Updates regarding pre-TPM hardware are ongoing beyond October.
Updates regarding pre-TPM hardware are ongoing beyond October.
I possess three pre-TPM PCs from the 6000 and 7000 Intel lines that function smoothly with W11 Pro. They also received a 24H2 upgrade recently. Everything appears to be operating correctly. There was once a rumor suggesting Microsoft might remove the TPM requirement, but their official position remains unchanged—supporting only non-TPM hardware on W11 and leaving users to handle upgrades independently. Of course, they must acknowledge that. Will they eventually cease pushing updates for ineligible machines? I recognize they can easily reverse our workarounds with a single update. The question is whether they will. Based on past EOL situations, Microsoft has generally been lenient, even releasing security patches for outdated OS versions when necessary. They preferred avoiding a large group of compromised systems to disrupt users. My hope is they will extend their support this time and simply apply updates to the pre-TPM models as they do for official ones. I’m mainly focused on security updates—patches and defender tools. I’m already planning to transition to Linux for those three older machines. Currently, one runs Linux, another uses a dual-boot of W11 and Linux, and the third is still solely W11. I just want to know if accelerating the process would be wise. (My two primary workstations remain on W11 with modern specs.)
Intel 6 and 7th generation models should include a TPM integrated into the processor, which might require enabling it via the BIOS. Expect problems with annual feature updates, possibly needing to skip certain checks again.
MS has always acted with practicality: XP and 7 often released security patches even when major exploits emerged, since leaving millions of unpatched devices online could cause more harm than good. On Windows 11, non-eligible pre-TPM hardware that was forced to install still gets updates like cumulative and Defender patches, including the 24H2 rollout. The main concern isn’t updates being blocked, but a future release possibly breaking the workaround. If you’re focused solely on security, it’s likely they’ll keep providing updates to prevent old Win11 systems from becoming botnet targets. Still, switching to Linux sooner remains the safer long-term choice. Security fixes will stay consistent for years, with no uncertainty about Microsoft’s policies. So: you’re safe with 11 now, but accelerating migration is wise if you’re not relying on those machines.
There is always the risk that Microsoft will intentionally break compatibility with older CPUs. They have the right to, as an unsupported CPU is, well, unsupported. With that said, I have a feeling that they wouldn't be so blatant about things as to release an update where all it does is make Windows fail to work on older CPUs. I don't think they'd want to risk PR damage or even a potential lawsuit from doing something that could be argued to be directly malicious. However, one of the reasons that Microsoft gave for their decision to only support 8th gen Intel/2nd gen Ryzen and newer was to allow them to move towards modern platform features. If they decide to do that, it could end up breaking compatibility with old CPUs in ways that are easier to justify. For example, they could release updates that make fundamental parts of the OS start using AVX2 instructions, since 4th gen Intel and all AM4 CPUs (including the Excavator core APUs) support AVX2. Doing that would break compatibility for all Steamroller and older AMD chips, along with anything Ivy Bridge or older from Intel. And depending on what parts of the OS used such instructions, it might be difficult or even impossible to circumvent such a change. Now, that specific example actually wouldn't impact you, with 6th/7th gen chips. And, frankly, as long as anything 8th, 9th, or 10th gen is supported, it's unlikely that such a software change could impact 6th or 7th gen, because all of them are on fundamentally the same architecture with only minor improvements. But theoretically, Microsoft could have a plausible justification for an update to break compatibility. It just wouldn't be due to using certain instruction sets. There is no guarantee that something like that will happen, but there's also no reason why it couldn't happen. Microsoft said they want to modernize their OS, so my guess is that something like this will eventually occur. It might happen later this year. It might not happen until Windows 12 comes out. But something like it could happen, so if you plan to go to Linux anyway, you may as well get it over with so you can do it at your own pace, rather than having it forced on you out of the blue.
If there is an actual improvement to W11 that requires modern instruction sets, I would actually be OK with them stopping support. We don't want to stop improvement to a billion PCs just to be compatible with a few thousand old PCs. The exact name escapes me, but W11 already broke compatibility with very old CPU (Like15+ years old) due to some missing CPU feature (instruction set?). And that is fine, that is really old hardware. I think i will keep at least one of the old PCs on W11 for now to see if it gets 25H2. I also think one of the three old PCs may die over the next years anyway. If MS keeps supporting W11 on older PCs regardless, I think they committed a huge marketing blunder. If they (stealthily) provide at least security updates to older PC, they should announce so. Like "we provide security updates till 2030" or similar. By that time those PCs will be really old. The last three years they basically provided Linux marketing (I realize, 99% of people saying they switch to Linux because of W11 will buy a new PC with W11 pre-installed). I had some hiccups on my Linux test PC to get everything working like on W11. Like i needed to access a shared Windows folder from another PC. and also needed to make sure the remote software for work works well on two monitors etc. but all seems resolved and I'm ready to move forward. So far i use Debian 13 KDE and really like it. but it is a bit harder to set up. I also installed MX Linux (basically Debian, but with more user-friendliness). i love that. But it still is based on Debian 12. I wanted to wait for MX Linux 25 (based on Debian 13) before installing that. I also wanted to see if Linux Mint Debian Edition 7 will improve on fractional scaling (current Mint doesn't do that well). So, i hope by mid-October i can switch over regardless. It is like MS gave me a kick in the butt to get me motivated to move away. This MS scare tactics didn't move me to buy a new PC as they hoped, it moved me to Linux
It looks like you've already tackled the toughest challenges—installing remote software, dual monitors, and Samba shares. Once Debian KDE is set up, it performs reliably. While MX feels more seamless right out of the box, I understand why MX seems smoother by default. If you're considering Linux Mint Debian Edition 7, it should manage fractional scaling better after Cinnamon updates, though KDE still edges out in that area. For a balanced option before mid-October, Fedora KDE or Pop!_OS with COSMIC in beta are solid choices: they offer decent scaling with less manual work than pure Debian. Regardless of the path, your success shows MS’s tactics can sometimes push users toward Linux instead of new hardware.
