5 ms·

Not sure how not supporting old devices is extinguish for Linux but okay. I work at MS so I have some background, but even I was vocally opposed to this. The

by zeusk 5y ago

Not sure how not supporting old devices is extinguish for Linux but okay. I work at MS so I have some background, but even I was vocally opposed to this. The real pushback for hardware floor came from IHVs and PMs. IHVs don't want to support your old hardware beyond 2-5 years thanks to what they're seeing in phone market. We've had multiple user impacting bugs that graphic vendors I won't name would not fix because that version of chip is NLA. I'm still unsure why PMs pushed for this, but it was something about mix of consistency, security and performance - whatever that meant.

marcodiego 5y ago
Check how more complicated it is to install linux and your own compiled kernels with secure boot enabled and a tpm 2.0 chip.
- zeusk 5y ago
  I did a quick bing (hah, jk I used google) but didn't find anything other than having to install some tpm2 packages to use the module. Also, if tpm2.0 is as redundant as people are making it out to be, couldn't they just disable it in BIOS along with microsoft secureboot keys?
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    For BIOSes that allow such a thing, maybe... IIRC, at least for windows 8 on ARM, this possibility wasn't required or even desired: https://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microsoft-secure-boot-windows-8-arm https://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microso...
popinman322 5y ago
I could see this as an ecosystem thing; Microsoft is maybe trying to push OEMs into using "more capable" hardware for some definition of "more capable"? Reminds me of the issues Vista had where it seemed to implicitly require higher spec devices. This could be a different approach to the same kind of pressure.
- zeusk 5y ago
  Not really, or at-least as far as I'm aware. With Vista, they wanted to deprecate GDI and introduce WDDM with a desktop compositor so display and memory requirements were quite intensive for the day. No such major change with 11 AFAIK. The low-end hardware still runs just as smooth. As I said originally, it is more related to the unwillingness of IHVs to support hardware for as long as Windows does.

by zeusk 5y ago

marcodiego 5y ago

Check how more complicated it is to install linux and your own compiled kernels with secure boot enabled and a tpm 2.0 chip.

zeusk 5y ago
I did a quick bing (hah, jk I used google) but didn't find anything other than having to install some tpm2 packages to use the module. Also, if tpm2.0 is as redundant as people are making it out to be, couldn't they just disable it in BIOS along with microsoft secureboot keys?
- marcodiego 5y ago
  For BIOSes that allow such a thing, maybe... IIRC, at least for windows 8 on ARM, this possibility wasn't required or even desired: https://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microsoft-secure-boot-windows-8-arm https://www.theverge.com/microsoft/2012/1/16/2710502/microso...

popinman322 5y ago

I could see this as an ecosystem thing; Microsoft is maybe trying to push OEMs into using "more capable" hardware for some definition of "more capable"? Reminds me of the issues Vista had where it seemed to implicitly require higher spec devices. This could be a different approach to the same kind of pressure.

zeusk 5y ago
Not really, or at-least as far as I'm aware. With Vista, they wanted to deprecate GDI and introduce WDDM with a desktop compositor so display and memory requirements were quite intensive for the day. No such major change with 11 AFAIK. The low-end hardware still runs just as smooth. As I said originally, it is more related to the unwillingness of IHVs to support hardware for as long as Windows does.