Some Windows 11 Users Must 'Sign' Disclaimer

John Lister's picture

Users who upgrade "incompatible" machines to Windows 11 may have to agree to a lengthy disclaimer. Microsoft warns PCs could suffer damage, which suggests it may be trying to head off lawsuits.

The disclaimer is further indication that users who don't meet the minimum system requirements for Windows 11 may still be able to install it. This would be through downloading and creating installation media such as a DVD or USB stick, rather than using Windows Update. (Source:

Verge's Sean Hollister was able to install a beta edition of Windows 11 despite his PC not meeting the system requirements. Specifically, his processor is not on the list of supported models, even though it is more powerful than several that are on the list. (Source:

Warranty Worthless

However, when installing the latest beta edition, Hollister was presented with a message reading:

"This PC doesn't meet the minimum system requirements for running Windows 11 - these requirements help ensure a more reliable and higher quality experience. Installing Windows 11 on this PC is not recommended and may result in compatibility issues. If you proceed with installing Windows 11, your PC will no longer be supported and won't be entitled to receive updates. Damages to your PC due to lack of compatibility aren't covered under the manufacturer warranty. By selecting Accept, you are acknowledging that you read and understand this statement."

The message raises many questions, most notably the reference to warranties. Assuming "the manufacturer" refers to the PC maker, it's not clear how Microsoft is able to say what any warranty does or doesn't say.

Damage Threatened

It's also unclear what damage Windows could cause to an "incompatible" PC. It's perfectly possible this is just the work of an overcautious lawyer and there's no risk whatsoever, but it's not a great look.

Another question is why Microsoft wouldn't just block the installation altogether rather than threaten a user with no getting updates, including security fixes. Given the nature of many online threats, every PC that doesn't have the latest patches increases the risk of spreading malware to other machines.

Perhaps the biggest question is what exactly makes some relatively recent processors "incompatible" with Windows 11, especially as the list seems to be based on individual models rather than just requiring a certain speed or number of cores.

What's Your Opinion?

Would you agree to this disclaimer to install Windows 11 on an "incompatible" machine? Do you believe such an installation could physically damage your computer? Is Microsoft being clear enough about which machines can't run Windows 11 and why?

Rate this article: 
Average: 4.8 (9 votes)


gi7omy's picture

I'd go for lawyerese on that. The chances of a beta operating system causing physical damage is so remote as to be virtually impossible. Having said tha, anyone who has dome any beta testing knows full well that screwing up the OS is a risk that they take and it's usually spelt out in the installation docs (which, I will admit thet most people never read).

What I fail to understand is the logic behind insisting on TPM. TPM may be 'desirable' but it's hardly 'essential'. Most computers over the past 5 or 6 years are perfectly capable of running W 11 but don't have TPM and have no way of fitting it, via module or CPU 'upgrade' and are being excluded from using the next generation

Speaking of 'next generation' is my memory failing or didn't MS say way back that W 10 would be the final iteration and would simply be updated over time. They never mentioned changing hardware requirements when they pushed 10 at us

gbpluspcrepair_15233's picture

Ecxacly!! Win 10 was suppose to be the end all be all, with security updates and other improvements over time. Now Windows 11? Why didn't they just skip 11 and shoot for the kill with Win 12 (like they skipped Windows 9)!! Unreal.

gi7omy's picture

It's simple really - a Windows 9 would be confused with 'Windows 9x' (the generic name for 95A and B, 98 and 98SE along with ME (which were actually Windows 4.x). Windows 5 was XP and Windows Vista and '7' were actually Windows 6 (internal version numbers)

nospam_5346's picture

I’m not sure why they are restricting CPU’s in such broad categories. Say what they need.

I read on another forum a user posted that he’s run every development version on his computer with an Intel 6850K CPU without any issues and yet it’s not on their list. That’s the CPU I have.

As for TPM, I really don’t see the need for the average user either. I can add a chip, if I could find one that’s not outrageously priced, but really, why?

And failing to provide updates after someone signs a waiver, really? What’s the point of the waiver? They say they are doing a lot of this for security, but then they aren’t going to update people’s computers because they don’t meet some arbitrary hardware requirements?

