The outrage that they release a new major version that requires new hardware is…weird.
This is exactly like someone who bought a PS4 realizing that some new games require a PS5 (change my mind)
If Microsoft had made this in the 2022 update of Win10, that would have been outrageous. And if they stopped patching Win10 that would have been bad too. But it’s neither of those. It’s entirely new software for new hardware.
> The outrage that they release a new major version that requires new hardware is…weird.
My impression is that the outrage is because the requirement is... weird. As in artificial. It will support new, lower-end CPUs, but not older, more powerful CPUs.
I seem to remember the cutoff was 8th gen Intels. A friend has an XPS with a 7th gen i7H. That thing is much more powerful than the dinky i5u I have in my work laptop, but since mine is 8th gen it will be able to run Win 11, but not his. My desktop has an overclocked 3rd gen i7 that runs circles around both of the laptops combined. Can't run win11 either.
I get there's the TPM thing, although it's not clear to me why it's so important or whether it's not at all possible (as opposed to just uncommon) to have a TPM v2 on an older than 8th gen CPU.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm not a Windows user, but my understanding is that the legacy code allows people to run old software, so I wouldn't expect this to go away just because the required minimum CPU is fairly new.
If anything, it should stay in place, as an argument to push adoption of Windows 11: "yeah, you need brand-new computers, but don't worry, all your old software will still work as before".
> but my understanding is that the legacy code allows people to run old software
There might be hardware support that can be cut, if specific x64 features are guaranteed to exist on the newer generation or bugs are known to be fixed you can drop the fallback code without breaking anything.
That's the invisible hand of Intel pushing their good buddy MS to burry the Meltdown/Spectre vulnerable family of products from officially supported software. EDIT:Or at least those family of products too old to be patched to a sufficient degree. Once you view the product requirements through that lens, it makes a lot more sense. Additionally the TPM/Secure Boot requirements allow them better "control" for lack of a better word over OEM Windows licensing, but their masquerading it as a security feature (even though w10 supports it) kinda blew up in their face.
Between that and trying to push a new MS store that allows them to take a cut of 3rd party software a la the play store/steam/etc is the real reason Microsoft suddenly switched gears from W10 being the "last" version of Windows to "hey guys, everyone upgrade to W11, it's totally different see, we moved the start menu!"
> MS to burry the Meltdown/Spectre vulnerable family
> Once you view the product requirements through that lens, it makes a lot more sense.
No it doesn't. You can disable these mitigations in kernel right now and there is no guarantee that intel won't have any vulnerabilities in future micro-architectures. So you need the support to enable/disable future mitigations in kernel anyway.
Yes, it does. Because this is a officially supported hardware list (read: liability to support, which heavily influences enterprise and business purchasing and upgrade decisions). It's important to remember that "support" in this context does NOT mean function, that's an entirely separate and unrelated issue. Put another way, Disabling those mitigations does not prevent the product from functioning, but it will allow MS and Intel to deny support and push a new product as a fix instead.
Just because you can disable the mitigations or that the new family of products may well be flawed (in a similar manner, or in entirely support manner) is frankly irrelevant, and suggesting as such entirely misses the point.
This is a business (Intel) pushing a product through a partnership (With MS) with the idea that they'll both see boosted returns from upgrades to newer hardware families and in turn new OEM/Enterprise licensing. Why fix the problem when you can bury it under new quarterly sales.
If they were saying you'd need more disk space or a faster CPU, I'm sure people would be more understanding. But the new restrictions feel very "artificial" - there doesn't seem to be an obvious need for them to not support old (but relatively recent) CPUs any longer, and I cannot fathom why having a TPM should be a hard requirement.
> The outrage that they release a new major version
I have the feeling that it's a bit inherent to OS releases in general. I'm very interested in macOS release news, but if I come here for the discussion, it's overwhelmingly negative. I'd like to see positive discussion about how new features can benefit me, but it's just not there.
This is exactly like someone who bought a PS4 realizing that some new games require a PS5 (change my mind)
If Microsoft had made this in the 2022 update of Win10, that would have been outrageous. And if they stopped patching Win10 that would have been bad too. But it’s neither of those. It’s entirely new software for new hardware.