4 ms·

I really have no choice but to install Linux now. The nag screens in Windows 10 are already getting unbearable. The over 5 year old system is still running game

I really have no choice but to install Linux now. The nag screens in Windows 10 are already getting unbearable. The over 5 year old system is still running games at high detail just fine (3950x CPU, 2080 GPU, 32Gb ram running at 2k resolution). TPM 2.0 was finalized in Nov 2019 after the above system was built. Hardware isn't progressing that quickly anymore which makes a hardware requirement like TPM 2.0 very arbitrary honestly. Microsoft could have easily made Windows 11 work without TPM 2.0 as the workarounds attest to. It could have been "if you don't have this, you don't get some security features but otherwise it's fine". My conspiracy sense is tingling at the hard requirement for TPM 2.0 that really doesn't need to be there. A bit like when MS bought Skype and moved it from peer to peer voice to a central server based system with no monetary gain from doing that, someone obviously decided that needed to be done. We don't need to be asking people to throw away perfectly performant hardware to upgrade. There's actually nothing in Windows 11 enabled by the requirement since Windows 10 also supported TPM 2.0 already, it just didn't require it. I've also never been subject to the attacks TPM 2.0 protects against. There may be cases where TPM 2.0 is wanted, i can imagine it's useful for servers, but i really don't need it.

toast0 2y ago
> A bit like when MS bought Skype and moved it from peer to peer voice to a central server based system with no monetary gain from doing that, someone obviously decided that needed to be done. This one is less nefarious, IMHO. Sure, a central server makes it easier to snoop. But, it also meant you could reliably get messages sent while you were offline. Skype had been built around desktops with consistent connections, but needed to adapt to intermittent connectivity of laptops and barely any connectivity of iPhone. Older smart phones like s60, blackberry, and windows mobile could support always on background apps, but iPhone only has very limited background execution, and it was originally much more limited... now you can do a voip push and do some communications before you post a notification, but around the the time of the change, notifications had to be composed on a server and sent fully formed --- there was no way to run code on push. And supernodes had already been centralized.
- ohm 2y ago
  https://slate.com/technology/2013/07/skype-surveillance-a-timeline-of-public-claims-and-private-government-dealings.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/07/skype-surveillance-a-ti...

toast0 2y ago

> A bit like when MS bought Skype and moved it from peer to peer voice to a central server based system with no monetary gain from doing that, someone obviously decided that needed to be done. This one is less nefarious, IMHO. Sure, a central server makes it easier to snoop. But, it also meant you could reliably get messages sent while you were offline. Skype had been built around desktops with consistent connections, but needed to adapt to intermittent connectivity of laptops and barely any connectivity of iPhone. Older smart phones like s60, blackberry, and windows mobile could support always on background apps, but iPhone only has very limited background execution, and it was originally much more limited... now you can do a voip push and do some communications before you post a notification, but around the the time of the change, notifications had to be composed on a server and sent fully formed --- there was no way to run code on push. And supernodes had already been centralized.

ohm 2y ago
https://slate.com/technology/2013/07/skype-surveillance-a-timeline-of-public-claims-and-private-government-dealings.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/07/skype-surveillance-a-ti...