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.
It hasn’t in recent years, PC fleets have been aging forever. 36 month refresh cycles are more like 50 months these days.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.…
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
Win 11 won't support a bunch of recent (3 year old) perfectly good hardware because demands for TPM like features.
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…
It has nothing to do with performance. It is almost certainly either due to malware concerns or DRM protections.
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 lik…
> 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.
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.
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.…
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?
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.
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.
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: