember the uproar when people needed to Google how to say "no" to the upgrade dialog - if it did not simply install without asking, that is. I honestly can't see how they would push Windows 11 any harder.
