PC upgrade time?

[Tim Ward]

It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.

But, looking a what you get for a grand as a new PC, the only
significant difference would appear to be that you get SSDs instead of
hard disks. The only issues I've got with the PC itself are boot time,
which is just a minor niggle and adding SSDs would solve it, and the
fact that only about half of new USB devices work, the others fail at
driver install time (in particular my attempts to install a webcam). The
processor is still fast enough for anything I want to do; I don't need a
modern gaming rig GPU; the 32G memory is plenty.

Options would appear to include:

(1) Buy a new PC with Windows 10 on it, throw away the current one.
Fixes the boot speed and fixes the USB issue.

(2) Upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 in place. Retains the slow boot
time, and who knows whether this would fix the USB issue.

(3) Add SSD(s) to the existing machine with a new installation of
Windows 10, keep the hard disks installed so I can copy the data across.
Get SSD boot speed, and almost certainly fixes the USB issue, which is
almost certainly Windows 7 not hardware. Remove the hard disks when I no
longer need them to reduce noise (if I CBA). (Assumes I can add SSDs and
retain the existing hard drives.)

Option (1) would cost about a grand more. Option (2) would probably
result in an appalling mess if it worked at all, with a mixture of
slightly and very broken applications. So I'm leaning towards option
(3). I'd probably give the box to WoC to do the work of installing SSDs
and Windows 10.

Does this make sense?

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

[Alan]

My only comment - A grand for a new PC? Is it gold plated?

--
Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[John Aldridge]

In article <sanpcq$rec$1...@dont-email.me>, t...@brettward.co.uk says...

>
> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.
>
> But, looking a what you get for a grand as a new PC, the only
> significant difference would appear to be that you get SSDs instead of
> hard disks. The only issues I've got with the PC itself are boot time,
> which is just a minor niggle and adding SSDs would solve it, and the
> fact that only about half of new USB devices work, the others fail at
> driver install time (in particular my attempts to install a webcam). The
> processor is still fast enough for anything I want to do; I don't need a
> modern gaming rig GPU; the 32G memory is plenty.
>
> Options would appear to include:
>
> (1) Buy a new PC with Windows 10 on it, throw away the current one.
> Fixes the boot speed and fixes the USB issue.
>
> (2) Upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 in place. Retains the slow boot
> time, and who knows whether this would fix the USB issue.
>
> (3) Add SSD(s) to the existing machine with a new installation of
> Windows 10, keep the hard disks installed so I can copy the data across.
> Get SSD boot speed, and almost certainly fixes the USB issue, which is
> almost certainly Windows 7 not hardware. Remove the hard disks when I no
> longer need them to reduce noise (if I CBA). (Assumes I can add SSDs and
> retain the existing hard drives.)

(4) Use clonezilla to copy your existing disk to a new SSD. Reboot that
and do the W10 upgrade. You've then still got your old HD untouched as a
fallback in case of problems (you may need to change its drive letter(s)
in Disk Management if you want to have it mounted at the same time as
the new SSD).

I did (4), but I'd do (3) if I could face re-installing all the
application software.

--
John

[Tim Ward]

On 20/06/2021 18:10, John Aldridge wrote:
>
> I did (4), but I'd do (3) if I could face re-installing all the
> application software.

I know that some of my application software hasn't a hope of working
with Windows 10 (there were all sorts of mucky hoops to jump through to
get it to work with Windows 7) so I've already been trying out replacements.

Oh, except for image editing. I'm currently using Paint Shop Pro 7 but
there isn't much hope of that working on Windows 10. I don't suppose
finding a replacement image editor will be very difficult though.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

I would recommend buying a fresh PC. There are a lot of things that
don't work with old CPUs. I have plenty of machines that can run
Windows 10 but none of the old ones will run, for example, WSL2.

Similarly running Zoom with a virtual background requires a relatively
modern CPU.

