[HN Gopher] Windows 11 will create heaps of needless trash
___________________________________________________________________
Windows 11 will create heaps of needless trash
Author : yabones
Score : 207 points
Date : 2021-06-27 20:37 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nbailey.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (nbailey.ca)
| nwellinghoff wrote:
| Windows 10 support goes through 2025. And they will prob do a
| forced security patch so you should be good until 2027ish.
| userbinator wrote:
| This shouldn't be _too_ surprising, given that Microsoft is also
| against right-to-repair...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20318882
|
| ... "because security". Securing what, exactly? Their profits and
| control. They don't want you using older systems because they
| have less control without a TPM and all the other horrors of
| Trusted Computing that come with it, such as remote attestation.
|
| It sounds almost conspiratorial, but I think this move by MS is
| just another step towards the "you will own nothing" trend of
| companies slowly herding their users with more and more
| restrictions and "beating them into submission", so they can
| extract more profits from them.
|
| I have zero "smart devices" in my home. My decades old car and
| other appliances listen only to me, are simple and easily
| repaired, and last a long time. My PC is slightly over a decade,
| but it's plenty fast for what I need to use it for. Others have
| made the safety/security argument to attempt to get me to replace
| them, and those arguments have likely convinced others, but I
| know what they're trying to get me into --- and very, _very_
| strongly oppose.
| dosenbrot wrote:
| > We should be extending the lives of existing machines as much
| as possible right now, encouraging people to purchase new
| computers right now is irresponsible. Not just now ..., our
| entire economy is based on shoving perfectly fine hardware into
| the trash. Microsoft is just a small part in this game. Also
| everyone talks about "eco friendly" and at the same time things
| like that happen: "you want the new operating system - buy
| complete new hardware - its just slightly better then the old
| one".
| young_unixer wrote:
| To think that all of this Microsoft bullshit could be the
| propeller for Linux adoption, if only Linux developers had good
| taste and had developed something worthy of replacing Windows.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| This is going to kill adoption of the new gaming features. I am
| really excited for Direct Storage on windows, but what incentive
| do the developers have to support it if only a small subset of
| their users have machines new enough to run it. This is exactly
| the same as the DirectX 10 disaster on Vista. It took a long time
| for developers to switch from 9 to 10. Most skipped 10 for 11
| because it had the same windows support. And direct storage is
| locked to windows 11. Microsoft, you want to be a gaming
| powerhouse? Maybe listen to developers and stop listening to your
| executives that don't understand. Games ported from Xbox Series X
| will be unable to run on Windows 10 if they require direct
| storage support.
| jmkni wrote:
| Maybe I'm getting old, but it's mental to me that a regular SDD
| over SATA3 is now regarded as _slow_ , and you need an NVME SSD
| to run things quickly.
|
| I have a gaming PC and really can't tell the difference between
| games loaded between the two.
| vvillena wrote:
| Because the games don't take advantage of the higher
| bandwidth. In fact, they probably don't even take advantage
| of the SSD, because games are still built so that they work
| when installed on spinning drives. The advantage of SSDs is
| the random access time, but if you are streaming continuous
| data, it's only about triple the speed of an HDD.
|
| A NVME PCIe 4.0 SSD can be up to 15 times faster than a SATA
| SSD. The difference is much much bigger.
| keyringlight wrote:
| I think it's going to be a little bit more challenging as the
| consoles are ahead with the storage capabilities as a baseline.
| Back in 2006 the consoles were (roughly) DX9 levels, so there
| wasn't really much incentive to push ahead unless your studio
| was a trailblazer. Now studios making games need to think on
| which audience they prioritize.
|
| To a certain extent I anticipate it could be "a storm in a
| teacup", the new consoles have strong CPUs so that would
| naturally drive people gaming on PC to upgrade anyway. There's
| no games coming out (that I know of) with an imminent need to
| utilize direct storage, but I'd guess late 2022/2023 onwards is
| where it becomes strongly encouraged.
| mikl wrote:
| This assumes that owners of functioning Win10 machines will
| decide to throw them away just to get Win11.
|
| I don't think that's a reasonable assumption for the large
| majority of users. If someone cares enough about having the
| latest (if not greatest) version, they are likely also upgrading
| their hardware frequently already.
| cdolan wrote:
| Could you not argue the exact opposite point with the same
| underlying facts? Meaning "requiring modern low power CPU's is a
| great thing for the environment"?
|
| And how reasonable is it to say these PCs will be immediately
| trashed? Seems like a straw man argument - I know plenty of
| schools that will happily run Win10 until 2030
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| I just hope that some of that needless trash enters the secondary
| market rather than going directly to recyclers. First of all
| because Win10 will stay useful for most people for quite some
| time yet, second because these boxes/laptops make great Linux
| machines!
| bifrost wrote:
| Most recyclers repurpose stuff like this...
| bruce343434 wrote:
| It IS a heap of needless trash!
| leucineleprec0n wrote:
| The hype train is already starting RE: "people will switch to
| Linux, etc etc". MS for once abandons the backwards compatibility
| obsession, albeit in an understandable but not user-facing,
| palatable way as with a unified UI - and is dammed to Techlord
| Mordor. Poor strategy aside, MS just can't win with everyone, the
| divide is particularly stark for their user base. IMO though they
| should never have been remotely as lenient over the control panel
| UI and such, or should've launched a reworked OS dubbed "tileOS"
| that cleaved off cruft, nix-based with a unified touch & a great
| package manager, terminal for the backend.
|
| It feels to me like the current strategy splits too many hairs.
| Apple understood this, which is why they haven't launched MacOS
| RT/10X then scrapped it or some jazz. (And to be clear the issue
| with 10X is it that it wasn't really approxmating a cleaned up
| version of Windows - just a ChromeOS competitor for low-cost
| garbage)
|
| Oh, but as for Linux on the desktop - the only way that happens
| is probably MS throwing in the towel (which is a poor phrase
| given the context would almost certainly be a boon to most
| everyone) adopting the Linux Kernel or some FreeBSD core, with a
| compatability layer for Win32 bullshit.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| But their backwards compabitility obsession is not seen as a
| drawback by everyone. In fact I personally think Apple is
| taking things too far.
|
| The people that would complain about the backwards
| compatibility are probably not the same people that are
| complaining now. Those people would already be using their
| fancy UWP Metro apps :)
|
| By the way they are dropping the live tiles in Windows 11! So
| tileOS would be a misnomer. I'm personally very happy about
| that, I always spent a while cleaning up the start menu of all
| that crap after every install. I never liked the idea of them
| but admittedly I'm a pretty traditional user (and a power user
| at that).
|
| One thing I do really like in Windows 11 is the new pane
| system. I haven't yet tried it but it sounds like an
| interesting compromise between a traditional and a tiling
| window system. And the good thing about it is that it doesn't
| have to break any backwards compatibility (after all, neither
| do tiling WMs on Linux)
| leucineleprec0n wrote:
| Haha I realize that re live tiles. I do think the tiles lost
| their allure over time, but at the least the functional UI
| within menus and such that MS has been evolving _at it 's
| best_ looks great or superior to others of the day then/now
| (metro, fluent).
|
| Likewise re cleaning up the start crap, I'm not wedded to the
| tiles haha! As a reluctant recent MacOS user though, I really
| love the functionality of the start menu's easy-to-access
| list of my software suites/programs. I just strongly feel the
| Dock + Launchpad is a poor substitute for the Taskbar + Start
| Menu. Much easier to shove my programs in hiding, or to
| access.... Windows/instances for that matter in Windows
| (because all instances remain visible within a scrolling
| glance of an alias/icon, on Windows - it's something truly
| bizarre to me in that MacOS users don't mention this flaw -
| the dock is so easily cluttered and the setting to minimize
| instances into an icon do not offer an easy glance as with
| Windows).Anyways, I'd still really like them to unify the UI
| - it's just a deadweight loss for everyone right now IMO.
