[HN Gopher] End of 10: Upgrade your old Windows 10 computer to L...
___________________________________________________________________
End of 10: Upgrade your old Windows 10 computer to Linux
Author : doener
Score : 200 points
Date : 2025-06-19 13:14 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (endof10.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (endof10.org)
| mrweasel wrote:
| One thing I've noticed is that the price of used hardware has
| gone up in my area. Sadly it seems like the Windows 10 only
| hardware is getting scrapped, rather than getting price dumped.
| mathattack wrote:
| Perhaps it's getting repurposed?
|
| Think about the demand and supply curves of calculations (or
| computation). For most of history, they moved in tandem, with
| supply moving slightly faster, so computers would always do
| more at slightly lower costs.
|
| Now both curves are speeding up, but demand is moving faster,
| so the costs of hardware are going up. And when high end
| servers (with GPUs) are unavailable, people hold onto the older
| ones longer.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| everyone has a phone nowadays, I think the expectation that the
| e-waste cycle would continue was a misjudgement. For most
| normal people I know, windows 7 was their last "laptop
| generation"(10 at the latest) before they could have switched
| entirely to their phones or tablets. They also don't really
| bother getting rid of this gear by sale, most of the prior
| generation's machines were priced in the thousands and were
| towers so it made more sense to resell them, that generation(to
| my perception) was mostly thin plastic units with almost no
| durability. Most people I've seen hold onto them "just in
| case", as they wouldn't sell in their condition.
| subjectsigma wrote:
| Clean, clear, compelling. I'm not a huge fan of desktop Linux and
| I've posted that several times, but I can still find joy in other
| people's success. This is the kind of marketing work that
| operating systems like Mint and Ubuntu need! Thanks for posting
| and/or making this.
| juujian wrote:
| With three or four major GUIs out there, that's a bit of a
| sweeping statement, no? What's the negative that applies to all
| distros?
| all2 wrote:
| Probably, yes. A lot is plug and play, but not all.
|
| Having set one parent up on Mint, I can say categorically
| that it is still a bit of a config nightmare.
| jonfw wrote:
| Two negatives that are actively made worse by the the fact
| that there are a variety of distros-
|
| 1. Nothing is googleable. People have to google how to do
| things like adjust the layout of external monitors, and it's
| significantly harder to do that on linux.
|
| 2. There are a lot of different ways to install applications,
| and different options are available depending on which distro
| or application you're targeting
| anon7000 wrote:
| 1. What? It works nearly the same way as Mac or windows?
| Just a section in the settings app
|
| 2. Most distros have an App Store that's easy to find these
| days. Works great for non-cli tools
| jitl wrote:
| Distro app stores work fine for things in the distro app
| store, at whatever version the distro provides.
|
| It's like 900x easier to install random software you find
| about online on a Mac (there's zip containing the .app
| directory, done), and about 10x easier to install random
| software on Windows (they give you a .exe you double
| click, click next a few times, done). Versus Linux where
| you look at a list of different file types, consider the
| differences between a .deb, .rpm, figure out if it should
| come from Flathub, deal with enabling unverified Flathub
| packages, possibly disable a Flathub package from your
| distro that sucks and overrides the maintainer's package,
| etc. See things like https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac
| e/comments/1htu87i/it_to...
| subjectsigma wrote:
| No matter what I say someone will respond with "Oh but that
| got fixed in X" / "You're doing it wrong" / "You have the
| wrong hardware" / "Your opinions suck" / "Works on my
| machine" / "Get better at Linux" / etc. I'm just going to
| stick with Windows for pleasure, macOS for work, and Linux
| for servers. That's what I like and that's what has been
| working for me.
| Frenchgeek wrote:
| I've been mainly on Linux for 20 years now (damn already?), what
| started as a cheap computer with second-hand parts with a more
| powerful windows machine mostly for games is now a powerful
| machine in its own rights with an outdated windows one gathering
| dust right beside it... It's not perfect, but I don't have to
| spend half an hour removing everything useless I can. (Or have
| Microsoft assume I have nothing better to do than watch a full
| presentation on how edgy their new browser is. I'm not going to
| forgive that one.)
| isk517 wrote:
| >>Or have Microsoft assume I have nothing better to do than
| watch a full presentation on how edgy their new browser is
|
| As someone who has setting up new computers regularly dumped on
| them, having to click thru all of those dumb screens before
| being allowed to start using the browser has been the biggest
| contributor in my decision to ditch Windows
| p_ing wrote:
| Repeatedly posted over the past two months:
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fendof10.org%2F
| WalterGR wrote:
| Every 4.75 days, by my reckoning.
|
| This is the first post to get substantial conversation, though.
| The impression I get is that on-topic reposts are fine until
| such time as they get traction - provided that they a. aren't
| self-promotion and b. are made by different users.
| xnx wrote:
| I will share this ChromeOS Flex link every chance since I was
| delighted how easy it was to install:
| https://support.google.com/chromeosflex/answer/11552529
|
| I only wish the process/instructions were a little more friendly
| for normies.
| bxparks wrote:
| It's great in theory.
|
| In practice, it may not work properly even on their "supported"
| models. For example, sound does not work on my Dell E7270.
| Secondly, you must be willing use the Chrome browser. I will
| not because Chrome no longer has the option to always show the
| scrollbars. I am convinced that modern UX/UI designers hate
| their users.
| bearjaws wrote:
| I just wish anti-cheat would work on Linux, Windows has become an
| absolute mess, the search is barely usable now, everything has
| ads and product placement.
| omnimus wrote:
| Which in particular? Many online games run fine.
| evanextreme wrote:
| areweanticheatyet.com has a good list
| imhoguy wrote:
| Roblox doesn't work under Linux. There are some workarounds
| with Wine but they stop working pretty quickly.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Sober has more or less consistently worked for me. Except
| for a short time during some special Roblox event.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Linux distros could work to create an API for anticheat to use
| that could verify their program's integrity, then work to have
| various anticheat to integrate it. This would avoid the issue
| of Linux not having a stable ABI for kernel drivers. For
| example Vanguard anticheat doesn't need to be a kernel driver
| since macos has good enough protection. If Linux could become
| competitive on security they wouldn't need kernel mode
| anticheat either.
|
| I'm not holding my breath for this to happen though.
| p_ing wrote:
| Apple doesn't allow kext without the end user jumping through
| hoops, hence no kext. Riot doesn't really have much of a
| choice in what direction they take.
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/security/securely-
| extending-...
|
| But with Linux being open, they certainly would produce a
| loadable module if there was enough install base to justify
| it.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Riot doesn't really have much of a choice
|
| True, but the main point of a kernel mode anticheat is the
| ability to verify that the OS and game isn't being tampered
| with. If the OS has that capability already built in, then
| the needed for a kernel mode anticheat diminishes.
|
| >they certainly would produce a loadable module if there
| was enough install base to justify it
|
| It's not realistic for there to be such an install base to
| support such complexity compared to having them implement a
| simple API into their game and server.
| zamadatix wrote:
| The only value kernel mode anticheat manages to bring on
| Windows is that it puts up a significant work barrier to
| both modifying the kernel and doing so in a way that
| doesn't trigger the kernel mode anti-cheat detection.
| With a kernel made to be easily customized by end users
| and no kernel mode anti-cheat protection trying to detect
| such modifications then any verification the kernel could
| provide would be meaningless.
|
| It's not actually the message from the kernel that
| provides the value, it's the work needed to fake such a
| message.
| treyd wrote:
| It's not an issue of getting the act together on "security".
| Fairly consistently Linux desktop OSes have a better security
| story than Windows desktops due to better software supply
| chain integrity.
|
| The issue is that Windows is designed to be able to _protect
| the will of proprietary software publishers_ against the will
| of users that want to assert control over the software
| running on their computer. It 's very similar to the story
| with DRM.
|
| Linux desktop OSes will never put in place the measures to
| make a Vanguard-like system work, because it's just unethical
| for a bunch of reasons, the most basic of which being that
| it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Linux desktop OSes have a better security story than
| Windows desktops due to better software supply chain
| integrity.
|
| This isn't true. And supply chain wise just look at the xz
| backdoor. A random person was able to compromise the supply
| chain of many Linux distros. Security also is not just
| supply chain integrity.
|
| >Windows is designed to be able to protect the will of
| proprietary software publishers against the will of users
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by this. Just because Micrsoft
| cares about developers, it doesn't mean they don't care
| about users.