The SSD/HDD boot time thing is a bit of a canard as Windows 10
generally does a pseudo-hibernate anyway. It would only be significant
if you are low on RAM or have huge numbers of startup apps (or apps you
need to have going to work) But an SSD does speed up swap/context
switching and even updates. And, of course, editing multiple documents
too big to all fit into memory.

[Vir Campestris]

On 20/06/2021 17:12, Tim Ward wrote:
> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.

I treated myself to a new box from Quiet PC. It _is_ quiet - main noise
is the CPU fan, and I quite like knowing when it is working hard, but
quieter ones are available.

But my answer was to stick Win7 in a VM and run Linux on it - though TBH
I probably wouldn't have done that if it wasn't that my day job is now
Linux based.

The nVME based "disc" is _way_ faster than the SATA SSD I had in the old
one (which has gone off to a laptop) and the old SSD was probably an
order of magnitude faster than spinning rust.

Andy

[tony sayer]

In article <sanvhe$5ci$1...@dont-email.me>, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
scribeth thus

Still run windoze 7 Pro and now with a dual raid solid state disk system
works fine:)

Al PC's we have, have solid state drives mucho quicker on the boot up!

Ands for much the same reasons legacy applications...

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[Theo]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.
>
> But, looking a what you get for a grand as a new PC, the only
> significant difference would appear to be that you get SSDs instead of
> hard disks. The only issues I've got with the PC itself are boot time,
> which is just a minor niggle and adding SSDs would solve it, and the
> fact that only about half of new USB devices work, the others fail at
> driver install time (in particular my attempts to install a webcam). The
> processor is still fast enough for anything I want to do; I don't need a
> modern gaming rig GPU; the 32G memory is plenty.

9 years old would make it Ivy Bridge - assuming an Intel CPU. If it has an
AMD CPU just go and buy a new PC, end of discussion - of that era AMDs were
awful.

Ivy Bridge is OK, but there have been a number of quality of life
improvements:

- lower power (things much improved with Haswell in 2013)
- USB 3 (Ivy Bridge maybe had a couple of USB 3.0 ports, whereas now they're
ubiquitous)
- USB C and Thunderbolt
- NVMe storage is a lot quicker than even SATA SSDs
- decent integrated graphics so you don't need a discrete GPU - handy if you
upgrade your monitor at any point (Ivy Bridge won't do 4K monitors and is
limited in how many it can drive)
- PCIe Gen 3 and Gen 4 - faster I/O
- DDR4 RAM is faster than DDR3
- onboard wifi (often)

You might find this is 'trusty old motor' syndrome - what you have gets you
from A to B, but it's now 20 years old and when you step into a new car
you discover all sorts of nice-to-have things that you didn't previously
appreciate.

If you look around you can find respectable PCs for around the £500 mark - I
searched ebay for "ryzen pc -gaming" and found a number of AMD-powered
boxes, and similar if I look for 8th/9th/10th gen Intel i5 and i7 PCs.
AMD over the last 2 years have been doing much better than Intel in
performance and price/performance stakes.

Looks like WoC now have a configurator and
their default options look decent enough:
https://www.woc.co.uk/netquoter.php?quoter=amdryzenpc

Theo

[Tim Ward]

On 20/06/2021 22:55, Theo wrote:
>
> 9 years old would make it Ivy Bridge - assuming an Intel CPU. If it has an
> AMD CPU just go and buy a new PC, end of discussion - of that era AMDs were
> awful.

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3450 CPU @ 3.10GHx it says here, whatever that means.

> Ivy Bridge is OK, but there have been a number of quality of life
> improvements:
>
> - lower power (things much improved with Haswell in 2013)
> - USB 3 (Ivy Bridge maybe had a couple of USB 3.0 ports, whereas now they're
> ubiquitous)

Probably don't care.

> - USB C and Thunderbolt

Probably don't care.

> - NVMe storage is a lot quicker than even SATA SSDs

Noted.

> - decent integrated graphics so you don't need a discrete GPU - handy if you
> upgrade your monitor at any point (Ivy Bridge won't do 4K monitors and is
> limited in how many it can drive)

1920 x 1200 at the moment. If I had the desk space I might feel like
adding a second monitor, but I'm not sure I want a larger one. Whatever
graphics you get for "free" on the motherboard has always been good
enough for me so far.

