Windows 10 support ending 2025

[james_s]

Sounds all too typical unfortunately, they always seem to try to copy all the annoying aspects of the Mac and miss the reasons people like Macs in the first place.

Local account is mandatory for me, I absolutely refuse to link my PC to an online account. It must be able to function as a standalone device away from any internet connection.

[SiliconWizard]

They don't just want to force online accounts. Apparently they also force OneDrive down your throat now.

[DrG]

Anyway, from what I got:
- MS should be announcing the next Windows on June 24th.
-

Yea https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/tech/windows-11-microsoft-event/index.html

Does this mean I have to retire my XP machine? (and eff *ux too)

[olkipukki]

"Windows 11 Will Run Android Apps From Amazon Appstore" 

Where all of these ideas came from?   

[eti]

It will sneak up on you faster than you think.  Once the new version is available, Microsoft will be actively making your life miserable long before 2025.

https://www.cnet.com/news/windows-10-support-is-ending-in-2025/

I'm a bit worn out with switching versions of Windows.  I think this means I have 4 years to get used to Linux.

They already have, WITH Windows 10. Btw, Windows 11 is imminent, having been officially announced today. I know very little apart from what I've played with for half hr on the leaked build, and it's very nice - can't be any WORSE than the train wreck which is Win10!

[rsjsouza]

Bah, typical of them. Keeping a promise for a few years is ok - forever is a whole other story.

Windows 10 is a shitshow in several fronts regarding sharing your crap with the world, but that is how they roll from now on. 100% sure that Win 11 will keep the trend. Oh well...

[DEV001]

Microsoft announced back in 2015 stating it would be ~10 years.
https://www.ghacks.net/2015/07/20/microsoft-to-support-windows-10-until-at-least-2025/

If you have access to the LTSC edition, it is supported a few years longer. I recommend using the server versions as a workstation OS as you get the core OS without all the bloat of the consumer editions. No games pre-installed, No bloatware, no extra services, etc... You start with a base OS and add the specific features or roles you need.

As a developer I have always kept a MSDN subscription as it gives you access to all of their OS/Dev tools going back to DOS. I logged in today and noticed Windows Server 2022 Preview is available for testing.

Support Timeframes:
Windows 10 2019 LTSC
Start date: 2018-11-13
End date: 2029-01-09

Windows 10 Enterprise and Education
Start date: 2015-07-29
End date: 2025-10-14

[SiliconWizard]

Anyway, looks like the leaked version was the real thing. It's Windows 11 indeed, and looks like what has been tested.
https://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-11

There's an app that's supposed to check that your computer will be compatible. The app only supports Win 10 though. So, if like me, you're still on 7 and are curious, it won't work. Now whether, when Win 11 is actually released, you'll be able to upgrade from Win 7, who knows.

What I've seen is that Win 11 will require a TPM 2.0 module, activated in the BIOS. Otherwise, no Win 11. As we'd say in french, "pas de bras, pas de chocolat!".

[Lindley]

What I've seen is that Win 11 will require a TPM 2.0 module, activated in the BIOS. Otherwise, no Win 11. As we'd say in french, "pas de bras, pas de chocolat!".

Indeed,  cannot quiet understand why they are going to block millions of PC users from upgrading to W11.

Surely it would have been better to have TPM as an optional feature, not mandatory ?

Our desktops mobo has a TPM socket but from the little info about them on the manufacturers site, even if we could get a TPM 2.0 module it probably would not work as it seems the Bios is only geared for v1.0 or v1.2  and why would they bother doing a TPM 2  Bios updates for older boards ?

Believe many laptops have the TPM chip built in but again would it and the Bios be to V2.0 standards .

[Monkeh]

What I've seen is that Win 11 will require a TPM 2.0 module, activated in the BIOS. Otherwise, no Win 11. As we'd say in french, "pas de bras, pas de chocolat!".

Indeed,  cannot quiet understand why they are going to block millions of PC users from upgrading to W11.

