Would Personal Builds run win-11?

[a1call]

My build does not have a TPM chip. Is there a way to install one a computer you build yourself?
Reminds me of how Microsoft ran Netscape out of business. It's sad since Netscape was behind the whole idea of www and html.

https: //www.cnet . com/how-to/windows-11-compatibility-whynotwin11-pc-health-check-app-and-how-to-tell-if-your-pc-will-work/


https: //github . com/rcmaehl/WhyNotWin11

[scan80269]

Motherboards featuring Intel Skylake/6th gen Core (2015) and later should have support for fTPM (firmware TPM) as a feature of the Intel chipset. fTPM 2.0 should be accepted by Windows 11 the same way as discrete TPM chips (like Infineon). fTPM may be called Intel Platform Trust Technology by the motherboard BIOS, and may not be enabled by default.

If you can find Intel PTT in BIOS setup, it can be easily enabled. Some motherboard manufacturers like ASUS feature TPM pin headers on certain motherboard models to accommodate a small add-in card carrying a discrete TPM chip, and these cards can be found online (eBay, etc.)

If your motherboard is more than 5-6 years old, then there may well be other failures to meet Win11 requirements, such as Secure Boot support, or possibly even UEFI.

[a1call]

Thanks for that,
AMD motherboards have a similar bios setting. That is fixed now.
I still have to figure out Boot-Methid, Disk-Partition and Secure-Boot.
I guess I will wait till it's released.

[mackerel]

fTPM might be included in "recent" platforms however it is up to the mobo manufacturer if they want to expose it. So far for Intel mobos, Asus seems best with my X299 and B560 mobos having that feature. Gigabyte Z490 and Asrock Z370/Z390 do not have that option. It is physical TPM module or nothing. Of course I only have a small sample size so this may not represent the market. Also I currently don't have any AMD boards so no experience there.

I did put the dev channel build on a Kaby Lake laptop. This meets all requirements apart from CPU. Initial impressions are it looks like a re-skinned Win10. I've not dug deeper yet.

[M344587487]

Reskinned, more telemetry, near identical performance to windows 10 in every benchmark I've seen, a major version bump which will leave a chunk of users outdated in the cold over time, what's not to like. I'm expecting the first big difference to be support for intel's upcoming big.LITTLE arch, and going forward further hardware-agnostic progress like better support for running native binaries on ARM. Maybe they'll create a fat binary format like Apple does every arch transition, but make that the new normal as they're trying to straddle architectures permanently.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by M344587487

they're trying to straddle architectures permanently.

We've seen that before, "permanently" being <10 years for nearly any processor type. Intel, Mips, and Alpha, in the original NT with a promise of continuing multiplatform support, later adding PowerPC; dropped all but Intel along the way. Maybe ARM will fare better.

[M344587487]

I can't see x86 or ARM going the way of the dodo any time soon. RiscV should start eating ARM's lunch when it comes to hobbyist and embedded but probably can't do much of a dent to ARM this decade when it comes to general use compute hardware. I don't think x86 can die quickly even if intel went full scorched earth (by that I mean ditch x86 and transition fully to optane, FPGA, etc), AMD would probably slowly stagnate x86 from lack of competition but the market would exist for decades IMO.

[kriesel]

X86_16 is gone, X86_32 is withering, X86_64 seems to be here to stay but the same could have been said of X86_32 20-30 years ago. Similarly, ARM is likely to have flavors that thrive and then fade away and become unsupported. Just an observation and extrapolation.

[scan80269]

Originally Posted by mackerel

fTPM might be included in "recent" platforms however it is up to the mobo manufacturer if they want to expose it. So far for Intel mobos, Asus seems best with my X299 and B560 mobos having that feature. Gigabyte Z490 and Asrock Z370/Z390 do not have that option. It is physical TPM module or nothing. Of course I only have a small sample size so this may not represent the market. Also I currently don't have any AMD boards so no experience there.

I did put the dev channel build on a Kaby Lake laptop. This meets all requirements apart from CPU. Initial impressions are it looks like a re-skinned Win10. I've not dug deeper yet.

I have several ASRock Z370/Z390 mobos, all currently running Prime95, that have TPM 2.0 devices visible in Device Manager under Security devices. Quick runs of tpm.msc reveal the TPM manufacturer as Intel (e.g. Manufacturer Version 303.12.0.0) and not an Infineon discrete TPM chip in each case. For example, ASRock Z370M-ITX/ac, Z390M-ITX/ac, Z390 Phantom Gaming-ITX/ac, Z390M Pro4, ASUS TUF Z390M-PRO GAMING (WI-FI).

I would be surprised if mobo manufacturers of Z370/Z390 boards deliberately avoided exposing the fTPM feature of these Intel chipsets. More likely is that the option to enable/disable this "Intel Platform Trust Technology" feature being deeply buried within the BIOS setup menu hierarchy, and also disabled by default. My gaming enthusiast son could not find this feature in his Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Extreme mobo, until I showed him where to look...

[mackerel]

Originally Posted by scan80269

More likely is that the option to enable/disable this "Intel Platform Trust Technology" feature being deeply buried within the BIOS setup menu hierarchy, and also disabled by default. My gaming enthusiast son could not find this feature in his Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Extreme mobo, until I showed him where to look...

We overlap in a mobo with the Z390M-ITX. I'm pretty sure I didn't see the option in there, but if I overlooked it I would welcome a pointer to where it is. I found an option that only allowed TPM to be enabled/disabled but it seemed to refer to the discrete TPM and not fTPM. I'll have another look shortly... The other Asrock I have is Z370 Pro4. Both on latest bios.

I also have Gigabyte Z490 Elite AC that I can't find that setting in.

Edit: I had another look in the Asrock Z370 board. Now I found a separate setting that enables fTPM. Basically there are two separate toggles on different screens you need to enable for it to be detected. On is general TPM enable/disable. The other is fTPM on/off. I previously only saw the 1st one. I assume it is similar on the other Asrock board I have. Will have to look at Gigabyte separately.

This is different than on Asus boards, where there is a single setting with three states: disabled, fTPM, discrete TPM. That is just a lot nicer.

[M344587487]

Originally Posted by kriesel

X86_16 is gone, X86_32 is withering, X86_64 seems to be here to stay but the same could have been said of X86_32 20-30 years ago. Similarly, ARM is likely to have flavors that thrive and then fade away and become unsupported. Just an observation and extrapolation.

AFAIK 16 and 32 bit were iterated to higher bit levels mostly to overcome outgrowing their address spaces, x86_64 does not have that problem. It can (and has) also be extended up the wazoo to adapt to the times, if anything it's the extensions that may thrive and fade over time.



32 bit ARM is pretty much gone when it comes to consumer devices, aside from bottom-of-the-barrel tat it's all 64 bit v8 and has been for many years. Users of ARM should eventually migrate to v9 designs over v8 designs, but v9 appears to be mostly v8 with some non-optional extensions like SVE2 which are mostly relevant to compute, so v8 especially for consumers may be actively produced for a long time. v8 and v9 share the base AArch64 instruction set so there's good reason to suspect that support for v9 can be handled as an extension of support for v8 anyway.


Things will change, but in <10 years? I think the difference between failed (WRT consumer) architectures of the past and now is that x86_64 and ARM are both well established each with massive user bases. If MS drop support of either it won't be because the user base has dried up.