And I can possibly see some scenarios where the OS could cause damage, but have they actually experienced anyone having their computer damaged and what were the circumstances? And really shouldn’t they fix that problem?

They have definitely gone bonkers.

Navy vet's picture

Seems like a ploy to sell more PCs. I briefly tried Windows 11 and was not impressed. I had issues with explorer, the start menu and the lack of quick launch toolbar. Even if they fix these, I see no compelling reason to upgrade. Windows 10 21H2 is excellent. They should have just given Windows 10 a refresh like they promised when it was first released. Windows as a service, blah, blah, blah.

gbpluspcrepair_15233's picture

Agreed....Win 10 works. It's safe and secure (for the most part).
Microsoft (Mr. Gates) is just greedy. Simple.

topgum's picture

I did not do a comprehensive analysis but AMD CPUs were most often incompatible. Anti-trust issues may arise

JimBo's picture

Short history - The Windows variants we know today all evolved from Windows NT. Windows NT was created in a joint effort with IBM. I believe, and this is a stretch of my memory from the late 80's when I was a Sr System Programmer with a major company, that IBM supplied most of the brain power and actually created two variants, NT for Microsoft and OS/2 for IBM. Remember OS/2? Microsoft launched a big lawsuit in an attempt to effectively oust IBM and fundamentally destroy the OS/2 operating system which was, in many ways superior, to Windows NT. I think it really wrenched them when IBM provided the capability to launch the current DOS Windows Release in an OS/2 virtual machine. Not much seems to have changed since then, Windows 10, as far as it goes as an OS, is still NT, renamed and with a bunch of new apps and fluffed screens. Seems to me that Microsoft is trying to turn your PC into a free vending machine in order to sell applications. Who really owns your PC? Answer that one..... And will "free" releases of Windows be enough to keep you on the hook? Looks like now they want you to buy new PCs for Win-11. That's tantamount to you buying a new Coke machine so they can sell bigger bottles.

Tired of it, then what you really need to do is go take a look at the new Linux, specifically, the latest Linux Mint Cinnamon distro. It's a little different but for the most part will do about everything you need to get the job done and for free. The new LibreOffice takes care of the need for MS Office. And a Linux version called "Cubes" is an awesome high security VM implementation that, for me, is very reminiscent of the old VM/CMS IBM mainframe product. And the best part is that your older computers will work just fine with most new Linux releases.

Not sure where Microsoft is going? I don't thing they have the brain power to give us a complete OS rewrite like in the old days. That new frontier is still out there, so buckle up, someone is going to get there. Who knows, it might even bring us out of the next great recession which we seem to be on the path of entering.

nospam_5346's picture

Well, Bill basically copied C-PM to create DOS. And, Microsoft has often copied other software, gotten sued, and bought the company or paid the fines. I still think they should have lost the Apple suit as anyone can tell they ripped off Apple’s GUI which is kind of ironic that it seems with every iteration of Windows they make it look more and more like a Mac.

The problem with Linux for me is although I’m 71, I’m a gamer and very few games are natively coded for Linux and there really isn’t a good enough way to run Windows games on any other platform. They all have limitations. I remember looking at a forum that rated running games in WINE and gold status was awarded to a game rated at 80%.

This is changing somewhat on Steam as they have some games in linux, but nothing I’d want to play.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If developers would code their games for Linux, Windows would probably be on a fast track to extinction. But it’s a Catch 22 because the market is too small to be profitable now and to get the market size big enough there would have to be a lot of top shelf games.

What they need is a way to run Windows games flawlessly to get the market shift.

As for Linux, I have it on an old laptop and have nothing but issues with the mouse pad and the cursor freezing.

gi7omy's picture

Nospam - have you tried Lutris on Linux? It's supposed to be specifically compiled for running Windoze games in Linux.

Oh and I think you'll find that Bill Gates ripped off Q-DOS back then and not CP/M, but I also recall the drvspace/dblspace incident where they used this guy's code and then had to pull it off, buy him out and put it back under a slightly different name.

Also, to be honest, Jobs ripped off the Xerox/PARC Alto (that was the grand-daddy of all the GUIs)