Just run the ISO thru this well known tool it offers more than one option to bypass the win 11 requirements. 24H2 upgrades seem to be made harder, hence the new tool development. https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...4h2-dev-ge-release.88220/page-81#post-1846978 this post suggests you have used the dynamic tpm bypass script by aveyo but that one no longer works, it seems not to bypass the secure boot requirement on 24H2
not windows updates, I always do & prefer clean/fresh installation & the Skip Win11 requirements (TPM+SB+RAM) are integrated into the install & boot.wim so no problem with that.
@Enthousiast This was going to be a long and involved response to try to be as thorough as possible, when suddenly I thought of doing something counterintutive but plausible: REMOVE "Skip_TPM_Check_on_Dynamic_Update" and see what happens. I normally have this enabled all the time to support WU, but an ISO isn't in need of WU. So, with it disabled: -The unmodified 26120.1340 ISO: Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 blocks. This is completely expected and correct. -That ISO run through your script (Option 1): apparent success. No checks and the ability to upgrade (i.e. the normal 3 possible options), though I haven't actually gone past that screen yet. -Then I went back to the unmodified ISO and tried "setup.exe /product server" -- and at least to the point of the 3 choices appears to be identical to what I got with your modification with the exception of the Pro/Enterprise choice. How is that possible? People say the switch is dead, but others say it isn't. It doesn't seem to be dead. Do you know how the switch server method is different than your Option 1? I assume in either case the mention of Server is just passing with no actual repercussions to the rest of the install.
Who says what switch is dead? The option you mean is the UFWS option the dev of it and i integrated in my tool?
I was referring to the "/product server" switch, which is what I found to work with the unmodified ISO. You don't have to look far to hear talk about that switch being defunct. In this thread, on the previous page, one person said "the switch is not working for years on canary builds." While it's true 26120 is not a Canary build, it's newer than Canary builds were years ago, so it's reasonable to think that the switch would not work today. But it does somehow, even though it's unclear to me what its official use actually is. So, just out of curiosity, is it more of a best practice to just use the switch (if it works for someone) as opposed to your Option 1 modification? The first best practice though is to temporarily disable "Skip_TPM_Check_on_Dynamic_Update" or you're not going to get anywhere with an ISO.
It is not a switch, it is a change of the info on the install.wim making setup to believe it is running server OS, server OS does not require the win 11 requirements. As said before, the dynamic tpm bypass is no longer sufficient for ISO upgrade scenarios. We are working hard to get the new Win 11 boot & upgrade fix kit covering all possible scenarios including the new 24H2 scenarios.
For anyone on Canary, do you know if "setup.exe /product server" started working again after apparently stopping late last year? If not, what about "setupprep.exe /product server"? Just curious.
it was dead 100% on canary with setup.exe, but "\sources\setupprep.exe /Product Server" was fine https://forums.mydigitallife.net/posts/1818000 this switch and changing the installation type on install.wim/esd are different, the latter was worked fine https://forums.mydigitallife.net/posts/1818007 tried it in a windows 10 VM without TPM (26120.1340 to 26257.5000) without anything: can't find TPM 2.0 with setup.exe: works fine, full upgrade is available with setuphost.exe: nothing happened with setupprep.exe: works fine, full upgrade is available like with the setup.exe I think it started working again when they added a new installer not too long ago
Do you know why they defaulted to that in the first place? What's the benefit? I prefer to change them since it makes for a quicker build, but I just want to be sure about what you mean regarding potential downsides. Are you saying it's actually not recommended for those on VL (which would be a lot of us)? If so, why? And not that I ever switch branches, but how would this impede that?
Please, I need help while setup win11 24h2 after integrated these updates offline. windows11.0-kb5039894-x64-ndp481_505f9eea0fee9fde2dbe5c76e72d4b05d402a74c.msu -> .net481 windows11.0-kb5040529-x64_fb312553946fb0b8a29324ba9f58c25ff6590979.msu -> lcu