> Any responses to the other things I listed? Like how DCH driver packaging is a hardware security mitigation? No, someone else responded to that. I was just h

> Any responses to the other things I listed? Like how DCH driver packaging is a hardware security mitigation? No, someone else responded to that. I was just here to look at a specific claim and see what your evidence showed. If that claim had been supported by the evidence, it would have been scandalous, but it wasn’t. I’m not an expert in the Windows security model, so I don’t claim to know anything about DCH drivers. If you're going to complain about people not responding to every single thing in your comments, then why didn't you respond to the main point I was making? The Dell laptop was supported as well. Clearly Dell put in the effort, where Lenovo did not. > Though I'm not even claiming there is one - there isn't a particular need for a conspiracy here. Your previous comments absolutely are making claims that there were large conspiracies at play. You claimed that Microsoft did this to help Intel sell more chips, which would be a huge conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel. Claiming that Microsoft lied about their reasons for obsoleting old processors by trying to present evidence that Microsoft wasn’t following their own stated reasons naturally also requires the existence of a significant conspiracy within Microsoft. Perhaps you didn’t mean to claim those things?