4 ms·

So, Microsoft should never allow their OS to evolve beyond existing hardware? Doesn't seem a realistic expectation. The hardware is still usable with an older

So, Microsoft should never allow their OS to evolve beyond existing hardware? Doesn't seem a realistic expectation. The hardware is still usable with an older OS or Linux/BSD. No one is being forced to throw out old computers.

circuit10 3y ago
The limitation does seem quite artificial (at least currently while they're not making use of the features), and the cutoff is a bit too recent as well (I'd understand if it was 10 or 20 year old hardware but it wasn't)
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
Pre-win 10, windows said my dad's computer couldn't upgrade. That it needed replacing. This was relatively common IME. As it happened, I managed to install it anyway and it ran at least as well as the previous Win 7 did. (Two other family computers were the same; a couple of computers at my dad's work I saved from the dump too [just by upgrading them, they continued to use them]). Now they say he can't upgrade [that 'last ever version' thing didn't last, huh] ... I've not found a way around the current restrictions yet? It's quite good at the moment, there are a flood of good second hand systems from businesses who are upgrading. There's no problem with MS developing beyond their current systems. Indeed it feels like they go too far with backward compatibility. But lying (or putting in false requirements) in order to get hardware scrapped is just wrong -- do home users really need TPM2, seems more like a nice to have to me. The reality is that most people will not repurpose a computer, they throw them out. Rarely (in UK) the device might make it to a computer recycling place. Heck, I've seen people throw out computers because the "you're low on disk space" warning came up.
- pl4nty 3y ago
  David Weston was very involved in the TPM decision, and spoke about it here: https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE After msft's experiences with Win10, they decided Windows wouldn't become more secure unless they enabled features by default. And the majority of high-impact features depend on a TPM. I'd argue that home users do need these features in the current security environment. TPMs have been required in new devices since 2016, so people are more likely to have thrown out incompatible devices already (CPU/RAM if not disk)

circuit10 3y ago

The limitation does seem quite artificial (at least currently while they're not making use of the features), and the cutoff is a bit too recent as well (I'd understand if it was 10 or 20 year old hardware but it wasn't)

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

Pre-win 10, windows said my dad's computer couldn't upgrade. That it needed replacing. This was relatively common IME. As it happened, I managed to install it anyway and it ran at least as well as the previous Win 7 did. (Two other family computers were the same; a couple of computers at my dad's work I saved from the dump too [just by upgrading them, they continued to use them]). Now they say he can't upgrade [that 'last ever version' thing didn't last, huh] ... I've not found a way around the current restrictions yet? It's quite good at the moment, there are a flood of good second hand systems from businesses who are upgrading. There's no problem with MS developing beyond their current systems. Indeed it feels like they go too far with backward compatibility. But lying (or putting in false requirements) in order to get hardware scrapped is just wrong -- do home users really need TPM2, seems more like a nice to have to me. The reality is that most people will not repurpose a computer, they throw them out. Rarely (in UK) the device might make it to a computer recycling place. Heck, I've seen people throw out computers because the "you're low on disk space" warning came up.

pl4nty 3y ago
David Weston was very involved in the TPM decision, and spoke about it here: https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE https://youtu.be/8T6ClX-y2AE After msft's experiences with Win10, they decided Windows wouldn't become more secure unless they enabled features by default. And the majority of high-impact features depend on a TPM. I'd argue that home users do need these features in the current security environment. TPMs have been required in new devices since 2016, so people are more likely to have thrown out incompatible devices already (CPU/RAM if not disk)