|
| >that it's a violation of freedoms 0 and 1
|
| It's not. Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to
| cheat against other players without being banned. You can
| be free to modify the game client, but you aren't entitled
| to play with others using it.
| treyd wrote:
| > A random person was able to compromise the supply chain
| of many Linux distros.
|
| The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed
| in mainstream release branches, _because_ it 's free
| software.
|
| But broadening the scope a bit, the norms of using
| package managers as opposed to the norm on Windows of
| "download this .exe" is a much stronger security posture
| overall.
|
| I am aware the Windows Store exists, it's not widely used
| enough to make exes a marginal distribution pathway. I am
| aware curl | bash exists, it's more common than it should
| be, but even in those cases the source is visible and
| auditable, and that's very uncommon for non-technical
| users to ever do (unlike downloading random exes).
|
| > Freedom 0 and 1 does not give you the freedom to cheat
| against other players without being banned.
|
| That's a strawman, I never claimed you should have the
| right to cheat against other players.
|
| > You can be free to modify the game client, but you
| aren't entitled to play with others using it.
|
| And that's the issue, Windows has functionality to impede
| your ability to run the software as you see fit and
| modify it to your needs. Perhaps you want to run your own
| server, with different moderation policies.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >The xz backdoor was successfully caught before it landed
| in mainstream release branches
|
| What? It literally got included with several distros. It
| wasn't caught before it shipped to end users. Just
| because it got caught before slower to update distros got
| it, that doesn't mean it is okay. It reveals how low the
| barrier is for an anonymous person to get code into the
| OS.
|
| >I never claimed you should have the right to cheat
| against other players.
|
| Attestation doesn't take away your ability to modify and
| run software which means that you still have freedom 0
| and 1. It just means that you can not prove to a remote
| server that you bare running unmodified software. To me
| you were implying that the server being able to kick
| people who modified the client to cheat was violating
| their freedom.
|
| >Perhaps you want to run your own server, with different
| moderation policies.
|
| Nothing would stop you from running your own server like
| that.
| TheBicPen wrote:
| > You can be free to modify the game client, but you
| aren't entitled to play with others using it.
|
| For a multiplayer game, I'd argue that playing with
| others (even if you're restricted to private servers, not
| that most games support that anymore..) _is_ running the
| software. Being able to use a piece of software for its
| intended purpose is more relevant than a literal reading
| "you are allowed to exec the binary and nothing more"
| const_cast wrote:
| > This isn't true.
|
| It's very obviously true. Linux culture is installing
| software from trusted repositories. Windows culture is
| downloading random _.exe_ or _.msi_ from websites and
| then immediately running them with full permissions.
|
| That's why Windows has a lot of malware and Linux
| doesn't. It's trivial really to smuggle malware into
| closed-source applications that are distributed like the
| wild west.. If I google a popular Windows program right
| now, I'm going to get a lot of download websites that
| supply me a sketchy exe.
|
| Some of the malware differences is because of popularity,
| sure. But ultimately it's 10x easier for me to add a
| virus to photoshop and upload that exe to download.com as
| opposed to smuggling malware in an open-source software
| in the Debian repository.
|
| > I'm not sure what you mean by this.
|
| It means that when companies want capabilities X Y Z
| which limit user actions on their own computers,
| Microsoft will cave. They do it all the time. Microsoft
| cares about making companies happy and they don't care
| too much about keeping power users happy.
|
| > It's not.
|
| It is. You're constructing a strawman. You're saying that
| freedoms 0 and 1 don't allow you to cheat freely. Okay,
| you're correct - nobody has ever said that.
|
| What we're saying is that building kernel-level APIs to
| hook in anti-cheat or other anti-user software is
| antithetical to freedoms 0 and 1. Which it is.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Linux culture is installing software from trusted
| repositories. Windows culture is downloading random .exe
| or .msi from websites
|
| I was talking more about the supply chain of the
| operating system itself, but lets not forget Linux has a
| culture of people running random commands off the
| internet which is also an easy vector to get people to
| install malware. Also I think you are overconfident in
| how much vetting repositories like npm do. I'm sure Linux
| people download random stuff off of github too like
| appimages.
|
| >it's 10x easier for me to add a virus to photoshop and
| upload that exe to download.com
|
| You can do the same thing but with a Linux binary of
| "photoshop."
|
| >That's why Windows has a lot of malware and Linux
| doesn't.
|
| This is due to more consumers using Windows than Linux.
|
| >You're constructing a strawman.
|
| I'm trying to assume what you mean due to this being
| asynchronous communication since the claim of attestation
| being related to freedom 0 and 1 is not true. One is
| about proving information to another party and the other
| is about having freedom of what you are running on your
| computer.
|
| >What we're saying is that building kernel-level APIs to
| hook in anti-cheat or other anti-user software is
| antithetical to freedoms 0 and 1.
|
| In this case being able to prove with relatively high
| confidence that no one in a game is cheating is a pro-
| user feature.
|
| Being able to attest to the system state does not limit
| freedom 0. Anyone is still free to run any system they
| want, they just can't attest to their system being
| trusted if they are not running something trusted.
| Attestation doesn't make software any harder to modify
| than before, freedom 1, it only prevents you from
| attesting that you are using unmodified software when you
| aren't. Linux distros are not arms of the free software
| foundation so I don't think trying to argue about what
| they think is free or not is necessarily relevant to
| something like this being created.
| frollogaston wrote:
| About the security thing, most Linux users wouldn't think
| twice about a website saying to add an apt repo, or maybe
| even `curl ... | bash`. That's a normal way of installing
| things.
| const_cast wrote:
| Most Linux users _would_ , that's a very atypical way to
| install things. 99% of your software is in the official
| repos.
|
| As for `curl ... | bash` that's a developer only thing.
| No user space normal applications are installed that way.
| I've never seen it.
|
| Is this method good? No. Is it used exclusively by power
| users who presumably know what they're installing and
| from where? Yes.
|
| The difference here is _ALL_ software on Windows is
| installed this way. There 's basically no exceptions. And
| don't even try bringing up the Windows store.
| frollogaston wrote:
| I don't see how they could do this without violating the
| principle of user choice. Client-side anticheat is inherently
| security through obscurity.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >violating the principle of user choice
|
| What do you exactly mean by this as right now no users can
| use Linux and play the game. Allowing more Linux operating
| systems to be able to play the game is providing users more
| choice than before.
|
| >Client-side anticheat is inherently security through
| obscurity
|
| There is nothing fundamentally wrong with security through
| obscurity. It's just that for some problems the return on
| investment (security gained for the resources needed) is
| not worth it. For anticheat the obscurity can slow down
| cheat developers and raise the barrier to entry for
| developing cheats. Cheaters just have to make one mistake
| to get caught.
| frollogaston wrote:
| I think other commenters explained this better, but in
| Linux, the user is supposed to have full control over
| their own system. The only way for this kind of anticheat
| to work is by introducing some part of the kernel that
| users can't touch. I'm not saying security through
| obscurity is inherently bad, but Linux isn't about
| obscuring the system from its owner.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >the user is supposed to have full control over their own
| system
|
| Realistically most Linux users are using a stock kernel
| and not something custom compiled. You can have both
| customization and a way to offer a secure environment for
| apps that need it. Even if you want to allow for custom
| kernels and drivers, the game could be setup to run in a
| secure virtual machine.
|
| >The only way for this kind of anticheat to work is by
| introducing some part of the kernel that users can't
| touch.
|
| To be clear, attestation is not anticheat. But yes, there
| would be components that end users would be unable to
| modify without removing their ability to attest to there
| being a secure environment for the game. Either these
| customizations need to be turned into policy for a
| trusted component to handle, or the customization needs
| to itself become trusted.
|
| >but Linux isn't about obscuring the system from its
| owner.
|
| Nothing about attestation requires obfuscation.
| frollogaston wrote:
| This attestation does require obfuscation (often via
| hardware), otherwise there's always a way for someone to
| force a positive attestation. Like run a modified kernel
| that tells the game it's unmodified.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Requiring a key to be practically impossible to extract
| from hardware doesn't require obfuscation to be
| effective.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Anticheat is always a rootkit by another name. Don't buy
| software that has rootkits or support it. They are antithetical
| to secure computing.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| What do you think about SecureBoot? Is it anti-user DRM?
| josephcsible wrote:
| On x86 it's debatable, but on ARM it absolutely is. When
| ARM PCs first started coming out, Microsoft jumped on the
| opportunity by forbidding OEMs from letting you disable
| Secure Boot on them or add your own keys to them. (And when
| Microsoft signs third-party things like shim, they do so
| with a different key than they sign Windows with, which
| isn't one they allow ARM OEMs to trust.)