> - PCIe Gen 3 and Gen 4 - faster I/O
> - DDR4 RAM is faster than DDR3

Noted. But it's only the disk speed that I'm noticing with the current box.

> - onboard wifi (often)

I use wired for this box, so not a big deal.

> Looks like WoC now have a configurator and
> their default options look decent enough:
> https://www.woc.co.uk/netquoter.php?quoter=amdryzenpc

Their default option when I tried it earlier was 8G RAM. Current box has
32G - I do occasionally run IDEs and such which use a fair amount of
memory. What I don't understand (ie I haven't yet tried to do the
research) is how their default option processor compares to the one I've
got, although one might assume that as it's a lot newer it's a lot faster.

Plus the link you sent has 240G disk, my current box has 1T (although to
be fair I'm using nowhere near all of it).

So the price goes up a bit with more memory, more SSD, and the Pro
operating system. But your build looks more interesting that what I got
out of the configurator, so thanks, I'll continue to play.

[Tim Ward]

On 20/06/2021 23:14, Tim Ward wrote:
>
>> - decent integrated graphics so you don't need a discrete GPU - handy
>> if you
>> upgrade your monitor at any point (Ivy Bridge won't do 4K monitors and is
>> limited in how many it can drive)
>
> 1920 x 1200 at the moment.

Oh, the other thing about graphics is that my current KVM doesn't, IIRC,
go above 1920 x 1200, and I use that all the time whilst WFH due covid
to switch between my own box and the work laptop, with a horrible
mixture of HDMI and DVI and adapters. You *can* get KVMs that do more
sophisticated graphics but they start costing.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 20/06/2021 17:12, Tim Ward wrote:

> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.

I haven't yet encountered any particular reason to ditch my 64-bit Win 7
pro for Windows 10. I'm not sure I've had any USB problems.I got an SSD
a couple of years and cloned the original drive and that made a
different to the boot time. I don't know if the motherboard is as old as
nine years, though.

Everything I need on it works and has worked for many years. I haven't
upgraded Sibelius for over two years now and when I eventually abandon
it for Dorico, the new music engraving software, well, that works on Win 7.


I'll just keep things as they are until something drastically goes wrong
(note to self: a back up to the network drive might be due).

Michael

[Mark Carroll]

On 20 Jun 2021, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

> I'll just keep things as they are until something drastically goes wrong
> (note to self: a back up to the network drive might be due).

I'm running backups right now, now on the phase of copying the latest
onto redundant volumes. (-:

I guess much depends on what fraction of time Tim's waiting for the
computer, rather than it waiting for him. Even a small improvement
(especially waiting for builds, tests, and IDEs!) can add up to a lot if
they happen frequently.

-- Mark

[Tim Ward]

On 21/06/2021 02:27, Mark Carroll wrote:
>
> I guess much depends on what fraction of time Tim's waiting for the
> computer

The biggest irritation right now is having to get the laptop out to do
Zoom calls because I can't get a webcam's USB drivers to install, and
even if I could it wouldn't do silly backgrounds.

Plus of course it's supposed to be out of support, which suggests a
malware risk, although I do still seem to get updates most weeks.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

I use my phone as a webcam for Zoom, and installed DroidCam Client on my
PC. My i5 3.2GHz PC can cope with a virtual backdrop.

As I also couldn't be bothered to buy a USB microphone just for Zoom
calls for the regular Lib Dem policy working group I'm on, I bought a
USB interface with phantom power for my condensor microphone which means
I can also use it for recording things at reasonable quality.

Using the Alena's old laptop (a Lenovo U330 Touch Win 8.1) for Zoom was
unbearable. It usually took two or three attempts to join the meeting
without it crashing or stalling for up to a minute. And the camera was
awful.


Michael

[Theo]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 22:55, Theo wrote:
> >
> > 9 years old would make it Ivy Bridge - assuming an Intel CPU. If it has an
> > AMD CPU just go and buy a new PC, end of discussion - of that era AMDs were
> > awful.
>
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3450 CPU @ 3.10GHx it says here, whatever that means.
>

> > Looks like WoC now have a configurator and
> > their default options look decent enough:
> > https://www.woc.co.uk/netquoter.php?quoter=amdryzenpc
>
> Their default option when I tried it earlier was 8G RAM. Current box has
> 32G - I do occasionally run IDEs and such which use a fair amount of
> memory. What I don't understand (ie I haven't yet tried to do the
> research) is how their default option processor compares to the one I've
> got, although one might assume that as it's a lot newer it's a lot faster.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-3450-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-3200G/820vs3497

has it almost double the performance when going for WoC's default CPU
option, which is fairly low end. If you were to go for a slightly better
AMD or Intel CPU you could get roughly triple the performance. And these
are still mostly at the pedestrian end of the market. You can get roughly
10x at the higher end (although that really depends on how parallel your
workload is).

Some more typical mid-low range options:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-3450-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-3200G-vs-Intel-i7-8700-vs-Intel-i5-10400-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3400G/820vs3497vs3099vs3737vs3498
and some higher end ones:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i5-3450-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3400G-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X-vs-Intel-i7-11700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X/820vs3498vs3862vs3896vs3869
(note the CPU prices for a ballpark, although should be taken with a helping of salt
as should benchmark numbers in general)

> Plus the link you sent has 240G disk, my current box has 1T (although to
> be fair I'm using nowhere near all of it).
>
> So the price goes up a bit with more memory, more SSD, and the Pro
> operating system. But your build looks more interesting that what I got
> out of the configurator, so thanks, I'll continue to play.

Yes, you'd have to adjust the configuration a bit.

If you're using this for work and building software and such, I'd have
thought 'time is money', and spending a few hundred pounds more on a nicer
computer that enables you do get work done faster would be worth it.

Theo

[Tim Ward]

On 21/06/2021 11:15, Theo wrote:
>
> If you're using this for work and building software and such

Ah, that "if" is the question. I have in the past bought machines with
decent speed and capacity for doing contract software development work
at home (spinning up K8s in a few VMs, or an Elastic Stack, for example,
can take a lot of memory). It's possible that I may never do so again,
but just in case I think I'll probably go for a machine with sufficient
capability.

Thanks for your help.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its a Russ Andrews oxygen free PC.

Frankly get an SSD and install Linux.


--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 20/06/2021 23:14, Tim Ward wrote:

> Their default option when I tried it earlier was 8G RAM. Current box has
> 32G - I do occasionally run IDEs and such which use a fair amount of
> memory. What I don't understand (ie I haven't yet tried to do the
> research) is how their default option processor compares to the one I've
> got, although one might assume that as it's a lot newer it's a lot faster.

Moore's laws stopped about 10 years ago. modern processors have more
cache and more processor cores, but that doesn't mean they will perform
better on a desktop

I've not found any limitations except video processing and games running
a 15 yr old motherboard with 4GB ram...

SSD is a far more handy upgrade

[Peter]

Tim Ward wrote:
> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.
>
> But, looking a what you get for a grand as a new PC, the only
> significant difference would appear to be that you get SSDs instead of
> hard disks. The only issues I've got with the PC itself are boot time,
> which is just a minor niggle and adding SSDs would solve it, and the
> fact that only about half of new USB devices work, the others fail at
> driver install time (in particular my attempts to install a webcam). The
> processor is still fast enough for anything I want to do; I don't need a
> modern gaming rig GPU; the 32G memory is plenty.
>
> Options would appear to include:
>
> (1) Buy a new PC with Windows 10 on it, throw away the current one.
> Fixes the boot speed and fixes the USB issue.

Windows 11 is just round the corner.

