101–110 of 343 posts
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 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.…
> 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 feat…
> 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...
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.
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 supp…
I have a gaming PC and really can't tell the difference between games loaded between the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.…