| mystified5016 wrote:
| I don't. If Windows suddenly dumps market share, game
| developers might actually be forced to find a way to solve this
| problem without installing actual malware into your _kernel_
| balanc wrote:
| If I install it on purpose to guarantee to other players that
| I am not cheating then it is not malware.
| zeta0134 wrote:
| There is no reason Linux could not support sensible userland
| anti-cheat protections. What Linux wrappers mostly refuse to
| actually support is rootkits and exploits. Linux should not
| support rootkits and exploits, and frankly neither should
| Windows, but I suppose Microsoft doesn't care all that much
| about security in a games context.
|
| Linux's inability to run _specific_ anti-cheat solutions is a
| vendor support issue on the anti-cheat maker 's part, because
| they don't care about your security, and they've managed to
| convince game developers that this practice is acceptable. It's
| not. Vote with your wallet.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Rootkit is defined by intent, not by capabilities.
|
| If a user agrees to a kernel level anti-cheat, it's not a
| rootkit.
| const_cast wrote:
| I'm certain most users don't know what they're agreeing to.
| It's sort of the same argument people make about Meta et.
| all spying on people. Well, it's not spying, because you
| agreed to the EULA.
|
| Who reads the EULA? Nobody knows what they're agreeing to,
| ever. Even for computer-savvy individuals, do they know all
| of what the kernel-level anti-cheat does? Of course not.
| Even their consent isn't informed. For normal users, they
| don't know anything about anything.
| coldpie wrote:
| If you can come up with a better solution, you'll have an
| entire industry's worth of money coming your way. No one
| likes the kernel-mode anticheat stuff, but no one's come up
| with a better solution either. Cheaters suck.
| runjake wrote:
| Some anticheats work on Linux, including Easy Anticheat. Which
| ones are you still having problems with?
| eloisant wrote:
| Anti-cheat themselves are not the problem, developers who
| decide not to block Windows even when the anti-cheat would work
| is.
|
| Fortnite uses EAC which does work on Linux, only they decide to
| block it.
| coldpie wrote:
| EAC's Linux implementation is not as robust as the Windows
| implementation. For a high-profile game like Fortnite, I can
| understand not wanting to downgrade their anti-cheat
| protections.
| ziml77 wrote:
| Respawn enabled Linux support for EAC for Apex Legends and
| then later turned it back off due to there being too many
| cheaters.
|
| > The openness of the Linux operating systems makes it an
| attractive one for cheaters and cheat developers. Linux
| cheats are indeed harder to detect and the data shows that
| they are growing at a rate that requires an outsized level
| of focus and attention from the team for a relatively small
| platform. There are also cases in which cheats for the
| Windows OS get emulated as if it's on Linux in order to
| increase the difficulty of detection and prevention. We had
| to weigh the decision on the number of players who were
| legitimately playing on Linux/the Steam Deck versus the
| greater health of the population of players for Apex. While
| the population of Linux users is small, their impact
| infected a fair amount of players' games. This ultimately
| brought us to our decision today.
|
| https://x.com/PlayApex/status/1852019667315102151
| everdrive wrote:
| Kernel-level anti-cheat is quite bad, and I just wish it would
| be abandoned altogether rather than extended to Linux. This
| wasn't a problem when we had private servers rather than random
| matchmaking.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Modern private servers have this problem too. CS2 private
| servers like Face-IT and Esea have additional anti cheat.
| Even Grand Theft Auto V's private servers FiveM has their own
| custom anti cheat before Rockstar added one
|
| Anticheats like BattleEye started as private servers add-ons
| like this too, not official support, but admins choose to
| install them. I even remember Brood War's private ICCUP
| servers had their anti-hack as they called it.
| bee_rider wrote:
| If there's really a market for linux distros that have been
| pre-infected by rootkits, it seems one of the major game
| studios could provide it.
|
| Of course the well known gaming company that releases a distro
| is Valve. But, rootkits don't seem like they fit their
| particular ethos (they are well known for their less annoying
| DRM scheme, right?). TBH, it seems like a rare opportunity to
| break the hold they have on the "game store" concept.
| surajrmal wrote:
| Rootkit implies it's trying to hide its presence. DRM
| software does no such thing. It simply wants to assert
| greater control over the hardware and restrict the user from
| executing some action in some way in exchange for access to
| something you wouldn't be able to have due to lack of trust.
| In the case of anticheat, many do not find its existence
| malicious or anti user.
| a2128 wrote:
| They kinda do hide their presence. You install a game,
| maybe see a little splash screen with an anticheat logo in
| a corner. You wouldn't realize that you've just installed
| something with such great access over your operating
| system.
| prophesi wrote:
| It's not terrible these days, especially with the advent of the
| Steam Deck. If you're not playing flavor-of-the-month live
| service games, then I've found that I rarely run into games
| where DRM/anti-cheat is the issue. A quick glance at protondb
| will let you know if a game runs fine on linux or not.
| frollogaston wrote:
| The only way to leave Windows is to not care about video games.
| Despite Wine etc, this is basically how it goes. But it's a
| win-win, you get back your time and focus.
| Spivak wrote:
| I like it, I think it's a good way to encourage people who
| otherwise may have not given the linux desktop a chance. I think
| one of the big hurdles he's going to be getting new users used to
| the command line. Because I know there's lots of discussion about
| like how everything should be done with the GUI but when you need
| help or get support with Linux it's most often going to take the
| form of a command that you can copy and paste into your terminal
| and will do what you want. You don't have to have guides with 50
| screenshots of what settings to tweak. It's just a line or two of
| text.
|
| In a way I kind of wish this was how more windows support was
| handled just because PowerShell is so uhh... powerful.
|
| It might be that Linux is less capable for your use case, but
| people seem to be generally content with ChromeOS and I think
| that the standard Fedora desktop install is more capable than
| that so I think the market exists.
| etbebl wrote:
| This is awesome. I'd be interested in helping if I could find
| some extra time.
|
| At the same time, we still have a major problem at work if
| Microsoft goes through with this. I work in a research lab with
| 10s of 1000s of dollars worth of Windows 10 workstations that
| cannot be upgraded. We use Windows remote desktop and plenty of
| other software that is Windows only. The hardware is still pretty
| new and capable. With NIH cuts the last thing we need now is to
| have to spend money and lots of time to replace all that for no
| good reason.
| p_ing wrote:
| This isn't an "if". And this shouldn't be shocking to anyone as
| Microsoft has EOL'ed all of it's previous OSes with a deadline.
|
| You can buy extended support for orgs like yours that require
| it - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-
| new/extended...
| anonymars wrote:
| Has Microsoft ever EOLed an OS that was
|
| 1. in higher use than its successors
|
| 2. only had one possible successor
|
| 3. the successor did not support hardware in use at the time
|
| ?
|
| I'm sure it won't stop them, as you say, but really
| Microsoft, as someone who used to be a (relatively rare at
| the time) defender of yours, get fucked. The Raymond Chen
| camp is truly dead
| (https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-
| lost...)
| wat10000 wrote:
| That article is an interesting time capsule.
|
| Microsoft (well, the Windows part) is looking more and more
| like the Apple and Sun in that article. It's the #2 or #3
| user-facing OS these days. The fancy new programming
| environment happened and most stuff moved there, but it's
| JavaScript and the browser rather than C# and .NET. Running
| old software is becoming a niche and getting more so by the
| day.
| p_ing wrote:
| 1. When has Microsoft cared (or have PCs been so abundant)?
|
| 2. ... I mean, that's every version of Windows. XP? Vista.
| Vista? 7, etc. The last time you had two choices of Windows
| was in the '90s.
|
| 3. It does support hardware in use 'at the time'. I
| upgraded from 10 to 11 on existing hardware.
|
| If you mean older hardware, 98 and NT4 were the last to
| support the 486, yet 486s were still in use by the time of
| release of Me/2000 (I sadly had to interact with said 486s
| in a school lab). XP -> Vista made the jump from a Pentium
| 233Mhz minimum to 800Mhz minimum, /and/ caused many issues
| due to the introduction of WDDM causing a lot of graphics
| hardware to become incompatible.
|
| This is nothing new. Those pulling the shocked pikachu face
| perhaps just haven't been around the Windows block enough
| to realize... this is nothing new.
| anonymars wrote:
| I don't know what timeline you are looking at. Windows 98
| went EOL in 2006. By then there were Windows Me, Windows
| 2000, Windows XP. Windows 95 went EOL in 2002 so
| basically the same. Windows XP EOL: 2014. By then there
| were Windows Vista, Windows 7, 8. Windows 7 EOL: 2020.
| Obviously Windows 8 and 10 existed. And so on, up until
| 10 and 11.
|
| > It does support hardware in use 'at the time'. I
| upgraded from 10 to 11 on existing hardware.
|
| Of course it supports _some_ hardware in use right now.
| But core requirements were generally just speed, now even
| if you have a fast processor, you 're SOL if your system
| doesn't support TPM and specific models. Vista had more
| compatibility issues than usual with peripherals, but
| that's quite different from having to toss the whole
| machine. And even then: Vista was released in 2007. You
| had 7 more years to stay on XP.
|
| Not only are we handwaving the obvious reality that
| hardware used to have a shorter effective life because it
| was advancing so rapidly, but the Pentium 233 came out in
| 1997. XP went EOL in 2014. That's almost 20 years of
| hardware support. My family has various machines from
| 2015, 2017, etc. that otherwise work perfectly fine but
| don't support W11. I have an older laptop with a 4 core
| (8 HT) 2.6 GHz CPU (3.6 Turbo) with a 1 TB SSD and 16 GB
| of RAM, amply powerful, but nope, no Windows 11.
| nwellinghoff wrote:
| You could always switch to the ltsc line. Been using ltsc iot
| and its pretty nice
| Hilift wrote:
| > I work in a research lab with 10s of 1000s of dollars worth
| of Windows 10 workstations that cannot be upgraded.
|
| It's the same situation as last time with Windows 7. You can
| get three years of extended support for the monthly cumulative
| update, which I assume is being done given it is fairly
| inexpensive. The US government gets favorable pricing from
| Microsoft.
|
| The consumer price for Windows 10 ESU is $30/$60/$90 for the
| first/second/third year.
| em-bee wrote:
| compared to buying a new machine that's actually not that
| bad. i am not a windows user but spending $180 to extend the
| life of a fairly new machine by another three years may just
| be worth it.
| ponector wrote:
| If person cannot buy a new machine I bet they will continue
| use old one without bothering of getting paid updates.
|
| Some companies may be buying prolongation for specific
| equipment which run win10.
|
| Computers are cheap!
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Hopefully this will be popular enough that Steam and Mozilla
| and others won't drop Win10 support for several more years.
| bitbiter wrote:
| Steam dropped support for Windows XP and Windows Vista at
| the same time, about 5 years after Microsoft ended support
| for Windows XP and 2 years after support ended for Windows
| Vista
| lozf wrote:
| You might consider Windows 10 LTSC IoT edition, it's supported
| until 2031 iirc.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| You'd think the sysadmins would think of upgrading the
| operating systems when setting the system up, no?
| amflare wrote:
| In fairness, Windows 10 was marketed as the Last OS. I could
| see how someone would take this into account when choosing an
| OS. Its not their fault the rug was pulled out from under
| them.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| Ah ok, I wasn't aware of that. What a strange promise to
| make..
| p_ing wrote:
| Microsoft never made the Windows 10 "last OS" statement,
| nor endorse Jerry Nixon, a developer evangelist, who said
| it.
| password4321 wrote:
| In case you are not aware, right now the Windows 11 upgrade can
| be forced to ignore the hardware requirements. At this time
| this does allow unsupported machines to receive Windows 11
| updates, though this is not really a viable option for
| commercial users needing long-term official support.
|
| Windows 10 ending in October blows my mind in contrast to the
| free as in beer near GUI-less Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019
| receiving extended support (security updates) until 2029. I'll
| probably assemble a patched-up/slipstreamed installer for
| recycling older equipment!
| carlosjobim wrote:
| The answer is to simply not upgrade those machines. Computers
| that are important for work shouldn't be upgraded or
| experimented on.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I feel shallow for admitting it, but Linux is just a bit too ugly
| looking for me. This website has similar lack of attention to
| design. I guess it's just an open source thing. You can't expect
| so much attention to detail for free.
| anon7000 wrote:
| There are dozens of OS designs available for Linux. Unlike
| windows or Mac, you could change most things you think are
| ugly. There are large parts of windows I think are ugly, for
| example. Gnome isn't ugly at all, and actually performs many
| times better than windows (and sometimes mac). Bad performance
| is ugly to me.
|
| There are a huge number of examples here:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/
| jitl wrote:
| Linux is beautiful if you have time, energy, and inclination
| to make it beautiful. Otherwise, like macOS and Windows, it's
| just some defaults picked by the Adwaita team 2 years ago
| when the distro cut its stable release.
|
| I used to use Openbox and compile my own freetype with
| patches but these days want to spend my time on other things,
| so I'm just using macOS which has the best out of the box
| experience with the lowest TODO list when setting up a new
| computer.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Compared to Windows? Really? This?
| https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-working-major-update-file-...
|
| It's hard for me to imagine anything uglier than the above, but
| beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.
| atomicnumber3 wrote:
| What desktop env are you using when you try linux? And what
| non-linux UI are you used to?
|
| I've found Ubuntu's default, and "vanilla gnome shell" to both
| be pretty cohesive and "modern".
|
| And at the same time, I've never really felt like Windows _or_
| Mac actually end up with a more cohesive UI than the various
| linux desktop envs. For every Qt /GTK theming mismatch, I find
| a Windows mismatch between apps due to Windows being 12+
| generations of design languages and toolkits built on top of
| each other. (e.g. the 3+ distinct "current" windows control
| panel looks (11, then 10, then 7, then XP as you keep digging
| into more and more obscure settings). And apps typically
| "freeze" at the UI design when they're born. e.g. XP apps still
| look XP, and so on.
|
| And on Mac, you have the (relatively!) small number of apps
| actually artfully designed for macos. And then you have all the
| other ones - electron, java-based, cross-platform Qt apps
| (which naturally look like Qt apps... just like on KDE/gnome).
|
| There's of course various quibbles over font render, that have
| existed since time immemorial. I don't think any one platform
| really wins hands-down here, though it's my understanding that
| mac typically does the best (as long as none of the non-mac-
| native apps manage to mess it up).
|
| I really think people just have double-standards at this point,
| where their "home" platform's flaws are minor, and candidates
| to replace it must be flawless. (I'll also admit I'm the same,
| though NATURALLY I think I'm right - i figure if everything is
| electron and mismatched anyway, I might as well have a free-as-
| in-freedom operating system under it. Nobody is putting ads in
| my start menu or advertising xbox game pass to me in my
| notifications.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Try KDE Plasma Desktop.
| ParetoOptimal wrote:
| https://kde.org/plasma-desktop/
| yapyap wrote:
| Honestly the biggest drawback of Linux for new people is IMO the
| massive amounts of distros, that choice alone between dozens of
| distros is enough friction to turn someone off the idea
| WorldPeas wrote:
| this. This fracture also causes issues due to configuration
| differences between distros and DEs(for example with a screen
| capture utility I could download from apt registries, it
| wouldn't work on kde, only gnome, and it's hard to explain that
| to a parent). The current skirmishes with packaging mechanisms
| apt/snap/flatpak and Wayland V. X11 only make this more
| challenging.
| xtracto wrote:
| And then the stupid "solutions" that people propose when
| something doesn't work in one distro: "have you tried Y
| distro". And then the new people install it, their original
| problem solved, but THAT distro has new problems.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Installing Linux is easy. The problem that inevitably arises is
| moving all of their data across. Things like their browser
| bookmarks and email inboxes etc. Is there a fool proof way to do
| this? If they knew where all their data was then they'd be half
| way to being able to install Linux themselves.
| herbst wrote:
| You just login into chrome again
| mystified5016 wrote:
| All browsers I've used (chromium and Firefox based) store your
| profile in AppData. This directory can be dropped into a linux
| install at the appropriate location and you get all your
| history, plugins, cookies transferred. Completely seamless if
| you're willing to go through some simple steps.
|
| Then again plenty of modern browsers have some type of profile
| syncing built in, which does all this for you.
|
| > email inboxes
|
| Please don't use POP3. Your inbox should live on a remote
| server and simply follow your account. Storing your inbox
| exclusively on your PC will make you very sad some day.
| em-bee wrote:
| _Your inbox should live on a remote server_
|
| most cheaper/free email providers have a storage limit.
|
| besides, i disagree conceptually. if i want to reduce the
| risk of my email being read or handed to someone i don't
| trust, then removing it from the server is a good idea. i can
| make my own backups.
| CactusRocket wrote:
| That's a problem with every computer update right? Not limited
| to Linux.
| TheBicPen wrote:
| With so many things being cloud-based, moving to a new device
| often just requires logging in. See how easy setting up new
| devices is on Android and iOS.
|
| On the desktop side, the GNOME online accounts feature is
| pretty good at getting you most of the way there.
| Balooga wrote:
| The problem I find happening too often is that everything works
| on the initial install. Then an update comes along and nukes
| sound. Then a few weeks later a round of updates fixes sound
| but breaks Bluetooth. Then a few weeks later an update nukes
| WiFi. Ok, connect via Ethernet. Three updates later Bluetooth
| starts working again.
|
| Then everything works... until you try to adjust the display
| brightness.
|
| This on pre-2020 Lenovo laptops.
| pentagrama wrote:
| This is great, but one UX issue I've always seen when trying to
| get regular Windows users to switch to Linux is the whole USB
| flash drive process and needing external tools like Rufus.
|
| Take Ubuntu, for example. It's one of the most popular and
| recommended distros for non-techy users, but just look at the
| install process: https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/install-ubuntu-
| desktop#1-overvi...
|
| Let's be honest, I don't think most people would actually go
| through with that.
|
| One idea to fix this and get more people to switch would be for
| Ubuntu to offer a Windows app that handles everything. It could
| download the ISO in the background, format the flash drive,
| install Ubuntu in dual boot with Windows by default, and clearly
| explain each step so users know how to start using Ubuntu or go
| back to Windows.
| artemonster wrote:
| Take a look at a default emacs and how long it has been this
| way and you can quickly generate 200 plausible theories why
| everything sucks do much around this ecosystem. Tried 5 times
| going to u ubuntu in last 15 years. Everytime switched back
| because it sucked. Spending godless amounts of times googling
| obsucure problems that apprear out of thin air. No thanks. And
| with wsl2 I never have to look back
| fr4nkr wrote:
| ...what does Emacs have to do with any of this? And how does
| running Linux in a Hyper-V virtual machine magically make it
| better?
| artemonster wrote:
| I thought it was a rather clear and obvious analogy how
| opinionated nerds hinder mass adoption of good FOSS
| products because user experience is dogshit.
|
| ,,Running Linux in VM" as you have put it, is miles better
| because it works all the time with 0 friction, driver
| issues, random freezes, reboots, etc.
| fr4nkr wrote:
| I understand the analogy, it's just ridiculous. You are
| conflating entirely unrelated things based on your
| personal feelings about them with no regard to historical
| or technical context.
|
| Hardware support issues are certainly understandable, but
| blaming "opinionated nerds" for them is asinine. It
| cannot be understated how difficult it is to deal with
| certain OEMs.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| No one was ever going to mass adopt emacs lol
| skeledrew wrote:
| I had a couple failed starts moving to Ubuntu as well, years
| ago. Then I came across Zorin OS and that turned out to be a
| great bridge, followed by Kubuntu which I use to this day.
| jitl wrote:
| Idk why we need separate media anyways. Just resize the
| existing partition and create a new Linux recovery partition in
| place, reboot from that to install m. Or just run the whole
| installer in a VM on windows and then reboot to a completely
| working Linux system.
|
| EDIT: Beyond skill, just getting the external media is a
| substantial friction. I haven't used a thumb drive besides for
| Linux install media in 15 years; I'm good at computers but just
| finding / buying one of those things is its own roadblock.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Wubi runs on Windows and installs Ubuntu into a file:
| https://github.com/hakuna-m/wubiuefi
|
| This sort of thing used to be more common. My first exposure
| to Linux was before CD-Rs were ubiquitous so there was often
| no possibility of using external media if you downloaded
| Linux. Partitioning the drive and installing there was
| typical.
| jitl wrote:
| It's the same model that both Apple and Microsoft use for
| their OS updates, especially when upgrading from "dark
| ages" version to the latest version. I just think that most
| Linux distro providers either don't have the resources or
| the passion for Windows programming to make & maintain the
| windows .exe part of the pathway. Wubi is neat, but living
| out of a file on an existing partition doesn't feel like a
| pathway to full-time Linux. But if it already exists and is
| maintained, why hasn't it become the standard approach for
| all distros?
| zamadatix wrote:
| Maybe something like https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Wubi
| again.
| geek_at wrote:
| Oh wow memory lane. I loved wubi, it was a game changer back
| then
| p1mrx wrote:
| > and needing external tools like Rufus
|
| Ubuntu and Linux Mint are now recommending balenaEtcher, which
| is easier to use than Rufus.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| While so, you have to download a program from somewhere. If I
| gave this to my mother she would just totally click the wrong
| link, infect her windows machine and give up.
|
| For the tech, sure but for common people not so.
|
| Why cannot Ubuntu just offer a download media creation tool
| like Windows does. Surely it's not that hard to couple dd
| with a batch gui.
| i80and wrote:
| Fedora does, fwiw:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_Media_Writer
| weaksauce wrote:
| looks like it's not just for fedora either. though that
| is still a little more complicated than an all in one
| ubuntu/mint/whatever installer. maybe someone should fork
| it and/or add that to this.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I wouldn't expect a casual user to install Windows, drivers
| and supporting software on their own, either.
|
| A fresh install of Windows on consumer laptops requires
| users to locate drivers and supporting software from the
| OEM's website and not infect themselves with malicious
| software in the process.
| 7734128 wrote:
| And having to go through this insanity each time is even
| worse
|
| https://blog.balena.io/did-etcher-break-my-usb-sd-card/
| eyegor wrote:
| Is this advice insane or am I missing something
|
| > to fix your busted drive, just nuke the boot sector and
| send it
|
| > bash
|
| > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/xxx bs=512 count=1 conv=notrunc
| invalidptr wrote:
| I never understood why it's so complicated. On Linux, you can
| make a liveusb as easily as `cat liveusb.iso > /dev/sdX`. I
| imagine there is a powershell equivalent. There is a risk of
| writing to the wrong drive, so some kind of utility is needed.
| But the actual write is trivial. Why not make a win32
| executable with the iso embedded so users only need to download
| one thing and then run it to write the USB media?
| badsectoracula wrote:
| IIRC Rufus can actually download the necessary ISOs so it
| isn't _THAT_ complicated.
|
| On the other hand, if someone finds that part too complicated
| to follow perhaps they may not be able to install Linux - or
| Windows for that matter - by themselves and come across other
| issues down the line. Ultimately replacing your OS with
| another one does require some minimum level of technical
| knowledge that you either need to have or be fine with
| learning during the process.
| throwaway2087 wrote:
| Windows PowerShell does not have a direct, native equivalent
| to this specific operation. You have to use some combination
| of Clear-Disk,New-Partition,Format-Volume,Mount-DiskImage,
| and xcopy to do that
| mindslight wrote:
| Regular Windows users are also not going to reinstall Windows.
| I'd say this page does the right thing putting the "Find
| someone to help you" as the first option. Most people want
| something that just works, and it's a great value proposition
| to say "I'll take your old computer and turn it into a new
| device that works better".
|
| The biggest sticking point is the fear of losing what they do
| have, but we're at the point where even their _previous_
| generation computer could be made to run Linux.
| jitl wrote:
| Re-installing Windows is trivial these days. You just click
| the item in the Start menu, it does some work, then reboots
| to the existing recover partition to finish up, restores your
| account, and you drop back to windows desktop after logging
| in again. If you have OneDrive enabled, you still see all
| your files.
| mindslight wrote:
| Does that actually completely blow away and reformat the
| filesystem? Meaning if you only have local files, they're
| then gone? From clicking an item on the Start menu?
|
| I guess I'm not surprised with how frequently "reinstall
| Windows" is offered as a solution, that there is now some
| lighter version of that. But really I was talking about
| obtaining/creating installation media and reinstalling
| _from scratch_.
| holowoodman wrote:
| No, it doesn't really blow away anything. Just some
| copying around and over. Preserving all the malware,
| viruses, rootkits and stuff.
|
| Except of course, licenses and copy protection. That
| stuff is gone and you have to buy it all again, since the
| install-id is regenerated.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Once when I was at FOSDEM I was checking out the OpenSUSE stand
| and one of the people at the stand gave me an OpenSUSE Leap
| DVD. Was pretty neat, though nowadays unfortunately many
| computers no longer have a DVD drive.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _One idea to fix this and get more people to switch would be
| for Ubuntu to offer a Windows app that handles everything. It
| could download the ISO in the background, format the flash
| drive, install Ubuntu in dual boot with Windows by default, and
| clearly explain each step so users know how to start using
| Ubuntu or go back to Windows._
|
| I am almost certain something like this existed 15-20 years ago
| from Canonical.
| akikoo wrote:
| Here's one easy way to create the Windows USB stick installer
| in Linux:
|
| https://atkdinosaurus.wordpress.com/2023/03/24/another-way-t...
| dale_huevo wrote:
| It's even more damning when you realize the Windows stage 1
| installation process is essentially unchanged since Vista. The
| Linux people had nearly 20 years to straighten this out.
|
| Installing Ubuntu bricked a Samsung laptop I had some years
| back. Never again.
| const_cast wrote:
| > Installing Ubuntu bricked a Samsung laptop I had some years
| back. Never again.
|
| What? How? I've never seen an installation break the BIOS.
| I'm sure it's possible, but I wonder what went wrong here.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Some buggy uefis can actually get bricked when clearing or
| writing to the wrong efivars. But blaming anything but the
| hardware manufacturer for is misguided to say the least.
| frollogaston wrote:
| You're right, and I could've sworn Ubuntu had this at some
| point.
| andai wrote:
| At one point they even had a thing that would install Ubuntu
| _inside_ Windows.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wubi_(software)
| frollogaston wrote:
| That's pretty awesome.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| I think it could also be worthwhile to figure out ways to:
|
| - Avoid requiring the user to figure out how to get into
| BIOS/EFI and change boot order. Windows has APIs for
| manipulating EFI things, may be worth looking into that.
|
| - Replace GRUB with something more modern like rEFInd or Clover
| with a nice looking theme.
|
| For the latter point, while GRUB is technically functional, it
| looks scary and arcane to new users and has little resiliency
| to things like Windows updates mucking with boot entries. It
| makes for a bad first impression ("why is my computer showing
| hacker screens suddenly") and when it breaks your average user
| doesn't have a prayer of fixing it. Something that looks more
| modern and self-heals would be a big improvement.
| bmicraft wrote:
| > - Replace GRUB with something more modern like rEFInd or
| Clover with a nice looking theme.
|
| Replace Grub with nothing. If you're not doing bootable
| snapshots like openSUSE, then there is virtually no benefit
| in a "boot loader". The linux kernel + cmdline (+other stuff
| like ucode or secure boot signing stuff) can easily be packed
| into a single bootable .efi file.
|
| That efi file will then get an entry in your uefi boot device
| list just like windows already has/had. This way is better
| anyway, since windows will overwrite your uefi boot order
| with every significant update, meaning users will already
| need to know how to boot other os's.
| cwillu wrote:
| rEFInd is more or less exactly that.
| gadders wrote:
| "At this point you will overwrite all data on the computer, so
| have a back up of the files you want to keep."
|
| Can't help thinking that should be in a bigger font. It's a shame
| there doesn't seem to be a away to install Linux and keep your
| Documents directory at least. Is that due to file systems?
|
| [Yes, yes, backup to memory stick/external drive but I'm talking
| about for your average person on the street]
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| This is entirely possible in many ways. You could keep the NTFS
| partition, shrink it, eventually copy data off of it, ...
|
| So long as enough contiguous space is available to install the
| desired Linux distro.
| MyOutfitIsVague wrote:
| Linux has to install somewhere, and it needs a filesystem that
| supports POSIX permissions, so you need a partition formatted
| for it. If NTFS is taking up the entire drive and can't be
| shrunk, where does Linux install?
|
| You can't do this all on the same drive, because you need a
| place to copy the documents directory to. You need to delete
| the NTFS partition to create the place to copy the files to,
| but by the time you've done that, the Documents are
| inaccessible. You could do it in memory, feasibly, if you
| create a RAMdisk and are lucky enough to have enough memory for
| all your documents, but then you're still gambling on not
| running out of memory during the install.
|
| So it is possible to copy the documents on the same device, and
| it's possible to even automate the process, but it's not
| possible to do it reliably or safely, and the reliability is so
| low that it's not worth even offering the possibility. If
| somebody has a handful of gigabytes of documents, it's already
| a nonstarter. To be safe you'd demand the user make a backup
| onto another device anyway, in which case they might as well do
| that and then copy the files into a fresh install themselves
| TheBicPen wrote:
| I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to 1) check the size of
| the documents directory and the existing NTFS partition on
| windows and 2) if the existing partition is < (1/2 the disk
| size - the size of the Linux installation), give the user the
| option to shrink the partition and copy the relevant files
| over to the new /home. This is assuming the tool is going to
| install a dual-boot configuration anyway, at which point this
| isn't significantly more work. If the idea is to completely
| overwrite the existing installation then this would make the
| process significantly more complicated. But I imagine that
| for a tool intended for less-technical users, dual-boot
| installation is the way to go to give them assurance that
| their existing setup will continue to work.
| MyOutfitIsVague wrote:
| For a dual boot configuration, you might as well not copy
| anything over. You'd be better off mounting the Windows
| partition in the Linux install. There's not a great reason
| to dual-boot for non-technical users, though. The point is
| to end up on a system that works for them, not to have one
| that works for them and a derelict system that they don't
| know how to remove, and that can destroy their dual-boot
| setup if MS decides to push an update that overwrites the
| boot loader, leaving them unable to access the Linux
| install.
|
| It's not just shrinking and copying over to the new `/home`
| because of the locality of the data. If your NTFS partition
| is taking the entirety of the disk (minus EFI and system
| partitions), shrinking it will then make it take up the
| first X% of the disk. Then you have to make the linux
| installation on the last (100-X)% of the disk, copy the
| files over, and then when you delete the NTFS partition,
| your Linux filesystem is on the last half of the disk with
| a big blank unallocated area on the beginning. BTRFS or
| LVM2 could help a little bit there, but that's far from
| ideal in any case.
|
| Probably the best approach would be to shrink NTFS, create
| a new partition at the end of at least the right size, copy
| the files over, then wipe the NTFS partition, install Linux
| as the first partition (after system/EFI and such), then
| copy the files into the user's home, and then remove the
| documents partition. That's still not super reliable,
| though. You are at the mercy of your documents sizes,
| filesystem fragmentation (remember, even if your filesystem
| is mostly empty, you might not be able to shrink if
| fragmentation is in a bad place. You could defrag, but then
| the install time can balloon up many hours for the defrag
| process alone, just to shrink a filesystem that you're
| going to delete anyway), how big the Linux install will end
| up being, and many other factors. You'd have a lot of
| people who simply can't copy their documents over on
| install who will be simply SOL. I can't think of a
| situation where this kind of thing wouldn't be better
| served by just telling the user to backup their documents
| to a USB drive and move them back afterward, because many
| people are going to have to do that anyway.
| charcircuit wrote:
| One option you didn't mention was syncing everything to the
| cloud, and then redownloading it all.
| wat10000 wrote:
| There's no technical reason it can't copy all your documents to
| the new system, or partition your drive to allow dual-booting
| with your documents accessible from both OSes, and allow you to
| remove the Windows partition once you're comfortable doing so.
| If the installers don't have this option, they certainly
| should.
| Jaxan wrote:
| I tried installing Ubuntu on my surface pro 4. But the support
| for touch and stylus is bad. Also it didn't properly shut down
| and emptied the battery that way.
|
| It's still a great device, it just sucks I'm stuck with windows
| (10).
| repler wrote:
| Did you try Linux Surface?
|
| https://github.com/linux-surface/linux-surface
| xtracto wrote:
| LOL, I can just imagine someone installing Ubuntu in their
| Surface, then seeing that several things don't work. Then
| they go to this repo, which is "scary" in itself for non-
| technical people, and then they click on the "detailed
| installation guide" at https://github.com/linux-
| surface/linux-surface/wiki/Installa...
|
| And that's it, they are lost and tired at that point. They
| will just go back to Windows.
| ponector wrote:
| To be honest, win10 also usually does not properly shuts down
| or goes to sleep. You need manually set up a hibernation on lid
| close to be sure it will not awake in your bag to become a
| noisy heater there.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| "Just use Linux." Great solution. Except I already have a Linux
| boot. Still need a Windows boot.
| npteljes wrote:
| I don't think any amount of grassroots anything will make the
| year of the Linux desktop happen. What could work is what Valve
| does: providing a valuable device with Linux preinstalled.
| Microsoft's backdoor bundle won't be defeated from below.
| sgt wrote:
| I don't fully understand. Is Windows 10 completely dead in the
| water due to lack of security updates? You can just keep using an
| old Windows 10 PC and take your chances. The browser will be a
| barrier, and the built in firewall and anti malware as well. Not
| perfect, but a solution.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It's actually really wild that OS vendors apparently sell
| software that is so defective that it is assumed unsafe without
| ongoing updates, and then use the threat of not providing
| updates to spur adoption of their subsequent products.
|
| In a more reasonable world they'd owe their customers a recall.
| dsp_person wrote:
| would you be happy running a few years old linux kernel
| missing security patches?
