Few topics in modern IT provoke as much debate, suspicion, and outright anxiety as Microsoft’s upgrade cycle for its flagship operating system. With each significant transition, legions of users—corporate, consumer, and enthusiast alike—face the pressing question: will their trusted device survive the next version of Windows, or be unceremoniously cast aside? The transition from Windows 10 to Windows 11 set off alarm bells by enforcing strict hardware requirements, notably mandating a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 2.0 and relatively recent CPUs. Now, with Windows 12 looming and new Copilot+ PCs entering the market, the stakes are rising once again. Are these requirements truly about security and innovation—or is something more complex, perhaps even contentious, underlying the evolving upgrade playbook?
The architecture of Windows 11 established a new normal by walling off older hardware, despite its continued functional viability. Microsoft’s rationale, echoed by retired software engineer and former Windows insider Dave Plummer, circles around “raising the security baseline”—using technologies like TPM 2.0 to protect users from sophisticated cyber threats. Plummer notes, not without historical resonance, that this isn’t the first time Microsoft has ended support for a generation of PCs in pursuit of security and modern software compatibility. Still, he highlights a critical distinction: “Many of the PCs excluded by the TPM and CPU requirements are not necessarily old or underpowered; they simply lack a specific relatively recent security chip or a sufficiently new processor architecture.”
Rather than a gentle sunset, the move feels more like a hard gate, carving out a substantial swathe of otherwise-capable hardware. This isn't just about security; it's about shifting the platform—and perhaps, says Plummer, about nudging users towards newer hardware ecosystems especially as Microsoft’s business model pivots sharply towards cloud, subscription services, and now, AI-powered experiences with Copilot+ PCs.
This raises uncomfortable questions. Will Windows 12 (or whatever the next major release is called) require not just a TPM, but also specialized AI hardware—making even newly-purchased, non-AI PCs obsolete in record time?
This enforced obsolescence has not gone unchallenged. Watchdog organizations such as the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) have rung the alarm over the environmental cost: millions of perfectly usable PCs prematurely destined for landfills because they can’t install a new OS. The consequences of such policies for e-waste are, in PIRG’s words, “epic.”
This is not mere nostalgia. The growing tendency to gate key features behind new hardware enables not just technical advancement, but also increased control over the upgrade cadence, often for reasons extending far beyond cybersecurity. As Windows 11’s requirements made clear, many of the excluded devices easily meet the performance bar for everyday productivity. What they lack is compliance with Microsoft's latest initiative, whether it’s device security or AI acceleration.
This is a significant philosophical shift. When innovations are truly essential, users and enterprises have been willing to pay—think SSDs for Windows 7-era machines, or memory upgrades for Windows 10. Forcing obsolescence based not on capability but on arbitrary gates smacks of planned obsolescence—a critique that’s difficult to rebut as the list of unsupported, still-capable machines grows.
PIRG and other advocacy groups have demanded that Microsoft, and the broader industry, do more to decouple support policies from arbitrary hardware restrictions, or at least provide alternatives for users not interested in or unable to access the full array of new features. As the average lifespan of a PC shrinks from six or seven years to perhaps three or four for some use cases, the supply chain and recycling industries face growing strain. Given the energy and raw materials involved, the environmental rationale for more gradual, user-controlled upgrades is compelling.
Yet Microsoft appears determined to gamble that, as it did with Windows XP’s networking and Windows 7’s security sandboxing, users will eventually see the value. The question remains: at what cost, and for whom?
As Plummer reflected, “it’s quite conceivable that future versions of Windows could impose even stricter hardware demands, potentially leaving an even larger number of currently functional PCs unable to upgrade.” The cycle—of new requirements, forced obsolescence, and heightened expectations—shows every sign of accelerating, especially as the PC industry seeks a new growth story built around AI.
There are ways forward: providing opt-out pathways for new features, decoupling security updates from hardware limits where feasible, and listening closely to both the developer community and environmental experts. Market leadership brings the obligation not just to dazzle with innovation, but to steward the ecosystem responsibly.
If the launch of Windows 12 follows the pattern established by its predecessors, users should brace for another round of raised barriers, new device launches, and controversy. The specifics will be revealed in time, yet the central lesson remains clear: the battle for the desktop is about more than software innovation. It’s about trust, accountability, and the long-term health of the world’s computing infrastructure.
For the millions relying on Windows every day, the hope must be for a more open, adaptable, and transparent future—one where progress is measured not just in marketing cycles, but in real, sustainable value for users and communities worldwide.
Source: theregister.com Microsoft moved the goalposts before. Could it happen again?
The Hardware Minefield: Security, Sales, or Both?