| Even the legacy IT managers... At some point asking them to
| tolerate UI adjustment isn't insane.
|
| RE: Apple: I do agree Apple have gone too far at times... I
| mean, I think dropping 32-bit support was for the better
| right now, not too many regrets as I write this on my M1 MBA,
| though having to dual boot for a class was a PITA last year
| with Catalina's lack of 32-bit support (and I am opposed to
| the use of V*rtualbox). IDK, I guess my only real quibble
| with Apple other than embracing iOS7 design is the direction
| they're hellbent on leading the charge for with iOS' software
| model. OTOH, where I part with some here is that I just don't
| think MS is really out to stop people from installing Linux
| via TPM - I think this is just usual poor PR and poor
| strategizing. Looks like they're determined to further muddy
| the waters lol: https://tinyurl.com/srk9zm7e
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I use Mac a lot too (I do use pretty much all platforms
| every day). But I don't use Launchpad for the same reason.
| I don't find it fits well on my big 24" screen. I don't
| want huge icons spread out over the whole thing, same issue
| I had with Windows 8.
|
| Instead, what I do is I add the Applications folder to the
| dock and set it to pop-up grid mode. That way it provides a
| nice start menu. Incidentially this was pretty much how
| 'things worked' in earlier versions of macOS. In the oldest
| versions you'd just get a finder window with your apps, and
| when Stacks came in Leopard (IIRC) this became the de facto
| 'start menu'. They later introduced launchpad as a unifying
| thing with the iPad but I just don't think full screen
| interfaces work well on large screens.
|
| Also using spotlight is a handy way of launching apps. I
| use both together a lot.
|
| And yes I totally agree that the minimised windows are hard
| to spot on macOS, and so is the dot to see which program is
| running or not. Apple has been tuning down this dot a lot
| over the years because they don't want users to care about
| it. It used to be a perfectly serviceable triangle in Tiger
| and went downhill from there.
|
| And yeah I don't think the point is them preventing Linux
| either. Even if you have a TPM you still retain full
| control and can still add your own secureboot keys if you
| want to.
| pt_PT_guy wrote:
| People have voted... with their money.
|
| Microsoft can't longer afford being yield back by deprecated
| processor technology. And the bad publicity of doing so.
|
| By not bumping the requirements a lot of security and speed
| improvements can't be done.
|
| This is even more visible with the Apple M1 release. Because of
| it Windows looks like insecure, insufficient and unoptimized.
|
| People have chosen that they don't care about openness neither
| about supporting legacy hardware and Microsoft is listening.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| What deprecated processor technology? The cutoff is not based
| on CPU capabilities or processing power. They just choose a
| point in time and only support CPU's newer than that.
| pt_PT_guy wrote:
| you're right. I was expecting that 10th+ intel gen had a lot
| more hardware extensions, but looks like there's none
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| The basic problem:
|
| Windows is forcing hundreds of millions of devices into technical
| obsolescence, for no good reason other than another incremental
| upgrade to its operating system.
|
| Human civilization has existed for approximately 10,000 years.
| The main purpose of a society is to survive indefinitely into the
| future. I would like human civilization to exist in 10,000 years,
| in 100,000 years.
|
| If Microsoft changes its operating system every decade, we're
| looking at 10 000 iterations of Windows in the next 100 000
| years. 10 000 cycles that, if current trends continue, will each
| render hundreds of millions of electronic devices obsolete,
| representing billions of pounds of plastic and metals each. To
| put it plainly, there are not enough petroleum resources and
| metals in the upper crust of this planet to manufacture the
| hundreds of millions of brand new electronic devices that
| successive wave of consumers will demand every few years.
|
| The author is right. The fact that Windows 11 will be available
| as a free upgrade to devices already running W10 doesn't change
| the fact that many, if not most, of them won't meet Microsoft's
| specs.
|
| I am very concerned about the environmental cost of electronics,
| and I'm afraid we're not taking the issue seriously enough. We're
| somehow trying to transition our way into a digital utopia the
| likes of which exist in science fiction, without the
| infrastructure or the resources to support it.
|
| One of the most popular PC games of all times is Age of Empires
| II, a game that originally came out in 1999. The original game
| can practically run on a toaster, and still enjoys a large and
| vibrant online community.
|
| Why can't we... settle on the same operating system for a few
| centuries? (I realize that Microsoft would not do this on its
| own, and that it would require government intervention in the
| market, if not an outright public takeover of Microsoft, but I'm
| throwing ideas into the wind here) Now I'm _glad_ we 're not
| still using Windows 95, but will OS's in 25 years be that much
| more advanced than 2021 OS's compared to 1995? I don't think so.
| I think Windows 10 is _good enough_ for a long, long time.
| Microsoft 's concept of W10 as the final version of the product
| was right, and I'm disappointed to see it go.
|
| Maybe the long term solution is for the government itself to
| start selling, if not mandating, its own operating system
| software to consumers and businesses alike. Government doesn't
| have to meet quarterly profit goals, which is a plus in favor of
| long term sustainability.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Sorry for the aside, but do these TPM 2.0 modules actually
| guarantee any additional security?
| bifrost wrote:
| A TPM does provide security, but unclear if it'll actually
| matter for the Windows use cases.
| wang_li wrote:
| An encrypted hdd/ssd will help of someone steals your computer,
| removes your drive, and tries to read it from another computer
| in order to bypass your passwords. It won't do shit for ransom
| ware. Ransom ware runs as a user land program and does
| encryption from within your OS where you data is live and
| unencrypted. The end result will be a hard drive full of
| encrypted files that is then reencrypted by bitlocker.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| If someone steals your computer, they also have the TPM,
| which has the key, right? What am I missing about what TPM
| does that is so secure?
| yabones wrote:
| The only thing TPM based disk encryption protects is the
| kernel and the login screen. Without disk encryption
| somebody could modify your kernel or boot sequence and
| inject something nasty. Likewise they could do the old
| utilman.exe hack[1] and get admin by replacing one of the
| programs on the login screen with a shell.
|
| If the device can boot without a password or PIN, there are
| some surprising ways to get into it just by switching
| networks (if network drives are mounted it will _sometimes_
| send NTLM hashes), or by good old brute-forcing.
|
| [1] https://blog.kaniski.eu/2020/12/utilman-exe-to-cmd-exe-
| and-b...
| mnd999 wrote:
| The TPM combined with secure boot will only unlock the disk
| if nothings been tampered with, meaning your OS security is
| intact. If you switch off secure boot or mess with the
| kernel or boot loader it'll just refuse to unlock.
|
| I would guess extracting the keys from the tpm in other
| ways is not impossible, but probably sufficiently hard to
| be not worth it in most situations.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| So if you modify any components in a laptop, say RAM or a
| video card, or you you mess with any BIOS settings, it
| won't boot?
|
| is this for real...?
| my123 wrote:
| The TPM gets the measurements of the state of the system
| during different phases of the boot process, and only
| releases the key if those measurements match.
|
| It's also designed to not be able to be able to extract the
| key material out of it.
| azalemeth wrote:
| As ever with security questions, the answer to that depends a
| _lot_ on your threat model.
|
| Microsoft say that the main features of TPMs are that they [1]:
|
| > Generate, store, and limit the use of cryptographic keys.
|
| > Use TPM technology for platform device authentication by
| using the TPM's unique RSA key, which is burned into itself.
