Considering how unexciting new CPUs are nowadays I'd wager that a 10 year old computer in 2025 will still be perfectly usable for basic tasks such as email and web browsing. Something like an 8 year old i7 2700k is still very usable for a lot of home users. It might not be a beast when it comes to crunching numbers, but a big portion of the population would be happy using such a chip if you pair it with at least 8GB of memory and an SSD.
I'm not a big fan of generating unnecessary waste, and computers that get replaced because of artificial cutoff points in software isn't ideal. What I like about Windows 10 is that you can boot the installer on a Core2Duo if you want, and it'll install just fine. It'll probably run like crap, but that's for the user to decide whether they want to use it or not.
One of the ironies of this situation is that Windows 11 does well on the Core2Duos. At least the ones with 8 gigs / SSD, based on what I've seen people post online. I've seen people claim the 11 leak is performing better than 10, and 10 was running decently well on the C2D's.
They did the work to make it even faster on older hardware, and now they're just going to throw it away? I could understand if the older machines didn't get the Android compatibility layer or if certain desktop animations were disabled, but seems odd to just block them entirely.
A "hard floor" published earlier this week implied that only TPM 1.0 with a dualcore and 4gb of ram is required, although news emerged that the hard floor was revised up.
Microsoft is not handling the hard floor question well at all.
I guess that's part of the problem. No one outside of Microsoft is sure. The uncertainty has completely overshadowed the launch. One minute, they're talking about "soft floors", and the next they're saying it will refuse to install.
Makes me wonder if a power struggle is going on. You'd think they would have a coherent message put together before launch. Recommended system requirements + minimum system requirements, and the justifications for both. That's what's expected from any major software launch.
I have (a secondary) Thinkpad T430s, which is going to be 9 years old later this year. Since it is i7, with 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD, it is still a better computer than a median laptop sold today.
I have an old 2012 Asus G75VS gaming laptop with Core i7 upgraded to SSD and 32GB RAM. It works like a charm and beats modern cheap laptops to submission as well. However I do not really care if it can be upgraded to Windows 11. It runs few particular applications, is air gapped and will stay this way until it dies in order not to get some unwanted update/upgrade.
But if it was something like my spare development laptop I'd surely be pissed off at Microsoft. The way this laptop runs
Was coming to respond the same thing. I used a processor from the same generation (2500k) from May 2011 to May 2021, including for gaming. Upgraded to an SSD at some point and the video card, but the processor was still fine. I would've kept it another couple years but I was having some issues (I think a ram stick had gone bad) and the easiest solution was $500 canadian for a new processor (10400F), motherboard, and ram
I'd take the argument farther - I suspect the hypothetical 2015 computer referenced would be fine for most users (with non-processor upgrades) until 2030.
I run a i5-2500 and still game on it via VFIO (that is, in a VM) and I can't complain about the performance. Sure, the GPU is new-ish (GTX 1070) and I don't play bleeding edge titles, but I can play everything at nearly max settings.
Ditto. I had a 2600k until about a month ago, where my motherboard died and everyone on eBay was asking $100+ for a replacement.
Ended up buying a whole Ryzen gaming rig and selling off the parts I didn't want. Out of pocket costs were actually negative when once the old PC's parts were gone.
Old HP Compaq 8200 that I use as a NAS, media server and to host an occasional Linux VM, with an i5-2400. Running Windows 10 it receives all important security updates and runs absolutely fine, despite being 10 years old. I have plans to replace it by 2025, because.....why would I? It doesn't need any more power to do any of these jobs that I mentioned.
And I actually have a Core2Duo laptop running Windows 10, with an SSD and 8GB of ram it runs "ok". Not amazing or anything, but fast enough to basically work as a browsing/YouTube machine.
i5-2500 with 8GB-16GB RAM (hooray for upgradable RAM) even with is integrated graphics still is winning platform for all important non-gaming consumer applications.
I’ve got a black MacBook 4G duo that seems pretty good still. It’s dated in the UI and the lcd is garbage but with an external mouse and keyboard it might be ok. I’d like to keep OSX on it but Linux would be fine or windows.
I'm not a big fan of generating unnecessary waste, and computers that get replaced because of artificial cutoff points in software isn't ideal. What I like about Windows 10 is that you can boot the installer on a Core2Duo if you want, and it'll install just fine. It'll probably run like crap, but that's for the user to decide whether they want to use it or not.