new beta build today don't look like 22624 to be public release in May maybe end of June we sure see it closer when it hit prerelease.
Hello Enthousiast and everybody, After 2 weeks I applied the reg file : Code: Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\ WindowsUpdate] "DisableWUfBSafeguards"=dword:00000001 Windows Update don't offer me the 22H2 update I am disappointed My computer without tpm 2.0 Windows 11 is still with the build 21H2. For me now, the only option is : mount the file fr-fr_windows_11_consumer_editions_version_22h2_updated_april_2023_x64_dvd_bf2b6821.iso and run setup.exe. Isn't it ?
Take a look here is the same https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/windows-11-not-showing-up-22h2.86862/
Not sure if this is the best thread for this, but didn't think I needed to start a new one.. I've installed Windows 11 from a new download using the MediaCreationTool. The version that gets installed is 22621.525. I am doing an install into a VMWare Workstation running on Windows 10. During the install I perform the bypass check (LabConfig > BypassTPMCheck/BypassSecureBootCheck) and am able to install without issue. However I have had very strange experience after using Windows Update. On my first attempt, Windows downloaded several updates and after reboot I believe the version it told me was 22621.525 Then it wanted to install kb502530, which I believe should have updated me to 22621.1635. However after the reboot for that I kept getting a blue screen saying unsupported_cpu and cycling through the startup repair and was unbootable. I then did another fresh install. This time after installing the first batch of updates it still said 22621.525, even though after reboot it said only kb5025305 was available. I tried to install that and it failed to install (Windows Update failure). I then did a third fresh reinstall. Again, after the first round of updates it still said I was on 22621.525. After installing kb502530 it had an error on reboot and went through automatic reversion of kb5025305 and was able to boot again. However Windows Update doesn't want to install the kb (Error 0x800f0845). I am in the process of building an ISO with 22621.1635 already built, but I'm concerned about the overall behavior here. I'm testing this out prior to a fresh install on my laptop, which will also require the TPM/SecureBoot bypasses. I'm not sure if the issues I am having are due to that, but the unsupported_cpu errors on my second attempt make me think so. I know there are several ways to bypass the install, and I have heard some people have issues trying to use Windows update, but I thought those were errors *prior* to trying the update, not the updates going through and then hosing things. I generally prefer to make bypass tweaks, etc, by hand so I know exactly what is going into it, but I'm concerned even if I install fine with a 1635 ISO that this issue will just occur the next time an update comes along. Can anyone tell what/why this is happening and how to resolve?
22621.1635 is an IP release preview channel update, this could be the cause of the unsupported cpu message, normal updates don't check for the minimum requirements and the labconfig or any bypasses are for setup (clean install or upgrades) not for updates.
Sorry - I edited my OP to add the 5 for posterity. I'm still confused about the statements that it is a Preview Release if it is now available as a standard retail LCU. But again, my biggest concern is...even if I use a .1635 ISO, what is to prevent this from happening in the future? As you stated, the SecureBoot and TPM checks I used are only for install. There is also the "AllowUpgradesWithUnsupportedTPMorCPU", but I don't believe (?) that works for WU, but rather if you are doing an in place upgrade? If this type of update is released in the future and renders my system totally inoperable (as it did in my first attempt) I'd like to know a bit more...
system requirements are only for online upgrades (new build, not update) and clean installs when 23H2 build will be available you just need to build new ISO with UFWS bypass (or you can just run setup.exe with server flag) and perform in-place upgrade from that ISO
Ok, so this has always been an issue with bypassing requirements on 11 since initial builds? I have done a few installs over the past year on VMs and always just used the LabConfig registry entries to install. But I never used them long enough to go through new build updates, so this is unfamiliar to me. Is the "server" hack that UFWS uses along with in-place upgrade the only known method to update builds if you don't meet requirements? I'm seeing these issues even going from my pristine copy built from MediaCreationTool yesterday (.525 build.) just trying to install the "April 11, 2023—KB5025239 (OS Build 22621.1555)" update. System reboots and goes through the whole %% black screen update process...until it begins to reverts the changes and goes back to .525. Additionally, after it reverts and boots back into windows, that update is listed as failed in the history, but instead of prompting me to install it again, it only shows KB5025305 available (which then fails to even install through WU). The weird thing is that on my first (out of 5) attempts at this since yesterday the first time it did successfully upgrade to .1555, but only that once.
Ok thanks. I have become mostly familiar with these in the past two days while researching through MDL and elsewhere. A couple clarification points though: I assume that there is no way to simply use the server flag when doing a clean install through an iso? Or are you able to open command prompt and relaunch setup with the flag instead of doing the reg hacks? My personal preference is always to keep my ISOs as untouched as possible. I understand that if you were doing mass deployments on unsupported hardware you might want to automate it more, but I have no problem issuing the LabConfig values if necessary. And here is the point I still need the most clarification on. All these methods we are talking upgrades...not updates (i.e. 21H2 to 22H2)?? But what about just updates (i.e .525 to .1555 to .1635). As I keep mentioning even a fresh install of .525 fails to update (90%) of the time. It isn't that WU is telling me I don't meet requirements. It does the install and then fails to complete it and rolls back. Is there a workaround here other than getting an ISO with that integrated *update* and doing an in-place upgrade? IOW, I can never use WU to apply build number updates?
you can't change installation type on clean install, just keep using Setup\LabConfig reg values on untouched ISO but for in-place upgrades you can just run "setup.exe /Product Server" in cmd there's no system requirements for updates at all, forget about it your 525 build is too old now, there's no point to use that old ISO a lot months later if you want to get original ISO not from UUP dump then download refreshed ISO on MVS, check SVF repo
For clean install, you can use the apply-image menu option proposed by the Win 11 Boot And Upgrade FiX KiT if you have chosen ton integrate the Diskpart & Apply Image script (v1.3.1).
Yes, but that isn't really the point. It will get me past this initial hurdle now to get to .1635, but no one seems to be acknowledging that the behavior I'm seeing was totally normal for .525 builds? If I build now with .1635, why wouldn't I see these same types of errors on a next build update? If you are telling me that it is totally normal and expected for a .525 build (what the MediaCreationTool provided today) to not even be able to apply .1555 that's one thing, but I'm not seeing other people mentioning this (or having mentioned it in the past). If there is are no requirements for updates then if I install fresh from .1635 I should have no problems when .2100 (or whatever) is released. But by that same logic I shouldn't be seeing the issue going from .525 to .1555 either correct? I (really) appreciate the help but I feel like my actual question on this front is being totally glossed over. I want to try and put this one to bed because I do have another question (regarding your SVF repo and build methods, etc), but don't want to move on until I've understood the issue here. thanks