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Good point.
|
| As a response to the kernel's various SNAFUs, I've gone
| ahead and refunded to myself all of the money I've spent on
| Linux kernels over the past several decades -- and updated
| my install to the new version for free.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Not really, but
|
| 1) there's no implied warranty of merchantability with the
| hobbyist system
|
| 2) the "business model" (such as it is) of open source
| doesn't push distros to hide security updates behind a
| pathway
|
| 3) generally Linux is usually getting better so I want to
| update anyway
| const_cast wrote:
| I mean... people do it with Android phones all the time.
| josephcsible wrote:
| The point is that to get further security updates, you have
| to spend money to run the new major version of Windows. You
| can run the most up-to-date Linux for free on a computer
| from 1989.
| kemotep wrote:
| It only took about 7 years between XP's EOL and EternalBlue
| based attacks like Wannacry and NotPetya.
|
| A well configured firewall between your computer and the
| internet, uBlock Origin in the browser, and not downloading
| untrusted files off the internet can do a long way to help. Not
| stopping everything but at least shielding you from the worst.
|
| I think the bigger issue is like on iPhones and Androids. Your
| software and apps stop supporting your OS long before the
| hardware or OS fails you.
| frollogaston wrote:
| Didn't WannaCry affect newer Windows versions equally? And
| they even backported the patch to XP.
| kemotep wrote:
| It affected anything using SMBv1 and improperly configured
| SMBv2. SMBv3 requires all mitigations in place
|
| Which from what I understand is that even Windows 11 still
| has support for SMBv1.
|
| But my point was that your standard "up to date" XP install
| in 2016 was highly vulnerable and could effectively be
| nuked by such an attack. It took nearly 7 years after
| support ended for that to happen. So you could
| theoretically get another 7 years out of Windows 10 before
| a similar situation happens where a global cyberattack
| negatively impacts you with no way to protect yourself
| because your OS doesn't support a configuration that would
| prevent you from being a victim.
| frollogaston wrote:
| I see. But even after the 7 years, XP users were still
| able to protect themselves from WannaCry once the patch
| was created. Or they could've disabled SMB even before
| that, good idea anyway.
|
| Btw I do have a spare PC, it only got Win10 because the
| GPU didn't support 7, and it's not getting 11 even though
| it supports it. Microsoft's job to keep that secure.
| kemotep wrote:
| Well I would hardly say that protections against being
| obliterated in a global ransomware attack that comes out
| after the ransomware attack occurs helps the victims that
| much but yes it is possible if there is another massive
| cyber attack Microsoft could release a fix for 10 years
| after support has ended.
|
| It is definitely possible to heavily lockdown a Windows
| computer to prevent 99% of attacks and if you don't need
| WAN access especially that becomes significantly easier.
|
| It is far more likely browsers will drop support for 10
| in a few years and that will be what stops the average
| user from being able to continue to use their Windows 10
| computer.
| frollogaston wrote:
| Ah, I missed the part where the vuln had already been
| patched for newer versions before it was patched for XP,
| it's just that many didn't install the patches. Although,
| the exploit happened to not be compatible with XP just
| because the creator didn't bother. Security through
| poverty (jk)
| dave333 wrote:
| Is it possible to upgrade your hardware so that it becomes
| upgradable to Windows 11?
| dave333 wrote:
| Answering my own question via AI:
|
| Yes, it is often possible to upgrade your PC hardware to make
| it compatible with Windows 11, but the feasibility and cost
| depend heavily on which specific requirements your current PC
| fails to meet.
|
| Windows 11 has stricter hardware requirements than Windows 10,
| primarily focusing on security and modern capabilities. The key
| hurdles for older PCs are usually:
|
| CPU (Processor) Compatibility:
|
| Requirement: 1 GHz or faster with 2 or more cores on a
| compatible 64-bit processor. Microsoft maintains a list of
| approved CPUs. Generally, this means Intel 8th Gen (Coffee
| Lake) or newer, and AMD Ryzen 2000 series or newer.
|
| Upgradability: This is often the trickiest and most expensive
| upgrade. If your CPU isn't on the list, you would likely need
| to replace your motherboard AND CPU (and possibly RAM, as newer
| motherboards often require different RAM types). This is
| essentially building a new core system and might not be cost-
| effective for an older PC. TPM (Trusted Platform Module) 2.0:
|
| Requirement: TPM version 2.0. This is a hardware security
| module that stores cryptographic keys. Upgradability: Enable in
| BIOS/UEFI: Many PCs manufactured in the last 5-7 years actually
| have TPM 2.0 (or fTPM/PTT, firmware-based TPM) but it might be
| disabled in the BIOS/UEFI settings. This is the easiest fix -
| just enable it. Add a TPM Module: Some older motherboards
| (typically from around the Intel 6th/7th gen or similar AMD
| era) have a TPM header where you can purchase and install a
| physical TPM 2.0 module. This is a relatively inexpensive
| upgrade if your motherboard supports it. Motherboard
| Replacement: If your motherboard doesn't have an integrated
| fTPM/PTT and lacks a TPM header, you would need to replace the
| motherboard (which usually means a new CPU and RAM too). UEFI
| Firmware with Secure Boot Capability:
|
| Requirement: Your system firmware must be UEFI (Unified
| Extensible Firmware Interface, a modern BIOS replacement) and
| Secure Boot capable. Upgradability: Enable in BIOS/UEFI:
| Similar to TPM, many modern PCs are UEFI-capable but might be
| running in "Legacy BIOS" or "CSM" (Compatibility Support
| Module) mode. You can often switch to UEFI mode in your
| BIOS/UEFI settings.
|
| Enable Secure Boot: Once in UEFI mode, you can usually enable
| Secure Boot from within the BIOS/UEFI settings. Motherboard
| Limitation: Very old PCs might only support Legacy BIOS and not
| UEFI at all. In this case, a motherboard replacement would be
| necessary. RAM (Memory):
|
| Requirement: 4 GB or greater. Upgradability: This is usually
| the easiest and cheapest upgrade. Most desktops and many
| laptops allow you to add more RAM. Storage:
|
| Requirement: 64 GB or larger storage device. Upgradability:
| Easily upgradable. You can replace a smaller HDD/SSD with a
| larger one. Graphics Card:
|
| Requirement: Compatible with DirectX 12 or later with WDDM 2.0
| driver. Upgradability: Most integrated and dedicated graphics
| cards from the last several years meet this. If yours doesn't,
| you could install a new graphics card (for desktops) or be out
| of luck (for laptops). How to Check Your PC's Compatibility:
| The best way to determine what specifically is holding your PC
| back is to use Microsoft's PC Health Check app. It will tell
| you exactly which requirements your system meets and which it
| doesn't.
|
| Summary of Upgrade Possibilities: Most Common & Easiest:
| Enabling TPM 2.0 in BIOS/UEFI. Enabling Secure Boot in
| BIOS/UEFI (after switching to UEFI mode if needed). Adding more
| RAM (if less than 4GB). Upgrading storage drive size. More
| Involved & Potentially Costly: Adding a physical TPM 2.0 module
| (if your motherboard has the header). Upgrading the CPU (often
| requires a new motherboard and RAM too). Replacing the
| motherboard (almost always requires new CPU and RAM). Upgrading
| the graphics card (for desktops). Is it worth it? For older PCs
| that require a new CPU and motherboard, it often makes more
| sense financially to purchase a new PC that comes with Windows
| 11 pre-installed or is fully compatible out-of-the-box. The
| cost of individual component upgrades can quickly add up, and
| you'll end up with a system that's still fundamentally older
| than a brand-new one.
|
| However, if you only need to enable TPM/Secure Boot in BIOS or
| add RAM, it's definitely a viable and cheap way to get on
| Windows 11.
| aduwah wrote:
| Can't play a lot of mainstream games on Linux is the issue
| xtracto wrote:
| Can't play a lot of mainstream games in old windows computers
| also. Which what this website is about.
|
| So what?
| aduwah wrote:
| League is mentioned further above. That's 131 million players
| right there. It runs on a crap box too.
|
| It is a fact that having an old PC AND using Linux further
| limits the options compared to using an old box with a
| windows with extended support.
|
| I think one of the main issues with the Linux world is that
| people pretend that it is easy to get on the bandwagon. "The
| is xyz distro that makes it really simple and it is 90% the
| same". Well that's a lot of bull. It results in people
| believing you and then silently running away never to come
| back again.
|
| I work with linux and mac for about 15 years and I will
| definitely not give up my gaming PC with windows 10 because I
| would lose access to some games I am playing plus there is a
| performance hit that would bug me to no end (which would end
| up putting me in a optimization loop where I spend more time
| tuning the PC than actually playing).