|
| > Help ensure platform integrity by taking and storing security
| measurements.
|
| One can, in principle, imagine situations a la Apple's T2 chip
| whereby this could be very useful to the end user -- for
| example, in hardware rate-limiting whole drive encryption
| decryption requests. Microsoft don't actually state this as a
| potential use-case. They go for the rather more prosaic
|
| > Antimalware software can use the boot measurements of the
| operating system start state to prove the integrity of a
| computer running Windows 10 or Windows Server 2016. These
| measurements include the launch of Hyper-V to test that
| datacenters using virtualization are not running untrusted
| hypervisors. With BitLocker Network Unlock, IT administrators
| can push an update without concerns that a computer is waiting
| for PIN entry.
|
| The rest of the page then goes on about hardware attestation.
| In reality, I am increasingly convinced that this is all an
| elaborate DRM scheme, similar to what they integrated in the
| XBox, with its on-chip crypto. I think we will see increasingly
| user-hostile, but more "transparent" DRM schemes based around
| this idea, and continue the cat-and-mouse game of "you are
| running this code in a VM and that is unauthorised for
| $MONEY_REASONS".
|
| I'll stick to Linux, thanks.
|
| [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/security/informatio...
| [deleted]
| hakfoo wrote:
| I'm worried that pushing whole-disc encryption at people who
| aren't aware of the consequences is a huge risk.
|
| I suspect for most consumer and small-business users, the
| risk of "a power surge blew out my motherboard and TPM, but I
| can take the surviving SSD and plunk it in a new PC and
| salvage my data" is a much more important use case than
| "someone might steal my PC and get at my valuable unencrypted
| data." I know we've heard people screaming about this on the
| MacOS side, but thereit's intertwined with the
| unrecoverability of a soldered storage subsystem.
|
| Large and technical organizations who might need the
| encryption are hopefully more likely to have IT staff and
| policies for backups and recovery, so they'll be able to
| handle that emergency better.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yes this. I've scraped my SSD for data after it blew up :)
|
| The data wasn't _that_ valuable otherwise I 'd have had it
| backed up. The problem is it's my game PC. I don't want to
| constantly backup and sync all my game files as I can
| easily re-download them anyway and they take a ton of
| space. The savegames I do want backed up ideally but
| they're all over the filesystem. So, I recovered some that
| way. It was educational too, trying to scrape stuff off a
| broken NTFS image.
|
| But I certainly don't need or want my desktop PC encrypted.
| I only use my Windows box for gaming and I don't want to
| waste performance on it.
| easton wrote:
| In Windows 10 today, enabling BitLocker backups the keys to
| your AAD/Microsoft Account (depending on Home or Pro). If
| you hook the drive to another Windows machine you should be
| able to decrypt it with not a lot of trouble (you might
| have to log into the Azure Portal to pull the keys out if
| you are in a corporate environment, but that's it).
| tiagod wrote:
| Doesn't this defeat the purpose (at least partially?)
|
| I assume law enforcement can request those keys from
| Microsoft if they're backed up to the account.
| ptk wrote:
| I think the threat models of the overwhelming majority of
| individuals would prioritize scenarios that involve lost
| or stolen laptops/desktops over law enforcement. So
| Microsoft defaulting to protecting the security needs of
| the common man over criminals seems entirely reasonable
| to me. Criminals (or the security/privacy conscious) can
| organize their enterprises to make sure that their
| BitLocker keys aren't stored where law enforcement
| agencies can get them. And I say that as someone who
| really does have concerns about the possibility that this
| can be abused, but I still believe it's a reasonable
| default.
| koehr wrote:
| I fail to see any mention of or link to the detailed requirements
| talked about. To save y'all from yet another search engine visit,
| they are basically Intel 8th Gen Core upwards and comparable AMD
| CPUs. Here you can find the lists: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows-hardware/design/min...
| yabones wrote:
| Thanks! I updated the OP to reference this for people who may
| not have been 'in the loop' and need this context.
| btdmaster wrote:
| I wonder how many will be convinced to install Linux, especially
| given the increasing move for Operating Systems as a browser
| shim.
| bifrost wrote:
| Probably zero.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Zero. Maybe some tens of consumers will have their computer
| converted into a Linux box by a nephew.
| forinti wrote:
| If Windows 10 didn't convince you, nothing will.
| krylon wrote:
| I remember reading some blog posts from people switching to
| Linux because they disliked Windows 10 for various reasons
| (mostly privacy concerns and forced updates), but I think those
| were fairly tech savvy already.
|
| Most people will just use whatever Microsoft releases, either
| because it comes preinstalled on their PC, because it's what
| they know, or because they need Windows because of some
| application or piece of hardware.
|
| The year of Linux on the desktop will have to wait for a while,
| I'm afraid.
|
| (On my desktop it's been year-of-the-Linux-desktop for the past
| 20 years, fortunately.)
| nfca wrote:
| Is there an actual risk of "heaps" of "trash"? If Windows 11 will
| not be an involuntary, forced update then woudln't existing
| hardware continue to run as it does today?
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| New macOS is similar, where it seems like they are dumping
| support for any Mac that has an nVidia GPU.
| fungiblecog wrote:
| Our entire society functions on the idea that consumption is
| good. And our desire for more crap is destroying our planet's
| ability to sustain us indefinitely into the future.
|
| So whenever I hear all these complaints about companies acting in
| their interests - rather than for the common good - I wonder what
| planet I'm living on.
|
| Until we accept that governments not only have a right, but a
| duty, to force us to reduce our consumption - rather than
| encouraging it - we're going to continue down the drain. Market
| forces and greed will not fix this problem.
| sedatk wrote:
| I think the article makes a good point about the arbitrary red
| line drawn between two CPU generations with no justification
| whatsoever, but "heaps of trash" isn't the strongest argument
| against this. Arguably, Intel releasing new CPUs causes that even
| more heaps of trash, probably orders of magnitude more than
| Windows. It's a silly argument IMHO.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Releasing new CPUs doesn't make older ones unusable; making an
| OS incompatible with them without good reason does.
|
| The article wording might not be the best, still it's spot on:
| users whose software will require Windows 11 (or simply who
| won't feel like going back after upgrading) will be forced to
| ditch their system, which in a world dominated by Windows,
| therefore many users with the same problem, is a lot more
| likely to turn into trash rather than sold as used.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _Releasing new CPUs doesn 't make older ones unusable;
| making an OS incompatible with them without good reason
| does._
|
| All those Windows 7 computers didn't become unusable once
| Windows 8 came out.
| squarefoot wrote:
| That's because Windows 8 wasn't incompatible with the same
| hardware that could run windows 7. You're making my point.
|
| The article criticizes Windows 11 insane hardware
| requirements, not Microsoft for making a new version of
| Windows.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _That 's because Windows 8 wasn't incompatible with the
| same hardware that could run windows 7._
|
| That only matters if people actually upgrade their
| Windows 7 installs to Windows 8 installs. And since it
| was a paid upgrade to an OS that was arguable worse than
| what people had, people probably skipped out.
|
| How Windows upgrades worked before Windows 10 was that
| you upgraded to a new version of Windows when you bought
| a new PC. Every other means of upgrading was minor at
| best, since it wasn't available through Windows Update
| for free.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| They became unusable, practically speaking, when support
| ended (unless they're off the grid, or if you don't care to
| be part of a botnet). Microsoft now says support for
| Windows 10 will end in 2025; all those unsupported
| computers became landfill at that point, even if they still
| run perfectly fine.
| jmkni wrote:
| Is it abritary? I was wondering if limiting to new to newer
| CPU's would enable them to stop supporting/rip out a load of
| legacy code?
|
| Also, is this _actually_ a good opportuinty for Desktop Linux?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It hasn't in recent years, PC fleets have been aging forever.
| 36 month refresh cycles are more like 50 months these days.
|
| This is straight up a way to keep intel alive.
| andyjansson wrote:
| I don't think it's a silly argument at all. Windows 10 will
| meet its EOL in 2025, meaning that our computers only have 4
| more years left in them (or you switch to something like linux,
| but that's not really an option for most people for obvious
| reasons). This will make the computers unattractive on the
| second-hand market. IMO a computer should be serviceable for
| longer than 7 years.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _IMO a computer should be serviceable for longer than 7
| years._
|
| How many Windows PCs are actually getting security updates
| for less than 7 years? Your CPU will have to be like 8 years
| old when you stop getting security updates for Windows 10 and
| you can't upgrade to Windows 11.
| andyjansson wrote:
| >Your CPU will have to be like 8 years old when you stop
| getting security updates for Windows 10 and you can't
| upgrade to Windows 11.
|
| Yes, and I'm saying that's unreasonable. Look no further
| than this very thread and you'll find plenty of people
| using 10-year old computers without issue.
| Goz3rr wrote:
| >the arbitrary red line drawn between two CPU generations
|
| I've seen people theorize that it's because of the availability
| of UMIP instructions
| ColonelPhantom wrote:
| According to WikiChip, UMIP got added in Zen2 (Ryzen 3000),
| while MS supports Zen+ (Ryzen 2000).
| cortesoft wrote:
| I get the frustration with the requirements, but it is a little
| dramatic to say those machines who don't meet the requirements
| will go straight in the trash. Those machines can still run
| Windows 10, and a lot of people will just keep using it. Why
| would people who don't feel the need to upgrade to the newest
| hardware as soon as it is out feel the need to upgrade to the
| newest OS as soon as it comes out?
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| Because Windows 10 support eventually ends, and because of the
| proprietary nature of the software, independent individuals
| can't patch their own computer like an official Windows Update
| can. So those individuals who keep using a W10 machine beyond
| the end of extended support will be vulnerable to any number of
| threats if their machine is not air gapped.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Yeah, and hardware support also ends.
|
| Windows 10 is to be supported until 2025.
| userbinator wrote:
| _and because of the proprietary nature of the software,
| independent individuals can 't patch their own computer like
| an official Windows Update can._
|
| At least for older versions, there have been plenty of
| unofficial patches for various things, and many of those are
| open-source too.
|
| Patching binaries has been a long tradition in the
| DOS/Windows world, going back decades.
| Todd wrote:
| Microsoft is late to the party here. This has been core to
| Apple's business model for years. Here's an example of OS support
| for the MacBook Air:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air#Supported_macOS_re...
|
| The arbitrary cadence of abandonment is amazingly consistent and
| has no basis in hardware capabilities.
| hughrr wrote:
| I'm not sure that's a problem. I usually thoroughly wear them
| out before they go obsolete and quite frankly I don't want to
| use a 7+ year old computer. They're pretty awful.
| koyote wrote:
| Really? I still use my now over 8 year old Thinkpad (upgraded
| screen, hdd, ram and replaced the keyboard after an orange
| juice 'incident') and it feels as quick as my 2 year-old work
| laptop.
|
| Moore's law is long dead for consumer perception of speed,
| even other components have stagnated lately. RAM size and HDD
| space has not really moved much in the last 5 years for a
| regular laptop; CPUs have gotten a bit faster but the average
| user will not notice the difference in their every day
| workflow.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Exactly. I think part of this is driven by changes in
| Microsoft's business model.
|
| Previously every couple of years they'd come out with a new
| paid upgrade. But since they basically made Windows 10 a
| 'rolling distro', they've been losing a lot of income on this
| side.
|
| As Windows 11 will be free for existing PCs but new PCs will
| have licensing included in the price (as they did with Windows
| 10), they have a strong incentive to have as many people as
| possible buy new PCs. Just as Apple does. After all, macOS
| mainly exists to sell Apple hardware, not the other way around.
|
| It's no wonder their support model is changing, but I think
| it's sad they are dropping models so young. Windows used to be
| great at very long term support on hardware. Probably the best
| of the commercial OSes.
| ashdev wrote:
| That's true, but if you compare the resale value of PCs and
| MacBooks, you'll find that MacBooks(even with outdated OS) have
| higher resale value. Therefore, this is a bit of a tricky
| situtation for PCs since they can't be sold for much.
| frozenport wrote:
| This article doesn't explain why it will create the waste? What
| changed in the spec, is it enforced?
| jorams wrote:
| > This article doesn't explain why it will create the waste?
|
| I was similarly confused by the article's lack of actual
| information. As it stands it tells me there are arbitrary CPU
| specs and a bunch of common hardware meets those requirements.
| But then apparently the situation is terrible, people will need
| to buy new hardware and the majority of consumer hardware is
| deprecated.
| midnitewarrior wrote:
| I have a perfectly good PC from 2015 that has a Gen 5 Intel
| processor. It is 64-bit, 6-core, supports TPM 2.0, and supports
| the virtualization instructions, UEFI, etc.
|
| I have 64 gigs of ram in this and other upgrades, it works
| great, but it will die with Win 10 because the CPU isn't on
| Microsoft's list. When Win 10 support is done, so is my PC that
| I've invested a lot of money in. So yeah, it's going to become
| trash or a Linux box I haven't a need for.
| floatboth wrote:
| Why do you think that there will be actual checks for this
| list. This is just a list intended for OEMs that build new
| machines. NO WAY there will be cpuid checks to exclude your
| processor specifically.
| astrange wrote:
| Can't you recycle every component except the motherboard?
| contingencies wrote:
| Given a few years of time passing, generally motherboard
| upgrades require changing the physical format of the CPU
| and RAM interfaces, which means everything's wasted.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Win 11 won't support a bunch of recent (3 year old) perfectly
| good hardware because demands for TPM like features.
| romwell wrote:
| So the owners of that hardware will continue using Windows
| 10.
|
| Or, if they _desperately_ need Win 11, the resale value of
| "good enough to do homework on" computers is still pretty
| good.
|
| But judging by the Win 10 rollout, the people who care enough
| to have the latest Windows to _want_ it are a very small
| minority who have recent hardware anyway.
|
| I would bet it's a marketing choice, to ensure the the
| rollout is smooth and people _like the experience_. The specs
| might be a deliberate overkill to ensure that the first users
| have more than enough hardware (which probably was tested
| well enough), _and_ are more likely to be computer
| enthusiasts who want latest-and-greatest.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| It has nothing to do with performance. It is almost
| certainly either due to malware concerns or DRM
| protections.
| 1stranger wrote:
| I don't understand this logic. The vast majority of people don't
| care what version of Windows they're running. They'll just keep
| running Windows 10 without a care in the world. Just like they
| keep running Windows 7.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I prefer Windows 7. I like it's UI better. MS' ideal world
| would apparently not include any OS besides Windows 10 and 11,
| which is a great shame because i think there's so many great UI
| features in older Windows.
| chasil wrote:
| The most dislikable thing about Windows 7 is the limitation
| of clear text SMB2.
|
| It's a good trade for local accounts and a superior ui to
| what followed.
| slver wrote:
| Security fixes and support.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| Most users don't care about that.
| robocat wrote:
| Users care: so much so that they pay money for antivirus.
|
| They just don't understand the consequences of some of
| their actions or inactions, because they are not security
| professionals.
| Hamuko wrote:
| You still get 4 years with 10.
|
| The Intel 8th gneration was introduced in 2017. So people who
| bought a computer in 2016 can still push it to ~9 years of
| service life, which is pretty good for an average Windows
| computer if they manage to do it. I imagine your average
| Windows consumer will have replaced a computer once already
| in that span once all the installed crap has stalled the
| computer to inoperable speeds.
|
| This honestly doesn't really strike me as a major issue.
| Especially since smartphones have like less than three years
| of security fixes on average.
| andyjansson wrote:
| >This honestly doesn't really strike me as a major issue.
|
| You're saying this from a position of privilege. There are
| a lot of people that don't enjoy the same financial
| security that you and I do that will be affected immensely
| by this. I know a few and this is not news in their favor.
| Zevis wrote:
| Working in PC repair, a majority of my customers can't
| just up and buy a new PC just because Microsoft
| arbitrarily decides that whatever they have isn't good
| enough, even though it has sufficient performance.
| cpeterso wrote:
| For an example of just how many people don't care about EOL'd
| operating systems:
|
| Microsoft's mainstream support for Windows 7 ended in January
| 2015 (and paid "Extended Security Updates" service ended in
| January 2020) and yet 21% of Firefox users are still running
| Windows 7:
|
| https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware#goto-os-and-arch...
| quantumsequoia wrote:
| I think Firefox users are much more likely to be contrarian
| with their software decisions. I'm not sure how much I'd be
| willing to extrapolate from from data on Firefox users to the
| general population
| madeofpalk wrote:
| You think Firefox users are going to be more likely to use
| an EOL-ed OS?
| bruce343434 wrote:
| Perhaps, because win7 is known for being "the last good
| windows" with some privacy. It may or may not be true,
| but a lot of people are adamant about not using linux
| while also trying to maintain privacy, hence they use
| win7. I imagine such users would probably use a browser
| like firefox.
| benbristow wrote:
| I don't think Microsoft would want to make that same mistake
| again. I would expect Microsoft start pushing Windows 11
| automatically through Windows Update for anyone on Windows 10,
| or at least start pushing heavily through popups/notifications
| to start the update like they did with Windows 10.
| romwell wrote:
| Soooo, the people who can't install Windows 11 will continue
| to not care?
|
| I don't understand the logic of your response. It's not like
| Microsoft will brick machines not eligible for Win 11
| IshKebab wrote:
| They will drop support in 4 years though (or so they say)
| which is very short notice for desktops OSes.
| numpad0 wrote:
| By cutting off at 8th Gen and TPM 1.2+2.0, they're cutting
| off _a lot of current and high end systems built by
| enthusiasts_ , while supporting far slower and inferior
| PCs.
|
| That's the problem. No one's arguing they're chasing off
| cheap Celeron, they're trying to get rid of even some
| _Threadrippers_ and _multi-socket_ setups, that could have
| 128GB or more of RAM, for "performance".
| tremon wrote:
| So, what's in those generations that might actually
| matter to Microsoft? As you say, it's unlikely to be
| about performance. Is it some instruction set, or feature
| flags? It's unlikely to be about virtualization
| capabilities, as Intel still happily sells the newest
| chips "differentiated" to be virtually challenged. Did
| those generations introduce some crypto
| algorithm/primitive that Microsoft doesn't want to go
| without? A new system management mode? On-die microphone?
| numpad0 wrote:
| Intel sales is desperate to stop brand loyalty vanishing,
| processors losing relevance, while Microsoft is trying to
| recuperate costs on cancelled Windows 10X code. Those are
| suspicions I have.
|
| The "only the latest Intel enable $use_case" cliche is
| their default marketing narrative. Microsoft or AMD or
| NVIDIA normally don't do that.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > I don't think Microsoft would want to make that same
| mistake again.
|
| The mistake of not pushing it? I still remember the uproar
| when people needed to Google how to say "no" to the upgrade
| dialog - if it did not simply install without asking, that
| is. I honestly can't see how they would push Windows 11 any
| harder.
| wmf wrote:
| We're talking about computers that (officially) cannot run
| Windows 11. Obviously they won't be auto-upgraded.
| benbristow wrote:
| I'm sure they'll loosen the restriction of having TPM
| enabled. That seems to be the only limiting factor.
|
| Or they could perhaps find a way to build a piece of
| software that will enable it automatically...
| Teever wrote:
| So what is the point of a restriction that they will
| later loosen?
| vetinari wrote:
| > I'm sure they'll loosen the restriction of having TPM
| enabled. That seems to be the only limiting factor.
|
| They've _added_ restrictions since: 8th gen Intel Core or
| 2nd gen AMD Zen required.
| floatboth wrote:
| That's just some list in the documentation, mostly
| intended for OEMs building new computers with pre-
| installed Windows.
|
| NO WAY there will be literal cpuid checks excluding
| earlier processors.
| vetinari wrote:
| This is not the Windows Logo program, which is intended
| for OEMs.
|
| There do not need to be any CPUID checks to exclude
| processors; just a random update will not work and
| Microsoft will shrug it off, well, that CPU is not on the
| supported list anyway.
| least wrote:
| That wouldn't work if the person's computer doesn't support
| Windows 11, though, which is the entire argument the blog
| post is making. That because windows 11 won't work people
| will just throw away their computers and create more
| electronic waste.
| agumonkey wrote:
| "computer locked, you need to buy a new one to keep
| enjoying our stuff"
| otterley wrote:
| Microsoft isn't going to do that.
| mdoms wrote:
| So your issue is that MS will force the upgrade onto machines
| they have explicitly said can't be upgraded? Is that really
| your concern?
| sp332 wrote:
| Win10 is fine for most people, and each benefit of Win11 can
| seem a little "niche", but lots of people will fit into at
| least one of those little niches. Gamers in particular, who
| have gotten perfectly acceptable performance out of e.g. Ryzen
| 1x00 CPUs, will need to upgrade to get the most out of their
| fast SSDs or other features like Auto HDR.
| iamcreasy wrote:
| I left my laptop, that ran Windows 7, running for a couple of
| hours, and came back to see a notification that says welcome to
| Windows 10.
| joshschreuder wrote:
| Not sure how that's relevant to someone who can't upgrade
| because of unsupported hardware. You can't get autoupgraded
| to an OS your hardware doesn't support. And most such people
| would happily continue using Windows 10 without caring (or
| knowing, most likely)
| Narishma wrote:
| Consider yourself lucky it only took 2 hours to install.
| fddddd wrote:
| people are forgetting w11 will be the useless windows version.
|
| everyone knows that between actual windows versions (3, 95,
| vista, xp, 10) there are the BS money making by selling flashy
| badges to PC OEM manufacturers (98, me, forgot the name , 8)
|
| so obviously w11 can be safely ignored by everyone.
| midnitewarrior wrote:
| Microsoft can't afford to have a useless version, there are now
| viable alternatives to Windows.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Isn't Vista the arch nemesis of 7? Also 95 is not too great but
| 98 is definitely not the bad cop, especially SE. Windows ME on
| the other hand...
|
| 2000 is also pretty cool, but didn't show up on the list, and
| not sure where the NT releases 3 and 4 would go.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I thought 95 was better than 98 - faster and less bloated.
| Just the USB support was lacking but OSR2 fixed that mostly.
|
| 2000 was definitely better than XP in my book. Of course ME
| was a complete and total turd. But it was only built in a
| couple months after MS changed their mind about Windows 2000
| personal edition.
|
| But really in my book XP was Windows 2000 Bloatware Edition.
| Same with 98 over 95.
