• the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    Right? Where does Microsoft get off adding minimum hardware requirements to windows 11 for the first time ever?

    • BCsven
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      The laughable part is the hardware list keeps slipping, my 2017 HP workstation said it was not supported due to CPU, now it recently changes to get ready for W11. Like all of a sudden when they see no one is adopting 11 as fast as they want they go and change requirements.

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      What I’m picking at is not requiring some min HW to run their adware. It’s how much, compared with the development of their OS. W11 is mostly W10+trash.

      • tekato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The requirements are 7 year old hardware. While not everyone upgrades their PC every 7 years, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to stop supporting 7 years old hardware. Apple requires iPhone XS (6 years old) for iOS 18, Google requires Pixel 6 (3 years old) for Android 15, MacOS Sequoia requires 6 years old laptops. Turns out Microsoft is the one giving the most support.

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            TPM is required for Windows 11 because it is used for security purposes. The world is filled with things that aren’t “technically required” but they are actually required because they help prevent things. The web doesn’t “technically require” HTTPS, but modern websites require an HTTPS connection. A seatbelt isn’t “technically required” to drive a car, but you are required to wear one anyways.

        • Taleya@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Pcs aren’t phones, dude. Most new systems don’t have the specs on my beast and she’s WELL past the 7 year mark

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            I would disagree given that two of the most efficient computer chips are based on phone SOCs (Qualcomm and Apple). Anyways, the fact that your system is powerful doesn’t mean anything from a support standpoint. Supporting old hardware means you need different versions for devices with different capabilities and architectures, which is not feasible for a company that also wants to focus on new technologies. Again, out of all top operating systems, Windows is giving you the most support.

            • Taleya@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Hardware hasn’t changed in the way you think it has for quite a while. For shits i span up a compatability check on my fifteen year old file server and it qualifies for w10.

              The big wank issue with win10/11 is microsoft trying to enforce corporate hardware requirements on home users. Mostly so they can start trying to garden wall their shit.

        • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 day ago

          I don’t think it’s unreasonable to stop supporting 7 years old hardware.

          I think that it is; gimme a decade or so then we talk. Specially when feature-wise W11 is basically W10.