The architecture of Windows 11 established a new normal by walling off older hardware, despite its continued functional viability. Microsoft’s rationale, echoed by retired software engineer and former Windows insider Dave Plummer, circles around “raising the security baseline”—using technologies like TPM 2.0 to protect users from sophisticated cyber threats. Plummer notes, not without historical resonance, that this isn’t the first time Microsoft has ended support for a generation of PCs in pursuit of security and modern software compatibility. Still, he highlights a critical distinction: “Many of the PCs excluded by the TPM and CPU requirements are not necessarily old or underpowered; they simply lack a specific relatively recent security chip or a sufficiently new processor architecture.”Rather than a gentle sunset, the move feels more like a hard gate, carving out a substantial swathe of otherwise-capable hardware. This isn't just about security; it's about shifting the platform—and perhaps, says Plummer, about nudging users towards newer hardware ecosystems especially as Microsoft’s business model pivots sharply towards cloud, subscription services, and now, AI-powered experiences with Copilot+ PCs.
The Surface of Progress—Or Planned Obsolescence?
Microsoft’s own launch cycles tell a revealing story. As older Surface devices fall victim to the strict new rules, the company announced Copilot+ PCs, featuring Qualcomm Snapdragon processors, leaning into the AI acceleration narrative. Here too is a messaging pivot: not only will features like the much-touted Recall only be available on Copilot+ devices, but there are also suggestions from industry insiders that AI requirements could become a de facto ticket for access to future Windows features.This raises uncomfortable questions. Will Windows 12 (or whatever the next major release is called) require not just a TPM, but also specialized AI hardware—making even newly-purchased, non-AI PCs obsolete in record time?
Critical Contradictions: Security vs. User Choice
Plummer is clear about the value of features like TPM—enhanced security is an unambiguous boon. Yet, why must those without the correct silicon be unable to opt out? In previous eras, users (and IT departments) could weigh risk tolerance and resources, making their own upgrade choices. Now, a single missing hardware feature invites a dead end, regardless of computing power or genuine need.This enforced obsolescence has not gone unchallenged. Watchdog organizations such as the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) have rung the alarm over the environmental cost: millions of perfectly usable PCs prematurely destined for landfills because they can’t install a new OS. The consequences of such policies for e-waste are, in PIRG’s words, “epic.”
Following the Money: Subscription Services and Ecosystem Control
Alongside the hardware clampdown, Microsoft’s strategy has evolved toward service-based revenue—Microsoft 365 subscriptions, cloud storage, and cross-device integrations. Plummer, who once helped craft Windows Activation, recently commented that the modern OS “feels more like an adversary than an assistant,” driven by the demands of recurring revenue rather than pure user benefit.This is not mere nostalgia. The growing tendency to gate key features behind new hardware enables not just technical advancement, but also increased control over the upgrade cadence, often for reasons extending far beyond cybersecurity. As Windows 11’s requirements made clear, many of the excluded devices easily meet the performance bar for everyday productivity. What they lack is compliance with Microsoft's latest initiative, whether it’s device security or AI acceleration.
Market Reaction: The OEM Perspective
The “savior of the PC industry”—AI—has become a central talking point. With PC sales slowing after the pandemic boom, Microsoft’s close partners in the hardware space are eager for innovation capable of reigniting replacement cycles. Yet, as initial receipts for Windows 11 hardware show, even among enthusiasts, there is little appetite for replacing functional devices purely for theoretical gains. The excitement around Copilot+ PCs, while real for cutting-edge use cases, does not reflect mainstream user priorities. Yet the pressure mounts, sparking fears that Windows 12 will be even more brutal in its culling of legacy devices.Copilot, Recall, and the Future of Windows: Features for the Few?
The pivot to AI-infused Windows is arguably bold: Copilot+, Recall, and other features promise intelligent assistance, deeper context, and tightly integrated workflow automation. However, the price of admission keeps going up. Already, features like Recall are restricted to the newest hardware, demanding dedicated NPUs (Neural Processing Units) and specific vendors. If Microsoft leans further into requiring such specialty chips, it is easy to imagine Windows 12 setting an even higher and narrower bar.Opt-in vs. Lockout: Why Not Let Users Decide?
Historically, Microsoft allowed users to run newer versions on technically under-specced hardware by disabling features, accepting performance tradeoffs, or bearing risk. The new, all-or-nothing approach is fundamentally different. Users who invested in powerful, yet pre-TPM or non-AI hardware are locked out, even if willing to forego flagship functions.This is a significant philosophical shift. When innovations are truly essential, users and enterprises have been willing to pay—think SSDs for Windows 7-era machines, or memory upgrades for Windows 10. Forcing obsolescence based not on capability but on arbitrary gates smacks of planned obsolescence—a critique that’s difficult to rebut as the list of unsupported, still-capable machines grows.
