wants people to use windows 11 make it difficult to use windows 11 people find ways to use windows 11 anyway (what you wanted in the first place) punish them for using windows 11
???
People that are running a windows modified to disable the hardware eligibility checks are probably also disabling/deleting the telemetry and activation checks.
Microsoft doesn’t want you to use windows 11, they want your money and data.
Which is why I dropped windows after 7 and went linux. Telemetry bullshit was odious in 10, but in 11 the spyware is basically one of the core functions/purposes.
Its why they pushed Windows 11 for free. Cause its not the product, you are.
Theres more money to be made in monetizing your daily using habits and selling them (and serving you tons of ads), than there is in making you pay 150-200 bucks for the new OS once.
And that new direction and drive radically alters how they develop the OS, and how you, the user, may interact with it. Which is why Windows is on the path of becoming a walled garden experience, with strict controls for “Security” (I.E. to keep you from doing anything that might impede their harvesting of data)
Greed.
Sure, they want you to run Win11, but chances are you’re already running it, or at least Win10, so there’s not much to gain there.
By making higher requirements for Win11 than neccessary Microsoft makes a killing on Windows licences.
OEMs have to pay Microsoft for keys. And for MS to make money off of keys, OEMs need to make more PCs. And how does MS force/incentivise them to do that? By 80% of the Win10 PCs incompatible with Win11.
Oh, and also, now they get to push their Copilot key as well.
Microsoft has a vested interest in PC sales not stagnating any more than they do, and sometimes it takes an artificial push to make that a reality.
Not all that long ago I was told by someone who claimed to be an expert that a 3 year old middle of the road gaming laptop was to old to support win 10 and that’s why it was crashing all the time, Linux may not be perfect in every way but Windows is dying a slow, painful, e-waste generating death and Microsoft doesn’t seem to care, I’m glad I jumped ship when I did
I just installed Linux Mint on a 15-year-old desktop that has never been upgraded and was middle-of-the-road when I got it. It shipped with Windows 7, and I tried a couple of times to upgrade to 10 (it failed every time, either losing core hardware functionality, running so slowly as to be unusable, or just refusing to boot altogether). But it runs Linux like a dream. Seriously—it’s easily running the latest version of Mint better than it ran an 11-year-old service pack of Windows 7.
What’s even crazier is that I installed VirtualBox on it, and put Windows 10 on that, to use some work programs. And that runs Windows 10 a bit slowly, but otherwise more or less flawlessly!
That’s right: I’m having a better Windows experience in Linux than I’ve ever had on baremetal Windows on this box.
I can’t believe I didn’t do this…well, 15 years ago.
I can’t believe I didn’t do this…well, 15 years ago.
For what it’s worth, your experience 15 years ago likely would have been very different. It’s only in the past few years that things like drivers for basic hardware have become widely available on Linux without a bunch of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. And even today, there are still certain drivers that often don’t like to play nice.
Ask anyone who had an nvidia GPU 15 years ago if they’d suggest switching to Linux. The answer would have been a resounding “fuck no, it won’t work with your GPU.”
I mean, this was 100% predictable.
And anyone who didnt think it would happen were willfully blind or just plain ignorant.
You mean? Or you say?
Welcome to English Idioms 101
it has nothing to do with it. Welcome to the real English
Thank god, for a second there I thought they meant “cracking down on people dodging Windows 11 by intentionally disabling TPM,” like I’ve been doing. False alarm, carry on.
microsoft missed their bottom line so they need more planned obscelance
How does that make any sense? Does Microsoft get a cut of sales for component upgrades?
Any new computer sold that has a copy of Windows preinstalled means Microsoft is getting a cut.
Are they still doing that thing where OEMs pay licenses based on units sold regardless of OS? So even if you want Linux, they still have to pay for windows?
As far as I’m aware, they had to stop doing that some time ago.
people can’t upgrade.
people see their computer isn’t supported.
people buy a new computer.
oems license windows.
If you’re using Windows 11 and not having a great time with it, there are ways to make the experience more pleasant. We’ve covered 14 tweaks to make Windows 11 better and how to remove Windows 11’s junk, which is a good start toward making an OS you enjoy.
There’s another way…
Imagine having to remove a bunch of shit just so you can use your OS. smh
Luckily, there exists an OS which undermines extreme enshittification. Can’t remember the name, though …
TempleOs
Sadly, your hardware must support Spirit Boot to install this OS.