Because it's as much about selling new PCs as new OSes.

[magic]

It's not the '90s, no one in his right mind would pay for yet another release of Windows. So they make it a free upgrade, and why would they give a damn about locking you out?

Better go buy a new computer and pay the Windows tax on it. Oh, and don't forget to sign up for M$ Cloud, if we are at that.

Windows is dead, I feel sorry for anyone who still has to use that platform in current year and can't get by with XP or 7.

[SiliconWizard]

And you're right, laptops, unless pretty ancient, are much more likely to have a TPM 2.0 module than even reasonably recent desktop computers. So that will favor laptops as well.

Given how they have put the Surface tablets forward during the W11 presentation, I'm pretty sure they want to specifically boost sales for the Surface.

This is not surprising. It's not just about selling hardware IMO. They have been trying to get on the mobile market for a very long time now, with relatively little success overall. They probably want to make the Surface tablet with W11 tailored to it, their way to this market. I'm pretty sure they have aggressive goals getting a significant market share on tablets/hybrid laptops. They have been literally obsessed with the mobile market for more than a decade. Of course this is a major, and growing market to tap into, but they have really struggled so far.

[james_s]

I'd pay for another release of Windows if it was actually better than Windows 7. So far everything they've released since has been worse in a multitude of ways. I'm not paying for a downgrade. The only reason 10 has achieved anywhere near the market share it has is because it was foisted on everyone extremely aggressively. The only people who didn't move over to it are the ones who went way out of their way and actively resisted.

[DEV001]

A workaround for the TPM 2.0 requirement has already been created (via replacing a DLL on the ISO).
https://fossbytes.com/solve-tpm-2-0-error-installing-windows-11-fixed/

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I highly recommend if you use your PC for engineering or development purposes and don't want to deal with all of the BS that comes with the consumer editions to use Windows Server as a desktop. It delivers what you expect Windows to behave like not forcing anything like pre-installed games and so many bloatware services which are attack vectors and UI/Tablet features that no professional user cares about. It isn't perfect but it is a much better and cleaner experience than the consumer versions as they know they can't get away with mucking it up for business customers.

Here is a site that has some info on how to set it up if you haven't used it before.
https://www.windowsworkstation.com/win2016-2019/


Btw, most computers past ~2015 support TPM 2.0 but you have to enable it in the BIOS and a few other things mentioned below.

1) Enable PTT (Intel) or fTPM (AMD) in the BIOS.
2) Verify UEFI mode is enabled.
3) Verify Windows is booting with a GPT partition. If not, use the MBR2GPT utility to fix.
If you run 'Tpm.msc' it should show your TPM status.

[SiliconWizard]

Thanks for mentioning the workaround for TPM. (Not sure I'll ever install Win 11, but that's good to know. But since Win 11 is supposed to ship next fall, MS might decide to make this workaround not work anymore now it is public. Or, they might decide to remove the requirement. Who knows.) Funnily enough, as someone commented on the page you linked, it's pretty funky that MS would release a new OS with hardware requirements that may force more people to upgrade their hardware than with the previous editions, in times of semiconductor shortage and prices skyrocketing. Now of course they may have planned this a long time ago, and may now hope the shortage will be over by fall. Which frankly is something I doubt.

Regarding your suggestion, aren't Windows Server editions pretty expensive?

I remember having done this with Windows 2003 Server. I skipped Windows XP at the time, and went from Windows 2000 to 2003 Server configured as a workstation. That worked very well. But at the time, it was easy to get ahold of Windows 2003 and use it without having to pay the full license. Not sure about recent editions...

[SilverSolder]

+1 for using Server as a workstation, it is probably the most workable solution if you want/need Windows and want to maintain some semblance of control over your computer...

[samnmax]

Oh, and it's currently being called Windows 11, but MS might call it something else in the end.

"Doors"

Sorry couldn't not resist.

Surely it would be Curtains.

Microsoft Doors®
Sadly, there's already a SW with that name, IBM's Rational DOORS, a requirements management tool whose interface is a crime against humanity (I have to suffer it occasionally).

