Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Microsoft's willingness to actively disrupt its users (whether it's through forced updates or artifical limitations) is indeed a tipping point for me. I always chose Windows for its convenience, and the fact that I could use it on my own terms. Clearly, this is no longer the case.

As for Stallman, there's a fine line between a madman and a genius. Reality has shown us that he definitely is not a madman.




> As for Stallman, there's a fine line between a madman and a genius. Reality has shown us that he definitely is not a madman.

I'm not so sure the two are mutually exclusive.


Some people could see his point by thinking about it. To them he was a genius. Others thought he was a madman because his point was too hypothetical for them, but now that it's becoming a reality they can see he was a genius all along.

You may say that it's because they couldn't see the future, but RMS experienced it back in the 1970's at MIT. Things have not actually changed, they've just started to influence a wider swath of the population.


Ah, yes, how absolutely shocking that Microsoft should choose not to support a processor that didn't even exist at the time that version of Windows was released. Why, everyone knows, especially on HN, that updating and retesting software costs nothing at all and so that's why we all eagerly go back and retrofit all versions of software we've ever released, no matter how old, to support the latest hardware just as soon as it's released. This outrageous behavior is right up there with Ford not retrofitting anti-lock brakes on the Model T and VHS VCRs not providing a HDMI output. /s

(I'm sorry for the early morning jocularity but I just can't take this topic seriously.)


Miscrosft doesn't need to support these CPUs, they are x86_64 compatibles. You can install, says, Windows 2000 on an AMD Ryzen and it would just work.


See my posting at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13884950 for an explanation of why that's not actually true.


Upvoted because it's true: Microsoft has no obligation to support old software, any more than it has an obligation to respect its users. I mean, it would be nice if they did, but clearly they aren't in it to do good for the world.


But this stuff is built of a platform that allows standardized parts to work without a lot of extra support. This has always been the users' expectation, one that Microsoft has managed well -- you can use new hardware on your existing Windows, but driver support might be minimal.

This new tactic is a complete change of pace. We are seeing businesspeople make technical decisions.... hurl


>> I'm sorry for the early morning jocularity but I just can't take this topic seriously

No worries. Seeing as you have missed the point of the parent's comment, its not surprising you overestimated how jocular your comment is.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: