5 ms·

> modern chips are a lot more reselient against crashes according to the telemetry Microsoft collects Sort of a side point, but this got me wondering...Is ther

> modern chips are a lot more reselient against crashes according to the telemetry Microsoft collects Sort of a side point, but this got me wondering...Is there something inherently less stable about these older chips, or maybe is their stability somehow a function of their lifetime that would really matter here? My own anecdata (which is from a far smaller dataset than what I imagine Microsoft would have access to) would suggest that this isn't really the case, at least for anything otherwise capable of running something like Windows 10 or Windows 11, but I'd be interested in reading more about it. Is it that old systems tend to not be physically maintained as well thus resulting in cooling issues and more overheating? Is it that these "crashes" are application crashes due to the attempted execution of instructions in (newer) x86 extensions not implemented by these (older) chips?

jeroenhd 5y ago
Those are all valid questions and I think they do make Microsoft's defence a lot less credible. I believe there are some improvements, like speeding up certain commonly used instructions, the hardware SPECTRE etc. defences and better security features, but I don't think those will impact stability that much. Whether it's because only newer chips without wear and tear come out on top in these statistics or because there's something in the hardware itself, the perception that Windows 11 is more stable is something Microsoft can market. Dropping chips that lack certain instructions also make their support and testing workload lighter. In the end, the quality and range of support Microsoft provide for their operating system depends on how much money they can make off their sales. If their losses from the move are lower than the cost of supporting older hardware, it's a decent business decision to do the unpopular thing and drop support. It's a private company, after all, focused on making their shareholders money.

jeroenhd 5y ago

Those are all valid questions and I think they do make Microsoft's defence a lot less credible. I believe there are some improvements, like speeding up certain commonly used instructions, the hardware SPECTRE etc. defences and better security features, but I don't think those will impact stability that much. Whether it's because only newer chips without wear and tear come out on top in these statistics or because there's something in the hardware itself, the perception that Windows 11 is more stable is something Microsoft can market. Dropping chips that lack certain instructions also make their support and testing workload lighter. In the end, the quality and range of support Microsoft provide for their operating system depends on how much money they can make off their sales. If their losses from the move are lower than the cost of supporting older hardware, it's a decent business decision to do the unpopular thing and drop support. It's a private company, after all, focused on making their shareholders money.