Redneckerz wrote:Graf Zahl wrote:The reason why they upped the requirements is well known and anything but 'stupid'.
Oh yes, ''security concerns'' and ''keeping you secure.'' as a means to justify this kind of thing.
It seems you do not understand what's up here. Any security that is optional is useless in today's computing environment. What do you think how malware works? If it can fool the system that the security infrastructure does not exist it can all be disabled. By making the needed features a hard requirement there is no way this can be done. So for W11 it's either to become a liability or to strongly enforce these things. If it didn't there'd two things happening:
1) mass deployment on insecure systems.
2) Conspiracy minded idiots disabling the security features or deliberately acquiring systems that do not have them.
In summary, I have no issues with W11's requirements.
Redneckerz wrote:Landlocking your OS behind a certain grade of processors when W10 has a more general requirement footprint. If W11 did the same nobody would make a stand. Calling for specific processors however..
Yeah, whatever. MS clearly stated that with older CPUs it can be hit or miss.
Redneckerz wrote:Its not a productivity killer, its that every common man (Who has no dedicated interest in computers) is used to Windows and not to Linux. The perils of a monopoly.
Desktop Linux is perfectly serviceable but its not for the common man.
I can outright tell you that Linux desktop is a no-show for any corporate productivity system and that's where most computers today exist. In fact there's only one group of users that use Linux as their desktop work platform and that's technically very knowledgeable people who do not mind to tinker with their system. This is a small niche - unfortunately one that has a tendency to see themselves as the keepers of the holy grail of computers and often making no provisions for outsiders. And this attitude filters through every fiber in Linux, making it a system that's virtually unpalatable as a productivity platform.
Hellser wrote:I do believe TPM 2.0's requirement was put in place to prevent another Meltdown incident. I'm sorry, but companies should not have to tend to someone using an ancient computer. Hell, even my legacy (and dead) old video card, a GeForce GTX 770 SC, is set to have its support dropped from nVidia's drivers. If that card was still alive, THAT would tell me I need to upgrade soon.
These days TPM 2.0 should be taken for granted. I find it baffling that even in recent years some systems were sold not having it, despite being a requirement for geting Microsoft's approval for a properly designed systems. There's obviously that old misconception floating around that the only use of TPM is to lock the user out of their own computer which makes many people do stupid decisions.
sinisterseed wrote:I don't think they should drop them either, but it really should have either come up later, or 10 be supported for longer. 4yrs simply isn't enough time for people who couldn't afford periodic upgrades in the first place - even now that I have a job, it's still a waste of money since the core issue are components you can't upgrade to newer gens, specifically the CPU, so wholly new machine it is. But oh well, at least I'll manage to save up enough in that time for another mid range rig.
and that's the actual crux of the matter. With today's lifetime of computers, even with the average easily falling into Microsoft's lifetime estimate, there will inevitably be systems in 2025 that are still perfectly serviceable but cannot install Windows 11 when Windows 10 is EOL'd. And this is the one thing here I have issues with.
I consider it unreasonable to expect that any old system out there can upgrade the OS. In fact such an attitude would be counterproductive because it'd force the new OS to make compromises for old hardware that may harm it on new hardware. Like I said, any option to disable a feature based on hardware presence means one more potential attack vector for malware.
Unlike with Apple where software abandons older versions far more quickly, running W10 for a few more years would not lock the users out of most software so it'd be an acceptable compromise to allow natural transition to more modern hardware.