|
| With Vista it went the opposite way though, Vista was all
| glossy/bloaty and Win7 fixed that. And don't start me on
| Windows 8, that was just a terrible POS on the desktop, with
| its _huge_ start screen. Nice idea on a tablet, terrible on
| the desktop.
| modzu wrote:
| or better still, maybe its windows 11 that ends up in the
| garbage. give fedora a try :)
| haunter wrote:
| I'd do once anti cheat works for online multiplayer games
| alkonaut wrote:
| > A modest Intel Skylake laptop from 2016 meets all the core
| requirements. It is 64 bit, supports UEFI, and even contains a
| hardware TPM 2.0 module on board.
|
| Is anyone suggesting Win11 won't _run_ on a 2016 Skylake?
|
| That Microsoft says it's not _supported_ doesn't necessarily mean
| that. It would be extremely surprising if windows effectively
| checked the cpuid and arbitrarilily rejected a processor with the
| necessary features.
| vetinari wrote:
| > Is anyone suggesting Win11 won't run on a 2016 Skylake?
|
| Yes, Microsoft is suggesting exactly that:
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/min...
| Kuraj wrote:
| _This_ is what kills me most. Not the TPM part, as I can (and
| have) bought an external TPM module for my motherboard for
| like $10.
|
| But this would basically require of me to build a brand new
| PC, while this one still does a fine job for gaming,
| development and audio editing.
| alkonaut wrote:
| You misunderstood me: are we assuming that the Microsoft list
| of supported processors represents all the CPUs that _can_
| run Windows 11, rather than the list that Microsoft
| _supports_ (meaning they promise it works, promise it will
| _continue_ to work) These at least to me seem like completely
| different things (and have been in the past).
|
| As an example: Windows 10 is not officially supported on
| Sandy Bridge CPUs like the i7-2600K but it runs just fine.
| floatboth wrote:
| This looks like a list of processors they *approve for
| OEMs* that build *new* computers with Windows pre-
| installed.
|
| Everyone is acting completely ridiculously thinking that
| there will be actual cpuid checks.
| vetinari wrote:
| > The specification defines the Windows minimum hardware
| requirements necessary to:
|
| > Boot and run Windows
|
| > Update and service Windows
|
| > Provide a baseline user experience that is comparable
| with similar devices and computers
|
| It says nowhere that it is for OEMs, this is not the
| Windows Logo program which is for OEMs; and in fact, some
| of the CPUs mentioned are not on the market anymore.
| andix wrote:
| Just to put it in a perspective: an iMac bought in January 2019
| (kaby lake) is not supported by Windows 11.
|
| That's just crazy.
|
| If Microsoft will continue like that, Windows will be the new
| Android and you can't invest into new hardware, as it may be
| garbage already two years later.
| einr wrote:
| Ahem.
|
| You can buy an Intel iMac _today, new from Apple,_ that will
| not run Windows 11.
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-imac/21.5-inch
|
| Yes, Apple still sells an iMac with a 7th generation Dual-Core
| Intel i5. For $1099. No, you should not buy one, but... there
| it is.
| virgulino wrote:
| I built a new desktop PC 2 months ago. I bought the only Ryzen
| APU (new, not used) I could find online here in Brazil. Ryzen
| 2200G, Zen 1st gen. Released in 2018, still selling worldwide.
|
| Brand new machine. Not supported by Windows 11...
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I do not plan to replace my computer until I need to. I still use
| screens from 2008, they are working perfectly fine and might live
| an other 12 years.
|
| If I can't install Win11 on my computer, then I'll simply won't
| install it before a long time.
|
| We're not in the 90s anymore.
| ferdowsi wrote:
| The "will create trash" reason is why Apple refused to switch to
| USB-C on the iPhone. They claim this while bundling USB-C to
| Lightning cables with the iPhone 12 which is among the most junk-
| worthy, limited-use types of cable I could imagine.
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51208912
| Schnitz wrote:
| Or people just don't upgrade Windows, like when they skipped
| Windows ME, Vista or 8 etc?
| contingencies wrote:
| Ubuntu and by extension the broader Linux and open source
| ecosystem will benefit greatly from this decision.
| [deleted]
| andrewclunn wrote:
| You say trash, I say linux machines.
| thrill wrote:
| "After all, security is all about feelings rather than safety."
|
| Really? I'm supposed to take someone seriously that makes a
| statement like this?
| nh2 wrote:
| Reading the preceding and following sentence: You have
| encountered sarcasm.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| Oh noes! My thrasherinos! Think of environment!
|
| Just because there's a new version of windows, PC is not turning
| into pumpkin. It can run forever on old Windows version or
| converted into Linux machine.
| ezoe wrote:
| I don't get it. Most users don't upgrade the Windows OS version
| installed on the existing hardware.
|
| Also, TPM and storage encryption won't protect you from
| ransomeware if you let attacker allows storage access.
| unangst wrote:
| Modern Tech / Cheap Prices / Stewardship. Pick two.
| illys wrote:
| There is nothing new here. Any new Windows version has
| transformed the previous generation of PCs into trash since
| people moved from DOS as a main user interface to Windows 3.
|
| And people say "my PC is slow because it is getting old"... Even
| if the hardware has the exact same performance and almost the
| same usage like in its first day.
|
| Why should they stop when customers comply and give them money?
| ... for ethics? for the environment? Who believes Microsoft has
| such concerns?
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Any new Windows version has transformed the previous
| generation of PCs into trash since people moved from DOS as a
| main user interface to Windows 3.
|
| The difference is that earlier hardware upgrades were important
| and did improve performance heavily. 2001 just saw the advent
| of 1 Ghz CPUs [0]. In 2011, quad-core CPUs at 3.5 Ghz were the
| standard, probably a performance upgrade of an order of
| magnitude, at least. But since then? The i5 2500 does still
| hold a bit of water to the Ryzen 5 5600 [0]. Sure, it has more
| cores and more single-core performance, but it's nowhere _near_
| that much of a difference. Windows 10 still runs perfectly fine
| on this hardware, even better than Windows 7 did - and not by
| accident, MS did optimize that!
|
| This is absolutely a new low for Microsoft.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_microproces...
|
| [1] https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-
| Core-i5-2500-vs-... (yes, I know it's MemeBenchmark, but the
| general values should be solid enough)
| poisonborz wrote:
| The requirements list will be most likely eased later on - IIRC
| it was also the case for virtually all major versions of Windows.
| The reason of this strictness is usually lack of testing or some
| compatibility features not being completed by the date of first
| release.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| I hope the public backlash against Microsoft is large enough that
| they revert there ridiculous system requirements. Requiring TPM
| 1.2 is _sort of_ reasonable I guess. But TPM 2.0. You 've got to
| be kidding me.
|
| Also enabling secure boot is a pain in the ass for users that
| dual boot, because in Linux, to load a custom compiled kernel
| module you have to sign it first and do a whole lot of mumbling
| around to get it working. Just try to install Virtualbox with
| secure boot enabled. I get the security concern, but why not let
| users install whatever they want on whatever hardware they want?
| Come on Microsoft, it's not like you don't already have a working
| kernel with arguably the best support in terms of drivers in the
| whole personal computing market.
|
| Also their "supported CPUs" list is a fucking joke. Why would
| they cut off first gen AMD Ryzen, for example when all Zen CPUs
| have full TPM 2.0 support built into the AMD PSP. The Ryzen 2000
| chips they list as a minimum are basically the same in terms of
| features and very similar in performance to the previous gen.
| Zen+ is a slight improvement over Zen that didn't introduce any
| groundbreaking features to warrant such a cutoff point. Or are
| you gonna tell me that an Athlon 3000G will run Windows 11 better
| than a first gen Threadripper?
|
| Get your head out of your ass Microsoft, otherwise you'll be
| stuck with another Windows Vista.
| mjevans wrote:
| I know someone that had to replace a Ryzen 1xxx (1st gen) chip
| recently because games and other things kept crashing. They
| realized this was the case shortly after the warranty elapsed.
|
| As a supposition, it might be the previously reported "Linux
| specific" issue for (pre week 30?) batch Ryzen 1 CPUs affecting
| Windows at last as well.
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ryzen-Se...
|
| https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=new-ryze...
|
| The second link confirms this instability was present in Ryzen
| 1 units from week 25, and speculation is that week 30+ are
| safe. Further complicating matters, there's no reported way of
| examining this data short of visually inspecting the top of the
| thermal interface: with thermal paste removed.
| merb wrote:
| what's even more strange is that ryzen 1st gen chips in fact
| do have a tpm v2.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I think you might be mixing up segfault issues on Ryzen 1000
| and RDRAND bug in Ryzen 3600. The latter affected games(and
| yes it's Zen 2).
| mjevans wrote:
| I recall that affecting SystemD, it is a different issue.
|
| Generally at least the Linux kernel does not use RDRAND,
| even on Intel systems. (
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDRAND#Reception )
|
| The third party that had this issue only mentioned problems
| with their Ryzen 1 chip and replacing it (I forget if it
| was with a 2000 series or 3000 series chip) which resulted
| in those issues finally ceasing.
| smarx007 wrote:
| I think the CPU list and the S states are related to
| https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/bitlocker-sleep-mode-vuln...
| in some way.
| Zevis wrote:
| I seriously hope the EU becomes aware of this and forces MS to
| change this crap. It's actually insane from a sustainability
| standpoint.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| It would be unreasonable to force MS to list old hardware as
| compatible in any case, especially given that 10 is
| officially supported until 2025.
| swiley wrote:
| >sort of reasonable I guess
|
| What part of that is reasonable exactly? As far as I can tell
| the TPM only weakens security by storing the keys in a separate
| computer, once there's an exploit with that someone physically
| attacking your computer could easily exfiltrate keys where they
| couldn't if you're just typing a passphrase into EG cryptsetup.
| g051051 wrote:
| I just noticed that my Threadripper 1950x isn't "supported".
| Completely ludicrous. I'd love to see the technical
| justification for that.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| https://i.imgur.com/wHtf0PF.jpg
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Do they actually earn that much from this? They were
| basically throwing Windows 10 at people _for free_ and they
| are not in the hardware market at all.
| g051051 wrote:
| How does limiting the number of machines that can run it
| make money for Microsoft? I won't be paying for a Windows
| 11 upgrade (I assume it's not going to be free this time)
| until I need to replace my machine, which will be quite
| some time.
| einr wrote:
| Windows 11 is a free upgrade if you have a Windows 10
| license. You can't sell operating systems to consumers
| anymore, you have to sell OEM licenses to manufacturers,
| who in turn sell you a new computer with the new OS.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Stopping trash talking about Linux was the embrace phase. WSL
| was the extend phase.
| zeusk wrote:
| Not sure how not supporting old devices is extinguish for
| Linux but okay.
|
| I work at MS so I have some background, but even I was
| vocally opposed to this.
|
| The real pushback for hardware floor came from IHVs and PMs.
| IHVs don't want to support your old hardware beyond 2-5 years
| thanks to what they're seeing in phone market. We've had
| multiple user impacting bugs that graphic vendors I won't
| name would not fix because that version of chip is NLA. I'm
| still unsure why PMs pushed for this, but it was something
| about mix of consistency, security and performance - whatever
| that meant.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Check how more complicated it is to install linux and your
| own compiled kernels with secure boot enabled and a tpm 2.0
| chip.
| zeusk wrote:
| I did a quick bing (hah, jk I used google) but didn't
| find anything other than having to install some tpm2
| packages to use the module.
|
| Also, if tpm2.0 is as redundant as people are making it
| out to be, couldn't they just disable it in BIOS along
| with microsoft secureboot keys?
| JorgeGT wrote:
| Fun fact: Microsoft will happily sell you _today_ a $3500
| Surface Studio 2 with a W11-unsupported i7-7820:
| https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/d/surface-studio-2/8sbjxm0m5...
| ChrisSD wrote:
| Fun fact: the Surface Studio 2 is fully supported until
| October 2, 2024 with no need to replace the OS!
|
| Not bad for a niche device released in 2018.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Selling an extremely expensive piece of hardware while
| acknowledging that you intend on making it obsolete in 4
| years time, for arbitrary reasons sounds pretty bad to me.
| And who cares if it's niche.
| ChrisSD wrote:
| Microsoft has made no secret of how long its hardware
| support lasts. If anything, the total of six years is
| longer than the Surface average of ~4.
|
| The Windows 11 announcement changes nothing in this
| regard.
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| I really don't see why they limit to 2.0 rather than 1.2 They
| could support both easily but choose not to.
|
| This could be their way to lower the amount of testing they
| have to do, but for a company the size of Microsoft that's
| inexcusable.
|
| That fact the 7th gen Intel (like the 7700k that has TPM 2.0)
| or first gen Zen aren't supported is bad enough but that
| Microsoft is silent about it and even their PMs and Security
| employees on twitter just brush it off as "There are more
| requirements" is pure BS.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > This could be their way to lower the amount of testing they
| have to do
|
| Given the amount of testing they currently do, this is hardly
| an argument.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > do a whole lot of mumbling around to get it working
|
| isnt that the whole point of Linux?
| ehsankia wrote:
| While overall agree, Windows 10 will be supported until 2025.
| By then any device without TPM 2.0 support would be at least 10
| years old, right?
| contravariant wrote:
| I've got a 10 year old PC right now using decent but not
| amazingly high end hardware (at the time), other than a
| slightly limited memory capacity it's still on par with my
| current (mid/high-end-ish) laptop.
| mulmen wrote:
| Just checked Newegg. I built my current PC in November of
| 2010. It has a Core 2 Quad. Runs great.
| numpad0 wrote:
| "There's this cheap stuff for non-customers, go figure"
|
| I think I've seen a eerily similar remark on Xbox 360 when
| XB1 launched so... is that a part of Microsoft ethos? That
| time the guy said that was instantly cancelled though.
| thrower123 wrote:
| I only just retired a machine I built in 2011, with 2009-era
| parts. CPU advances have not been impressive over the last
| decade or so.
| overgard wrote:
| I'm still using a 2013 Macbook Pro (dual boot), and honestly,
| I could see that being useful for another 8 years. I won't be
| playing games on it, but it has enough GPU to render High DPI
| screens just fine. (Granted I feel no urge to upgrade to
| windows 11 either, so I'm pretty fine leaving it on windows
| 10 for the next few years.)
| eric__cartman wrote:
| Considering how unexciting new CPUs are nowadays I'd wager
| that a 10 year old computer in 2025 will still be perfectly
| usable for basic tasks such as email and web browsing.
| Something like an 8 year old i7 2700k is still very usable
| for a lot of home users. It might not be a beast when it
| comes to crunching numbers, but a big portion of the
| population would be happy using such a chip if you pair it
| with at least 8GB of memory and an SSD.
|
| I'm not a big fan of generating unnecessary waste, and
| computers that get replaced because of artificial cutoff
| points in software isn't ideal. What I like about Windows 10
| is that you can boot the installer on a Core2Duo if you want,
| and it'll install just fine. It'll probably run like crap,
| but that's for the user to decide whether they want to use it
| or not.