>
> (2) Upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10 in place. Retains the slow boot
> time, and who knows whether this would fix the USB issue.
>
> (3) Add SSD(s) to the existing machine with a new installation of
> Windows 10, keep the hard disks installed so I can copy the data across.
> Get SSD boot speed, and almost certainly fixes the USB issue, which is
> almost certainly Windows 7 not hardware. Remove the hard disks when I no
> longer need them to reduce noise (if I CBA). (Assumes I can add SSDs and
> retain the existing hard drives.)
>
> Option (1) would cost about a grand more. Option (2) would probably
> result in an appalling mess if it worked at all, with a mixture of
> slightly and very broken applications. So I'm leaning towards option
> (3). I'd probably give the box to WoC to do the work of installing SSDs
> and Windows 10.
>
> Does this make sense?
>


--

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

[Tim Ward]

On 20/06/2021 17:12, Tim Ward wrote:

> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.

I've ordered a new PC from WoC.

Which they'll deliver sometime, when they can get hold of the processor.
I'm not in any great rush.

[Vir Campestris]

On 21/06/2021 08:20, Tim Ward wrote:

> The biggest irritation right now is having to get the laptop out to do
> Zoom calls because I can't get a webcam's USB drivers to install, and
> even if I could it wouldn't do silly backgrounds.

I turned off the silly backgrounds after I picked up a glass during a
call. It gets _really_ confused.

Andy

[Theo]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 17:12, Tim Ward wrote:
> > It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.
>
> I've ordered a new PC from WoC.
>
> Which they'll deliver sometime, when they can get hold of the processor.
> I'm not in any great rush.

What did you go for in the end?

In any case, it should be good for Windows 11 which your old PC won't be.

(alternatively, you may see it as a good outcome for Win10 to stop forcing
major updates and leave you alone)

Theo

[Tim Ward]

On 25/06/2021 22:54, Theo wrote:
> Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/06/2021 17:12, Tim Ward wrote:
>>> It's probably time I stopped using Windows 7 on this nine year old PC.
>>
>> I've ordered a new PC from WoC.
>>
>> Which they'll deliver sometime, when they can get hold of the processor.
>> I'm not in any great rush.
>
> What did you go for in the end?

As per the WoC link you posted with more memory, more disk and the Pro OS.

> In any case, it should be good for Windows 11 which your old PC won't be.

Is Windows 11 real? - I'd been assuming it was just a marketing label
for the next minor upgrade of Windows 10.

[Mark Carroll]

On 26 Jun 2021, Tim Ward wrote:

> Is Windows 11 real? - I'd been assuming it was just a marketing label
> for the next minor upgrade of Windows 10.

Apparently it'll let us run Android apps from Amazon's store and others,
which should be interesting, but it'll also require Secure Boot, TPM2,
etc., which'll lock out a bunch of older hardware. I guess we'll see.
There also seem to be more UI changes coming which can be good or bad!

-- Mark

[Alan]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:55:43 +0100, Mark Carroll <mt...@kings.cantab.net>
wrote:

Yes apparently my dual core I5 is on the hit list, according to the
checker. Guessing it's also a marketing ploy to stimulate the purchase of
new hardware, which will come with a new MS license purchase.

I bet there won't be any way to transfer a Windows 10 license to new OS
free hardware, and have free update. Everyone assumed the Windows 10 as
the last OS with free updates for ever wasn't sustainable.

[Tim Ward]

On 26/06/2021 10:05, Alan wrote:
>
> I bet there won't be any way to transfer a Windows 10 license to new OS
> free hardware, and have free update.  Everyone assumed the Windows 10 as
> the last OS with free updates for ever wasn't sustainable.

It was never going to be "free updates forever", it was only ever going
to be "free updates until you buy a new PC".

[Alan]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:12:18 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> On 26/06/2021 10:05, Alan wrote:
>> I bet there won't be any way to transfer a Windows 10 license to new
>> OS free hardware, and have free update. Everyone assumed the Windows
>> 10 as the last OS with free updates for ever wasn't sustainable.
>
> It was never going to be "free updates forever", it was only ever going
> to be "free updates until you buy a new PC".
>

Which you will presumably have to now to get future feature updates.....