Fighting with Windows 11 introduced me to Linux Mint, which works perfectly! I’m not an OS geek, so I really don’t care about the OS – it’s just the thing I deal with on the way to Firefox.
So Microsoft wants to force everyone to ditch their perfectly good machines so they can make more money off of selling OEM licenses.
I’m just waiting for Europe to sue their greedy asses for planned obsolescence.
I can’t tell you how many Apple devices I’ve had that have become unsupported over the years.
Yeah as much as this sucks I honestly hope that Microsoft will actually take advantage of this and start moving legacy support into more specialized options.
A lot of the reason windows is so janky at times is because of the insane obsession they have with backwards compatibility.
Like what? I’m still using my 2011 MacBook Pro, and my phone is about six years old.
I can’t update my 2011 MBP to the latest version of OSX, but it still works fantastically for everyday stuff. Phone can update to the next version of iOS.
can’t update
Yeah, that’s the problem, if your hardware can run the latest software, it should be able to update to the latest software
It’s THIRTEEN YEARS OLD! It still functions! If it stops functioning, I can put Linux on it!
It’s a first-gen Core i7… I don’t think the hardware would support the latest version that well, if at al.
It’s THIRTEEN YEARS OLD!
Thirteen year old Windows computers still get updates (not to mention Linux).
It still functions!
Really? You don’t have any apps that refuse to run because the OS version is too old? My 10 year old iMac won’t run hardly anything…not even a browser.
Mind you, not because the hardware is broken or unsupported, or the software is supported, but because Apple simply refuses to allow it.
The thing that I don’t understand is that, if this is such a big problem for Microsoft, why not just remove the system requirements or at least make an alternative version of Windows 11 that, even if it lacks certain features, doesn’t have those requirements?
Microsoft wants people to switch to Windows 11 but a majority stay with Windows 10 because their systems don’t have what’s required and they’re either not willing to use Linux or they can’t for what ever their reason is. Making Windows 11 more accessible to Windows 10 users would fix this problem for most users but they’re not for some reason. I know they’re Microsoft and Microsoft doesn’t care about their users but they’re seemingly willing to lose a significant portion of their users over something so insignificant, which is out of character for Microsoft.
I’d guess it’s corporate circlejerk - they probably made deals with hardware manufacturers who are annoyed people are not replacing their perfectly functional systems with new ones. Windows gets pre-installed on new systems, and in exchange windows requires new things forcing people to upgrade their old systems - or be locked out of the most popular OS in the world.
Used market is about to have some bargains on very usable Linux machines.
If you must use Windows, download it legitimately from MS website. Use RUFUS to burn the ISO image to a USB. Remove the restrictions you hate.
Dual boot a Linux variant, and move over apps at your leisure, until you are no longer Win OS dependent.
I preferred to do Windows as a VM personally. Dual boot cost me a year before my Linux switch BC it was easier to boot Windows when I needed it. With VM I could do mostly Linux with maybe just vm to open a word doc if I needed it.
I just moved to Linux and started fresh.
The big mental change was instead of searching “sony vegas on linux please” I just started searching for “video editing software Linux”, and take any possible limitations and live with them, as I know it’s only temporary until Linux catches on.
What exactly do you mean, Linux had been "catching on’ since decades, you may need to wait for a while…
I mean for the big software boys to actually start caring about it.
I installed Linux mint on my laptop the other day because of various sustained long term annoyances with Windows. Despite some minor hiccups it only took about 30 minutes. It’s been such a great experience so far.
I’ve been on EndeavourOS (basically Arch… btw…) for about a year and a half now, and I absolutely love it. I will never use Windows by choice again.
This is just Vista all over again. Calm down people. Go to Linux or church if you’re scared.
The difference is, that you could just continue using XP until Win7 was released or continue using Win7 until Win10 was released. Win10 will reach end of life next year and then the only supported Windows will be Windows 11. Vista or Win8 were never as forced as Win11 is now.
not really because Vista does not have strong hardware requirements. But, this one have
Today, sure.
2005 was a different story, one the opposite of this one.
While Vista didn’t have high specified requirements, it gobbled resources so updating from XP to Vista you’d have a noticable slowdown.
Win11 is the opposite of that story. While modern PC models (as in 5-year-old when Win11 first came out) can run Win11 fine, Microsoft forces requirements which aren’t needed.
Sure, while having a better TPM and newer processor is a good thing, making anything other than that ewaste (because windows runs 90+% of consumer PCs, with Apple being the majority of the 10%) definitely isn’t.