Environmental Reckoning: E-waste and Upgrade Cycles
The hardware gatekeeping approach brings environmental repercussions. Industry analysts warn that enforcing mass hardware upgrades in pursuit of new OS features has dire consequences for global e-waste, already a crisis for governments and recyclers. Older Windows versions, no longer supported, are increasingly disallowed from accessing services and apps, driving replacement cycles not just every decade or so, but potentially much more frequently if the AI model continues.PIRG and other advocacy groups have demanded that Microsoft, and the broader industry, do more to decouple support policies from arbitrary hardware restrictions, or at least provide alternatives for users not interested in or unable to access the full array of new features. As the average lifespan of a PC shrinks from six or seven years to perhaps three or four for some use cases, the supply chain and recycling industries face growing strain. Given the energy and raw materials involved, the environmental rationale for more gradual, user-controlled upgrades is compelling.
What About User Demand? The Realities Behind Microsoft’s Vision
A final tension stands out: much of the AI-powered functionality driving new requirements is not a response to grassroots user demand, but rather strategic positioning. Copilot+, Recall, and related features are impressive technical achievements—but for many users, especially in the corporate and education sectors, they are at best “nice to have” and at worst largely irrelevant. Surveys continue to show substantial proportions of the user base uninterested in, or actively distrustful of, deep cloud integration and ongoing AI processing, especially if it means surrendering local control or privacy.Yet Microsoft appears determined to gamble that, as it did with Windows XP’s networking and Windows 7’s security sandboxing, users will eventually see the value. The question remains: at what cost, and for whom?
Strengths and Innovations Worth Noting
Despite the criticisms, it is important to recognize the genuine advances embedded in Windows’ evolution:- Security Leap: Requiring TPM 2.0 and secure boot helps to meaningfully reduce attack vectors, especially for ransomware and firmware-based exploits.
- Performance and Responsiveness: By targeting newer CPUs and dedicated AI silicon, Microsoft can optimize for improved battery life, efficiency, and responsiveness—critical for modern ultraportable form factors.
- AI-Driven Workflows: Copilot+ and Recall demonstrate the direction of next-generation productivity, offering potential time savings and contextual awareness that legacy devices can’t easily replicate.
- Developer Ecosystem: Standardizing hardware features simplifies life for developers, who can target new APIs and scenarios with confidence, potentially accelerating innovation.
Risks and Costs: Who Pays?
But each of these strengths comes with associated risks:- E-waste and Sustainability: The environmental cost of accelerated upgrade cycles cannot be overstated. If unsupported machines are dumped early, the carbon impact is enormous.
- User Autonomy: By removing options for technically savvy users and enterprises to override hardware checks, Microsoft risks alienating core constituencies—those most likely to evangelize or criticize the platform.
- Affordability: In a world of incremental hardware improvement, forcing upgrades for marginal gains—or features few request—raises total cost of ownership, hitting cash-strapped school districts, small businesses, and developing markets hardest.
- Perception and Trust: A pattern of ever-higher gates breeds cynicism. The suspicion that security justifications mask a restlessly evolving sales strategy undermines trust in Microsoft’s pronouncements.
- Marketplace Confusion: OEMs, already grappling with razor-thin margins and pandemic aftershocks, must now explain to confused buyers why their one-year-old PC is suddenly “too old” for the latest OS—a narrative that risks damaging long-term loyalty.
Will Windows 12 Move the Goalposts Again?
The trajectory seems unmistakable. If Copilot+ becomes the minimum standard—not just for experimental features but for basic OS upgrades—the windows of compatibility will narrow still further. As of now, Microsoft has not formally committed to AI hardware requirements for Windows 12, but its aggressive marketing of Copilot+ and the restriction of Recall previews point in that direction.As Plummer reflected, “it’s quite conceivable that future versions of Windows could impose even stricter hardware demands, potentially leaving an even larger number of currently functional PCs unable to upgrade.” The cycle—of new requirements, forced obsolescence, and heightened expectations—shows every sign of accelerating, especially as the PC industry seeks a new growth story built around AI.
A Call for Balance and Transparency
What users and enterprises uniformly demand is transparent, predictable, and genuinely justified upgrade paths. The tension between progress and longevity, between innovation and sustainability, is not unique to Windows, but Microsoft’s choices set the tone for the entire PC ecosystem.There are ways forward: providing opt-out pathways for new features, decoupling security updates from hardware limits where feasible, and listening closely to both the developer community and environmental experts. Market leadership brings the obligation not just to dazzle with innovation, but to steward the ecosystem responsibly.
Conclusion: Who Decides What’s Next?
In the end, the debate over Windows hardware requirements and upgrade cycles is about more than chips and checklists. It’s about who gets to define progress—and how that definition balances commercial interests, genuine technological need, user autonomy, and environmental stewardship.If the launch of Windows 12 follows the pattern established by its predecessors, users should brace for another round of raised barriers, new device launches, and controversy. The specifics will be revealed in time, yet the central lesson remains clear: the battle for the desktop is about more than software innovation. It’s about trust, accountability, and the long-term health of the world’s computing infrastructure.
For the millions relying on Windows every day, the hope must be for a more open, adaptable, and transparent future—one where progress is measured not just in marketing cycles, but in real, sustainable value for users and communities worldwide.
Source: theregister.com Microsoft moved the goalposts before. Could it happen again?