This might seem like a Windows vibe, but fractional scaling was common on W10 for years. Sharing and mounting folders just worked smoothly in Windows. I’m quite satisfied with setting up Linux to fit my requirements. However, the process felt more complicated than necessary, which makes me realize that some users stick with Windows 11. Many people assume you can run Linux without a terminal, but once you need advanced features, everyone mentions terminal commands. It seems those commands often depend heavily on the Linux version. I experimented with Fedora 42 KDE, but it didn’t integrate well with RPM packages. I also disliked having to search for repositories constantly. The software we rely on isn’t available as flatpacks or in repositories. I tried OpenSuse TW, but it couldn’t handle remote software via RPM at all and was generally buggy. I noticed issues with Ubuntu’s snap packages and the overall experience. Kubuntu ran very slowly. My Mint 22.1 installation failed completely on one machine, and LMDE crashed after setup (I had to switch PCs). All KDE distros worked well with my hardware. This made me question Mint. I also dislike the GNOME interface entirely, which rules out many options for beginners. To avoid getting overwhelmed by more than a dozen Linux distributions, I chose Debian or its derivatives. LMDE didn’t perform well initially (hoping it would improve with MDE 7), but it’s nice out of the box. Debian is highly efficient and stable, though it assumes you know how to use it. I really like the modern KDE experience! And MX Linux seems like a good choice for everyday users. In about a year, when LMDE 7 and MX Linux 25 are released, I’ll consider trying both. Perhaps I’ll stick with one and be confident in its simplicity.
It looks like you've already tackled the distro-hopping challenge. Based on your experience with KDE and Debian, your choices seem well thought out: Debian KDE offers stability with minimal issues, MX Linux provides a more user-friendly experience, and LMDE is a solid option to revisit once v7 arrives. For performance, sticking to one Debian-based KDE setup makes sense—MX for smoother daily use or Debian KDE if you prefer full control. Combining them can work but may spread your focus. If you want modern UI polish and scalability, KDE Plasma 6 in the upcoming MX 25 or LMDE 7 versions could deliver a Windows-like feel. Waiting a bit longer might bring improvements that justify the wait.
If efficiency was the goal, I’d keep using Windows A for work and switch to W11 for my home desk tasks for a long time. It’s important to remain updated on W11 as well. After setup, it should handle everything smoothly without extra effort. These machines are mainly for streaming YT, Netflix, and syncing. Only if a W11 desktop fails would I need to rely on Linux for remote access until the issue is resolved. That’s why I’m focused on ensuring remote software functions flawlessly. Using Debian-stable (or similar) means minimal changes over time. You can’t make something perfect! (This is what bothers me about W11…I don’t want to install new updates just to fix bloatware, and I don’t want to sign up or create an account.) I expect future configurations will be simpler now that I understand the process. And after Debian, things should become even easier. I’ve saved notes on post-install steps, which are less time-consuming than unloading bloatware from Windows after installation. The idea is to explore all three distros so I can stay informed and help others decide what works best long-term. I’m hoping LMDE 7 will improve its scaling capabilities. It’s a beginner-friendly distro, but with many users using high-resolution displays today, it’s tricky to recommend unless you’re certain about compatibility.
It makes perfect sense if W11 remains essential for your job. Keeping it as your primary system is wise, while treating Linux as a secondary or backup option works well. Running tests on Debian, MX, and LMDE in parallel helps identify which offers the smoothest experience long-term. Since you’re familiar with Debian, MX will likely feel similar but simpler in practice, while LMDE could improve its performance once v7 rolls out. I recommend sticking to Windows for productivity. Use MX or LMDE only as a fallback or for personal projects. Reassess when KDE Plasma 6 reaches maturity across different distros, as that’s when scaling and interface quality should match Windows. This approach prevents endless distro-hopping while keeping you prepared for quick transitions.