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Zoom won't do silly backgrounds with older chips.
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360043484511-System-requirements-for-Virtual-Background
If you want a video background without using a greens screen it is even
greedier.

The wall behind me is the only sensible place for a white board so I
need to obscure it one way or another. Tried a drape but it is hard to
have it far enough not to smudge but not then lose too much office
space so virtual background it is.

Teams is much more accommodating with older chips.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

But even with Windows 10 there is hardware falling out the bottom where
it was ok with at the start of Windows 10 but later versions either
don't work, don't support some features (e.g. WSL2) or aren't supported.

So, for example, one of my customers is having problems with Microsoft
Direct Access occasionally dropping under high CPU load. "Device
drivers" say Microsoft. "We don't support Windows 10 later that 1909
on that model" says the vendor

[Alan]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 11:18:17 +0100, Rupert Moss-Eccardt
<n...@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:

> On 26 Jun 2021 10:05, Alan wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:55:43 +0100, Mark Carroll <mt...@kings.cantab.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Jun 2021, Tim Ward wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is Windows 11 real? - I'd been assuming it was just a marketing label
>>>> for the next minor upgrade of Windows 10.
>>>
>>> Apparently it'll let us run Android apps from Amazon's store and
>>> others,
>>> which should be interesting, but it'll also require Secure Boot, TPM2,
>>> etc., which'll lock out a bunch of older hardware. I guess we'll see.
>>> There also seem to be more UI changes coming which can be good or bad!
>>>
>>
>> Yes apparently my dual core I5 is on the hit list, according to the
>> checker. Guessing it's also a marketing ploy to stimulate the purchase
>> of
>> new hardware, which will come with a new MS license purchase.
>>
>> I bet there won't be any way to transfer a Windows 10 license to new OS
>> free hardware, and have free update. Everyone assumed the Windows 10 as
>> the last OS with free updates for ever wasn't sustainable.
>>
>
> But even with Windows 10 there is hardware falling out the bottom where
> it was ok with at the start of Windows 10 but later versions either
> don't work, don't support some features (e.g. WSL2) or aren't supported.
>

Oh I understand and agree. I just think the current move to Windows 11,
rather than carry on updating Windows 11, gives them a more upfront
approach to forcing a hardware, and hence license refresh.

It makes sense, but it will be interesting to see how the general public
take it. Especially when the the media starts spinning it as Microsoft to
produce no more upgrades for many users.

[Brian Morrison]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:24:39 +0100, Tim Ward wrote:

> Is Windows 11 real? - I'd been assuming it was just a marketing label
> for the next minor upgrade of Windows 10.

Sadly it is, latest news is that it will require minimum processor of 8th
generation Intel. Microshaft at it again.

--

Brian

[Tim Ward]

To run at all? Or to run some exotic new features I don't care about?

Will the processor I've just ordered run it?

[Alan]

If system doesn't meet certain specs (and it is not just processor) it
won't install as I read it. Not just a case of running slowly, or some
things not working.

I'd hope WoC to be aware of the new specs though. It's all documented
online, and there is a checker that can be run on the completed system.
Might be worth asking them to show you the results before accepting
delivery....

[Brian Morrison]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 17:31:28 +0100, Tim Ward wrote:

> On 26/06/2021 17:29, Brian Morrison wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:24:39 +0100, Tim Ward wrote:
>>
>>> Is Windows 11 real? - I'd been assuming it was just a marketing label
>>> for the next minor upgrade of Windows 10.
>>
>> Sadly it is, latest news is that it will require minimum processor of
>> 8th generation Intel. Microshaft at it again.
>
> To run at all? Or to run some exotic new features I don't care about?

Currently they're saying it won't install without hardware at least that
modern.

>
> Will the processor I've just ordered run it?

If the first number after the - in the processor model is 8, 9, 10 or
more then yes. So, given that it's WoC I would assume you'll be fine, I
bought a 9th gen i7 from them a year ago.

--

Brian