| numpad0 wrote:
| i7-2700K is not just usable, it's faster than Pentium
| G5600(8th Gen) and on par with i3-8100(8th Gen) in most
| benchmarks without overclocking.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| i5-2500 with 8GB-16GB RAM (hooray for upgradable RAM) even
| with is integrated graphics still is winning platform for
| all important non-gaming consumer applications.
| williadc wrote:
| To strengthen rather than diminish your argument, the I7
| 2700K is over 9.5 years old. Source: https://ark.intel.com/
| content/www/us/en/ark/products/61275/i...
| Sebb767 wrote:
| I run a i5-2500 and still game on it via VFIO (that is,
| _in a VM_ ) and I can't complain about the performance.
| Sure, the GPU is new-ish (GTX 1070) and I don't play
| bleeding edge titles, but I can play everything at nearly
| max settings.
| layer8 wrote:
| Still using an i7-2600 as my main workstation at work,
| since 2012.
| SECProto wrote:
| Was coming to respond the same thing. I used a processor
| from the same generation (2500k) from May 2011 to May
| 2021, including for gaming. Upgraded to an SSD at some
| point and the video card, but the processor was still
| fine. I would've kept it another couple years but I was
| having some issues (I think a ram stick had gone bad) and
| the easiest solution was $500 canadian for a new
| processor (10400F), motherboard, and ram
|
| I'd take the argument farther - I suspect the
| hypothetical 2015 computer referenced would be fine for
| most users (with non-processor upgrades) until 2030.
| vetinari wrote:
| I have (a secondary) Thinkpad T430s, which is going to be 9
| years old later this year. Since it is i7, with 16 GB RAM
| and 500 GB SSD, it is still a better computer than a median
| laptop sold today.
| FpUser wrote:
| I have an old 2012 Asus G75VS gaming laptop with Core i7
| upgraded to SSD and 32GB RAM. It works like a charm and
| beats modern cheap laptops to submission as well. However
| I do not really care if it can be upgraded to Windows 11.
| It runs few particular applications, is air gapped and
| will stay this way until it dies in order not to get some
| unwanted update/upgrade.
|
| But if it was something like my spare development laptop
| I'd surely be pissed off at Microsoft. The way this
| laptop runs
| dunnevens wrote:
| One of the ironies of this situation is that Windows 11
| does well on the Core2Duos. At least the ones with 8 gigs /
| SSD, based on what I've seen people post online. I've seen
| people claim the 11 leak is performing better than 10, and
| 10 was running decently well on the C2D's.
|
| They did the work to make it even faster on older hardware,
| and now they're just going to throw it away? I could
| understand if the older machines didn't get the Android
| compatibility layer or if certain desktop animations were
| disabled, but seems odd to just block them entirely.
| chasil wrote:
| Are you sure that they are blocked entirely?
|
| A "hard floor" published earlier this week implied that
| only TPM 1.0 with a dualcore and 4gb of ram is required,
| although news emerged that the hard floor was revised up.
|
| Microsoft is not handling the hard floor question well at
| all.
|
| https://www.pcworld.com/article/3623013/why-
| windows-11-requi...
| dunnevens wrote:
| I guess that's part of the problem. No one outside of
| Microsoft is sure. The uncertainty has completely
| overshadowed the launch. One minute, they're talking
| about "soft floors", and the next they're saying it will
| refuse to install.
|
| Makes me wonder if a power struggle is going on. You'd
| think they would have a coherent message put together
| before launch. Recommended system requirements + minimum
| system requirements, and the justifications for both.
| That's what's expected from any major software launch.
| k12sosse wrote:
| The ol' fishing for outrage. Let's just toss this out
| there and see what bites. "We'll adjust our strategy
| based on what we hear."
|
| Kinda wonder, how much of this is "we asked and never got
| a legit response" vs. "haHAA, gotcha bitch! NOW THATS
| MEANINGFUL FEEDBACK!"
| vetinari wrote:
| First-gen Ryzens and Threadrippers, while they do support
| fTPM, are not supported in W11 and they won't be 10 years old
| in 2025.
| snuxoll wrote:
| This really gets me - my Ryzen 5 1600X and my wife's Ryzen
| 5 2600 are still extremely capable chips, even if they're a
| couple of generations old at this point. It's only been 3
| years since I built my rig, and two since I built my
| wife's. I can _almost_ accept the i5-4570 my daughter
| inherited not being compatible - but hardware just over 3
| years old not making the cut is unacceptable.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| But who wants to be stuck on an older OS? It's still a big
| reason to upgrade before it would have been technically
| necessary.
| userbinator wrote:
| Everyone who isn't the sort of "rabid trendchaser techie"
| that MS is trying to convert more of its users to...
| fortunately, the majority of slightly-computer-literate
| people I know are not. They use their computers to create
| documents, email, browse Internet, and complain about the
| constant churn of the tech industry. They are constantly
| irritated by UI changes and other updates that had zero or
| negative impacts on their daily use. "If it ain't broke,
| don't fix it" is the norm, not "What's the latest and
| newest? I must have it!"
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Presumably Microsoft will aggressively push developers to
| use Windows 11-only APIs to encourage adoption. I hate
| it, but it seems likely.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Ok true, but this _is_ hacker news of course. I would
| expect most people here to be exactly that sort of
| "rabid trendchaser techie" :)
|
| And of course, the question is how hard is MS going to
| push Windows 11. They pushed the upgrade from W7 to W10
| pretty hard towards end users.
| Daishiman wrote:
| Even the most die-had MS user is not excited about
| Windows and hasn't been for the last decade.
|
| Operating systems are finished products at this point.
| mastrsushi wrote:
| I've been using a late 2011 MacBook Pro with Ubuntu Mate. From my
| experience, not only are operating systems becoming over
| demanding in hardware specifications, but so are dynamic web
| pages and the internet as a whole.
|
| It's almost impossible to browse the internet with a 10 year old
| pc. Something that was a lot more forgiving with older hardware 8
| to 10 years ago.
|
| Future generations are growing with TikTok, Instagram, and all
| these apps that demand complex rendering tasks and large streams
| of video data. This is raising the bar on hardware requirements.
| makecheck wrote:
| Whenever some "reason" is given to make a major foundational
| break from X to Y, it almost certainly does not apply to 90% of
| the things in the bundle. Various apps, system frameworks, etc.
| do not _need_ to be held to the same minimums for hardware; they
| just _are_.
|
| We need to push for more modularity in the systems that serve as
| a foundation. Or, at least push for open-source or flexibility in
| the things that are _not_ strictly foundational (and
| theoretically much more portable), such as bundled apps.
|
| Suppose for example there is a nice improvement to some bundled
| app in the next OS; in all likelihood, that change _could_ be
| back-ported to several older versions and be usable on almost any
| hardware. It won't be, because it is bundled to something that
| wants to break everything.
| mdoms wrote:
| It will create heaps of machines which haven't been upgraded to
| Windows 11. I don't see why these are "trash".
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| Its grimly humorous that we need to upgrade hardware security
| because of ransomware - enabled by cryptocurrency.
|
| But we can't do that - we have widespread shortages of new chip
| components because so much capacity is being dedicated to
| cryptomining!
|
| Instead of tying ourselves in knots, why not just regulate and
| ban the base source of the problem (crypto exchange for fiat)
| instead?
| DarkmSparks wrote:
| Personlly, I'm just disappointed windows 11 isn't a Linux fork.
| No way I'm throwing out my Mac or Linux boxes for the trash they
| just demonstrated. (and its been 2 years since I had anything
| more than a win 7 VM now)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-27 23:00 UTC)