[SiliconWizard]

Ah yes, the DOORS tool.

Anyway. It's funny how the first announcement of EOL for Win 10 triggered some hopes. I even evoked a change of CEOs. A change of OS names.

But in the end, noooooo. Still Windows (that could have been Win 10.1 for all we can see), and still the same nutty CEO obsessed with making users miserable.

[Raj]

It will sneak up on you faster than you think.  Once the new version is available, Microsoft will be actively making your life miserable long before 2025.

https://www.cnet.com/news/windows-10-support-is-ending-in-2025/

I'm a bit worn out with switching versions of Windows.  I think this means I have 4 years to get used to Linux.

We know computers well enough, right?
I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to get a second hand computer from someone who couldn't figure out how to turn on secure boot and TPM on windows 11 compatible machine and chose to sell it instead.
Maybe I'll even be able to get enough hard drives to build my first raid array

[Raj]

Im sure i read somewhere windows 10 was going to be the last windows release and they were just going to continually update it,guess they discovered theirs  no money in that route.

That's why windows 11 is free upgrade. Otherwise there will be lawsuits(false adverts)
Besides, they said, windows 10 is the last one you'll ever NEED, not want. Which is true for even windows 95

Who wants all the windows 11 features anyway...
It's like they really want to try out the windows 8 model again.
They failed with windows 8 because no one used Nokia-windows phones.
Android emulation was possible before windows 11 and no one used it
The default interface is made for touch screens, which again, most windows users don't use.
But it feels like Microsoft has recognised the growing adoption of Android and want a piece of the pie.
Maybe the TPM requirement is there, cause some Android apps need it to

[james_s]

I can think of exactly zero reasons I'd want to run an Android app on Windows. I have an Android tablet floating around here somewhere, the only reason I ever want to use any of the apps it runs is because that's the only thing I can run on it.

[Raj]

I can think of exactly zero reasons I'd want to run an Android app on Windows. I have an Android tablet floating around here somewhere, the only reason I ever want to use any of the apps it runs is because that's the only thing I can run on it.

Developers Developers Developers.
make one app that runs everywhere.
What I fail to understand is, why the heck they can't adopt web apps instead. Most apps are glorified web pages anyway. (the answer is , monetizing a web app is harder, Meanwhile putting an app on app store would mean, a single purchase means permission to install on a single device. Got more phones to install the same app on? buy more licenses)

Also, web apps actually die when you close them, unlike apps that run in background.
They also have less control over hardware.

[SiliconWizard]

I can think of exactly zero reasons I'd want to run an Android app on Windows. I have an Android tablet floating around here somewhere, the only reason I ever want to use any of the apps it runs is because that's the only thing I can run on it.

Ah well, that's right. Some people might want to be able to run Android apps on Windows though. For various reasons. That could include developers indeed.
But, this was already possible. There are a number of Android emulators on the market allowing you to do exactly that. Installing one is a no-brainer for a developer. So certainly developers were not a target here.

Including it for "free" on Windows is probably just yet another attempt to conquer the mobile market and steal market shares from Android. Nothing else.

[james_s]

make one app that runs everywhere.

I don't want one app that runs everywhere. If it runs everywhere then it has to be tailored to the lowest common denominator, a tiny pocket sized device without a real set of input devices and will not be taking advantage of all the features a full-fledged PC offers. It seems they're still obsessing over a one-size-fits-all unified experience which has proven time and again to not work. It always results in the PC side being compromosed to the limitations of a mobile device. I still remember the first time I saw Win8 thinking "wtf is this?!?" The "modern" apps were all full-screen only, it wasn't "windows" at all, it was "window". Absolutely absurd, the people who signed off on that must have been on drugs.

[magic]

They aren't on drugs, they are thousands of people who have solved the problem they were being paid to solve so far and yet need to live off of something.

What would make you pay for yet another release of Windows? As for me, XP was the last version I had ever used.