This is a thread for anything Windows 11, the (apparently) upcoming new version by Microsoft, scheduled to be officially revealed at June 24th at 11am ET in a Microsoft event.
This is an English only thread. If you want to use your home language, create a thread for that language in mind.
That’s all I got for now 
I do expect we’ll have a daily trickle of new discoveries to discuss over the next week as more people dig through the build though.
guys it justs a LEAK BUILD dont freak out, actually i like it. i;ve installed on a VM ,pretty much all the things trekie said,but we will see in the future
I’ve currently installed it on my main PC, and it works as it should so far…
It just runs fine, and looks nice.
I hadn’t realized the ramifications of this until today, but I really hope the Start menu isn’t the one planned for the final. Although it’s not super easy to do, the current one in Win10 is fairly customizable, and enables some pretty useful setups.
I’ve used this personalization ability to build start screens for several people with disabilities, with the end result is that they have a consistent launcher with large visual tiles, so they can get to their applications, websites, and games more easily. It’ll be a real shame if none of that ends up being possible anymore.
Hm, I just noticed something, Skype seems to be totally missing in the install. Meanwhile Facebook Messenger and Twitter were pinned to Start (although not installed until you click on them).
It could be a normal omission for wherever this build came from (there’s no expiry or build info on the corner either), but if not, I wonder what that means for Skype.
my computer would run windows 11 fine if it weren’t for the fact that it keeps killing itself over files
Likely repeating what everyone knows, but after a fairly underwhelming presentation (the leak didn’t help, since it was all the same), it was revealed the requirements were UEFI, Secure boot and TPM 2.0. Then it was revealed that was only the “soft block”, and there would be a hard block where you would need is Secure boot capable and TPM 1.2. Then they released an application to check if you meet the requirements, but it set the bar at the soft block, and it didn’t tell you why you qualified or didn’t.
Then a CPU list came out with “supported CPUs” (Intel 8th-gen or higher, specific Ryzens), then the soft block disappeared entirely, so now back to needing TPM 2.0, and the application got updated to give you a little hint to what the problem is. You now have situations where inexpensive slow Pentium (Gold) Y CPUs are supported but older highend i7 and older Ryzens aren’t, despite having the TPM requirements met. They’re promising more clarification soon and “the CPU list will evolve”.
Those of you still in school, the next time a teacher tells you that you don’t communicate well, you can remind them that at least you did a better job then Microsoft did at announcing Windows 11.
Only some Zen+ CPUs are supported like Ryzen 5 2600 or some Threadrippers.
Good eye, I’d only skimmed the list before. Unfortunately that means it’s even worse 
.
Then that’s why Win11 is not supported for my PC, even if TPM 2.0 and Secure boot enabled. That’s sad. I hope the compatibility list will more and more bigger.
They might update requirements to include 7th gen Core series and 1st gen Ryzen CPUs, and they won’t go lower.
Although Microsoft will also give Windows 11 to OEMs that won’t require TPM 2.0 requirement for special devices like ATM’s or what not. Doesn’t that feel like a double standard? Everybody else has to need TPM while OEMs don’t?
ATMs don’t need security, clearly 
I haven’t totally read through everything that’s been going on in the last day, but I read this earlier:
I doubt this latest excuse stands up to much scrutiny. This has all been mostly done before and works just fine on hardware that at least has virtualization support, and practically speaking, it’s not going to matter how much you containerize, if the user gives access to their files, then they can be encrypted by ransomware. Which for my clients at least, has been the primary concern for many years now.
I just wish they’d be honest, okay sure, you want to increase security, everyone wants good security, but the primary goal here is to sell Windows licenses via PCs. The primary source of income for Windows has always been what OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo, et al. pay for Windows, so in this arrangement, they all win.
I think a far better approach would have been to offer a paid upgrade to those who want to upgrade without the “security benefits”, and at a similar cost to the OEMs ($20-$30). The overall damage would have been far less methinks.