Vista was absolutely the slowest thing imaginable. They reduced the requirements as part of a marketing campaign for “Vista-ready” PCs, but PCs that ran it “well” were few and far between. Even after 7 came out if you went back to Vista it was noticeably slower.
I decided to look up what that term meant.
The minimum specs seem to be an 800Mhz system with 512MB memory. No, Vista will not run good on that. Even Windows 7 will not like it. Windows XP with SP3 will run on that, but even that will feel sluggish on 800Mhz.
That’s like early XP computers being released with 64 or 128 Megs of RAM. That may be the minimum specs but it’s not gonna be usable.
Every 2nd microsoft OS is bad. Its normal for them. XP good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad.
Uh, no.
95 bad, 98 bad, 98SE good only compared to 98, XP actually decent, Vista only really bad because of the change in how drivers were handled and there not being a robust library of them because of it, 7 THE GOD KING OF WINDOWS OSes…The Best, The Pinnacle. The Peak. The Top of the bell curve, 8 was shit, 10 was more shit than 8, 11 is just spyware.
If you’re calling 95 bad i don’t think you spent a lot of time in 3.1. Resolving IRQ conflicts, configuring winsock.DLL, whatever the hell else. 95 had its issues, especially on the gaming side, but it was leaps and bounds better than what came before. Meanwhile 98SE was good enough to keep people, especially gamers, on it for a long time.
Damn if it was ok i would install windows 7 now…for real
Seriously. Windows 7 was the first genuinely stable OS from Microsoft.
Everything before it required regular reformating. Granted, the frequency of the reformating less over time, but still required it. Like, Win95/98 required it like every 3 months, XP every 6 months to a year, just to avoid the bloat and slowing down and issues. Same with reboots, it didnt have to be rebooted every time you ran a program, either.
Windows 7? My longest run between formats was like 4-5 years iirc, and that was due to hardware changes, not due to any performance or maintenance need. Ans for reboots? Only time that computer ever got rebooted is when a windows update demanded it, or when the power went out. Neither of which was particularly frequent.
It was also slick, agile, easy to use. You didnt have to think about shit when you used windows 7, you just did shit.
I’m not a fanboy, despite what this sounds like, but 7 was legitimately the best Windows OS, hell it wouldnt take much twisting for me to say it was the best Desktop OS, period. It was the first time ever that I was able to use the computer, and not have to stop and think “Well, I just finished running a heavy game, I need to reboot before I do something else” I just stopped one heavy task, gave the background processes a second to finish up, then went right to another heavy task without issue or concern.
It also had a very good UI. But Windows always had the best UI, by comparison, in the market, cause they spent billions on developing it so that the most computer illiterate could pick it up and use it with 15 minutes of instruction.
No. They’re all bad, some are just worse than others. You’ve all just been stockholm syndromed into thinking better of the “less bad” ones.
Everything after w7, id agree. Windows 7 was actually legit. It ran fine on my amd athlon with 512MB ram. Ran dolphin back in the day too. Now after that it was all shite
No 7 sucked too. It just came off the back of Vista which was a real hot mess, so 7 appeared better.
The thing is, Microsoft has always had an adversarial (or abusive) relationship with its customers, forcing things on them that most of them don’t want. Like active desktop and IE integration in Windows 9x, “activation” and Fisher Price UI in XP, bloated (for the time) Aero UI that required a 3D capable GPU in Vista, UAC in Vista, forced automatic updates in 7, abandoning the start menu in favor of that awful tile UI in 8.x, telemetry you can’t disable in 10, a start menu that acts more like an app store and advertising place in 10, forced TPM and Microsoft accounts in 11 … the list is endless. And then when they back down on one thing, people are like: “Hurray, the czar heard us! Windows is actually good now!” … forgetting all the other things they have been forced to swallow in the past.
Yes that’s how they make you swallow the pill. Windows 12 will be “good”, in that it will not be as bad as W11. But it will still move the public into the slaughterhouse a bit more.
Like Star Trek movies 😂
Actually all of the TOS films are great.
Why though? This just means that Windows 11 will run on more devices? Why is so important for your device to have a TPM and Secure Boot enabled, and a supported processor? If I were Microsoft, I would put the requirements even lower or even removed them.
This is just my theory, but maybe they want to turn it all into android-levels of lockdown for even stricter DRM and such.
