4 ms·

What you've said does seem plausible. But on the other hand there are valid reasons for requiring a minimum baseline for Windows 11. The TPM requirements for

What you've said does seem plausible. But on the other hand there are valid reasons for requiring a minimum baseline for Windows 11. The TPM requirements for example allow seamless BitLocker (which provides feature-parity with macOS), it allows secure system credential storage (in both consumer and enterprise contexts) and it's also useful for application developers. For example Chrome can defend user data better against malware or provide features like Device Bound Session Credentials (DBSC). Requiring certain CPU features on the other hand makes it easier to ship better-optimized executables. The two combined make it possible to provide things like VBS/HVCI, which is a massive leap for Windows security (it's actually considered a security boundary, unlike UAC).

prmoustache 2y ago
Allowing old devices without those TPM requirements to work would not limit security of the devices that can work with it. Sooner or later, these non windows 11 compliant machines will mostly disappear from most households and offices and will only attract retro computing and linux users when they will not match the usual memory requirements of the day. These are usually the kind of computers that came with 8GB or less of memory out of the box and they could quietly drop support for them somewhere later within the next 10 years when everybody is running 128GB of ram or so and only a handful of people care about it.
- Avamander 2y ago
  I'm fairly sure that you'll be able to run W11 without a TPM for a relatively long time, it's just not supported. It's a risk you have to take, it's a requirement for OEMs not to shaft you with the hardware they sell. If anything it's the CPU requirements that create a hard requirement for newer HW. But in that case, that support is a cost for them. Why should they spend the effort for what is likely going to be a very subpar experience?
lukeschlather 2y ago
The number of functioning computers that are restricted to Windows 10 probably still outnumber the number of computers that can run Windows 11. Most people don't have $500 to drop on a replacement. (Very many of these computers might've been thousands of dollars new and will still outperform the majority of new Windows 11 machines.) Microsoft is just putting a huge environmental waste of a mandated obsolesence tax on the entire world. But Microsoft doesn't pay the opportunity cost of losing all that hardware. (I wonder how much the hardware Microsoft wants destroyed is worth, hundreds of millions of dollars?)
- Avamander 2y ago
  Sure and the number of computers that can run Linux outperform them both. Maybe you don't need W11? I also don't think the share of TPM-less computers out there is actually that significant. Most laptops have shipped with one for a long time. Desktops that lack one can often buy one. Which is way cheaper than a new PC should you need W11. (I also suspect there are options way cheaper than $500 as well.) Saying that not being able to run W11 turns something into e-waste is frankly rather crazy. Neither do they want that hardware destroyed.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    There is still a lot of quite useful hardware that isn't supported. For example, the first gen Ryzen is apparently not supported, so then you're having to replace e.g. a Threadripper 1950X which has 16 cores and a 4GHz turbo. A new PC with even equivalent performance would be $600+ and a $500 new PC would be a downgrade. There is also plenty of hardware that isn't fast but is being used in a situation where that doesn't matter. Some Haswell quad core being used for web and email could continue to be used for that indefinitely. That is old enough that it could be replaced with something newer for less than $500, but the entirety of the replacement cost is still lost money because it otherwise wouldn't have had to be replaced at all.
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      Hopefully this means I can get cheap 1st gen ryzens for my Linux computers soon.

prmoustache 2y ago

Allowing old devices without those TPM requirements to work would not limit security of the devices that can work with it. Sooner or later, these non windows 11 compliant machines will mostly disappear from most households and offices and will only attract retro computing and linux users when they will not match the usual memory requirements of the day. These are usually the kind of computers that came with 8GB or less of memory out of the box and they could quietly drop support for them somewhere later within the next 10 years when everybody is running 128GB of ram or so and only a handful of people care about it.

Avamander 2y ago
I'm fairly sure that you'll be able to run W11 without a TPM for a relatively long time, it's just not supported. It's a risk you have to take, it's a requirement for OEMs not to shaft you with the hardware they sell. If anything it's the CPU requirements that create a hard requirement for newer HW. But in that case, that support is a cost for them. Why should they spend the effort for what is likely going to be a very subpar experience?

lukeschlather 2y ago

The number of functioning computers that are restricted to Windows 10 probably still outnumber the number of computers that can run Windows 11. Most people don't have $500 to drop on a replacement. (Very many of these computers might've been thousands of dollars new and will still outperform the majority of new Windows 11 machines.) Microsoft is just putting a huge environmental waste of a mandated obsolesence tax on the entire world. But Microsoft doesn't pay the opportunity cost of losing all that hardware. (I wonder how much the hardware Microsoft wants destroyed is worth, hundreds of millions of dollars?)

Avamander 2y ago
Sure and the number of computers that can run Linux outperform them both. Maybe you don't need W11? I also don't think the share of TPM-less computers out there is actually that significant. Most laptops have shipped with one for a long time. Desktops that lack one can often buy one. Which is way cheaper than a new PC should you need W11. (I also suspect there are options way cheaper than $500 as well.) Saying that not being able to run W11 turns something into e-waste is frankly rather crazy. Neither do they want that hardware destroyed.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  There is still a lot of quite useful hardware that isn't supported. For example, the first gen Ryzen is apparently not supported, so then you're having to replace e.g. a Threadripper 1950X which has 16 cores and a 4GHz turbo. A new PC with even equivalent performance would be $600+ and a $500 new PC would be a downgrade. There is also plenty of hardware that isn't fast but is being used in a situation where that doesn't matter. Some Haswell quad core being used for web and email could continue to be used for that indefinitely. That is old enough that it could be replaced with something newer for less than $500, but the entirety of the replacement cost is still lost money because it otherwise wouldn't have had to be replaced at all.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    Hopefully this means I can get cheap 1st gen ryzens for my Linux computers soon.