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| You'd be surprised how many games you can. It's a pretty common
| misconception at this point. The only things that you can't are
| some highly competitive multiplayer games like League of
| Legends or iRacing. I haven't had a game not work in years,
| just smash the install button on steam and be done with it.
| Even a large amount of MMOs just work. I play SWTOR and even
| have StarParse (stats overlay working perfectly).
|
| And if enough people move to Linux even those holdouts will
| eventually have to support it. The Steam deck has been the
| gateway drug to Linux for the masses, and I'm stoked for it.
| Moving to Linux for my desktop gaming machine was the single
| best decision I made 5 years ago, and I haven't used Windows
| since. It's more stable than Windows ever was, and I also don't
| have an errant update break a game, the system, or cause a
| reboot at the worst possible time.
| SirMaster wrote:
| And those are the only types of games I play... So for me it
| feels like barely anything I want to play works on Linux.
|
| I play Battlefield 2042, Call of Duty Warzone, Apex Legends,
| PUBG, Rainbow 6 Siege, and Fortnite, and none of these seem
| to work on Linux.
|
| The only games I regularly play that work on Linux are DotA 2
| and CS2, but I would also prefer using faceit for CS2 as
| there are way too many cheaters without it, and faceit does
| not work on Linux.
| aduwah wrote:
| It still limits the selection, especially, if someone is into
| competitive games which often have anticheat sitting on the
| kernel. Which is crap, but it is how it is
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| Funny enough I've been on Linux +10 years, and I've seen the same
| arguments, it's ugly, games don't run, etc.
|
| There's been ton of progress, thankfully people keep using linux
| besides the very vocal frustrated "failed" migrations.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| If you are curious and work in software, you will at some point
| install Linux or other operating systems and have an informed
| opinion about what OS you like the most and use that.
|
| If you are not driven by curiosity, most of the time the driver
| is either money, a vision of software as only an occupation, work
| life balance, etc.
|
| Which is usually the kind of people that is not excited by
| software, doesn't have a passion for it and even take passion
| away from others.
| frollogaston wrote:
| This website is great, but the first turnoff a normal user will
| hit is that they don't know what "Linux distribution" means, and
| even if they do, it doesn't recommend one.
|
| Even if it said go install Ubuntu or something... Very few people
| think of a kernel and OS as separate things. Hardware and
| software separation is already sketchy enough. Instead of people
| interjecting for a moment, can there just be a penguin-branded
| "Linux" OS already?
| kattagarian wrote:
| No?
|
| Nobody in their right mind would claim that they are building
| the official Linux OS without turning the whole community
| against them.
|
| And it's not as if the average user need to use linux. If
| developers move from windows 10 to linux, the impact would be
| huge.
| frollogaston wrote:
| This website seems directed at average users. There aren't a
| whole lot of devs, but even then, many devs want things to
| just work cause time is money.
|
| Nobody is upset that there's an official Linux kernel. Of
| course it takes Linus Torvalds to declare it, and he's
| understandably not interested in designating an official OS,
| but this is a consequence.
| kattagarian wrote:
| > Nobody is upset that there's an official Linux kernel.
|
| Because he was literally the creator of the whole thing.
| And the word "official" means little in the open source
| community. Yt-dlp took the crown out of youtube-dl hands
| when it comes to downloading videos. Is yt-dlp official?
| What official even means?
|
| And that's fine that many devs want things that just work.
| Little by little, everyone is noticing that windows not
| only not improving but taking direct action to make the
| experience worse. The balance is tilting in favor of linux
| not only because linux is getting better but because
| windows is also getting worse
| frollogaston wrote:
| It's not enough because there isn't something comparable
| in Linux. Microsoft will follow their MO of avoiding
| pissing off users just enough that they don't bother
| switching, been that way since Vista at least.
| DiabloD3 wrote:
| I wouldn't recommend Ubuntu, though.
|
| One of the biggest faults of Linux is we don't have an easy,
| user friendly, idiot proof distro for normies, but Ubuntu is
| just broken corporate slop.
|
| When I was wearing the various "save users from themselves"
| hats in my previous life, Ubuntu users were 100% the bane of my
| existence... since they were all server customers, the ones
| that took my advice and let me help them switch over to Debian
| suddenly stopped being frequent footgun fliers, no matter what
| their original issue was.
|
| Ubuntu, to me, is simply Debian that has been aggressively
| turned into enterprise slop.
| frollogaston wrote:
| Honestly I like Debian more than Ubuntu too, but the problem
| is that just as many people might say Debian sucks and you
| need to use LinuxMint or something. Even more confusing and
| frustrating is the "it depends on your use case" thing, as if
| 99.99% of PC users aren't all trying to do the same basic
| things (server is different, but even then, 90%?).
|
| There has to be some acceptable default that doesn't change
| too much, even if it's not the best thing ever. Ubuntu
| changed DEs twice even though the original was fine. Windows
| UI is intentionally bad at this point, but at least it's
| stable.
| holowoodman wrote:
| > Windows UI is intentionally bad at this point, but at
| least it's stable.
|
| Windows 2000 to XP to Vista to 7 were big breaks in UI. 7
| to 10 was a break. 10 to 11 was a break. When I now click
| the lower left corner, weather opens. When I'm pressing the
| Windows key, no applications menu to be seen, just some web
| search slop.
|
| The only thing that's constant with windows are the lying
| percentages, where 99% and 100% take as long as 0-98%...
| frollogaston wrote:
| They're not very different. Last time I used Windows
| often was 2000, and I was able to pick up and use any of
| the later ones. Random IT departments publishing
| screenshots don't need to go change everything between
| Windows versions. Meanwhile I logged into my Linux
| desktop at work for the first time in a while (normally I
| SSH), and literally every button and setting was in a
| different place than before.
|
| Unless I'm misremembering, Windows key still opens the
| start menu with your apps. It's just that they added tons
| of adware and crap next to it.
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| To everyone saying you can't play games on Linux. You can. You
| can play an amazing amount of games, even on launch day, with
| nothing more than a click of the install button on Steam. I
| smashed install for Clair Obscur last night and it works great.
| If you don't play highly competitive online games like League of
| Legends then you'll be fine.
|
| Anecdata-- a mate of mine plays Hell Divers 2, and thought he
| couldn't play it or it wouldn't work well. I told I had played it
| and it worked fine. Two days later, he's using Linux and getting
| better performance than he was on Windows.
|
| It has been five years of gaming exclusively on Linux, and I have
| yet to find a game I can't play with the only exceptions (for me)
| being League of Legends and iRacing. But I can live without them.
| If you don't play extremely competitive online games you can
| probably play it. My rule of thumb is, "are there IRL pro
| tournaments for money?" if there aren't it'll very likely just
| work.
|
| My only tip is just use something like common. Ubuntu, Mint,
| PopOS, Arch, ZorinOS, Kubuntu... all will probably work with zero
| effort. Don't go mucking about with weird distros, and bizarre
| tweaks, and you're more than likely gonna have the most stable
| system you've ever used.
|
| I cannot recommend Linux highly enough. Five years ago I was
| skeptical and unsure but tired of Windows bullshit and here I
| am-- still loving it. I've fully upgraded the system recently,
| except for the GPU (because 5090 prices are ridiculous and I
| don't want less VRAM than my 3090 has) and it even booted from my
| old install and just worked.
|
| Try Linux, friends. It's pretty freaking great these days.
| eviks wrote:
| > But what if you could make your current one fast and secure
| again?
|
| At a fraction of time spent following this guide you can extend
| win 10 by a few more years by switching to ltsc or go win11
| bypassing all software restrictions
| whiterook6 wrote:
| I am not getting rid of windows 10 for several years at least.
| Too many of my workflows require windows apps, and windows 11 is
| incoherent, full of ads, and way too controlling.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-19 23:01 UTC)