Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1stranger | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand this logic. The vast majority of people don't care what version of Windows they're running. They'll just keep running Windows 10 without a care in the world. Just like they keep running Windows 7.

View on HN

For an example of just how many people don't care about EOL'd operating systems:

Microsoft's mainstream support for Windows 7 ended in January 2015 (and paid "Extended Security Updates" service ended in January 2020) and yet 21% of Firefox users are still running Windows 7:

https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware#goto-os-and-arch...

I think Firefox users are much more likely to be contrarian with their software decisions. I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to extrapolate from from data on Firefox users to the general population

You think Firefox users are going to be more likely to use an EOL-ed OS?

Perhaps, because win7 is known for being "the last good windows" with some privacy. It may or may not be true, but a lot of people are adamant about not using linux while also trying to maintain privacy, hence they use win7. I imagine such users would probably use a browser like firefox.

I remember when win2k was "the last good windows" and then windows xp after it. I $CURRENT-2 is always going to be considered "the last good windows".

Windows 8 will never be considered "the last good windows"...

Neither was Windows ME (Millennium Edition).

Windows 8.1 is heavily underrated. It's the final desktop Windows without rolling release model. (Except LTSC because its license is very limited.)

Nah there was definitely some kind of fundamental qualitative change from 7 to 8/10. I dont think the post-7 versions of windows will ever be loved like 7

I don't recall anyone describing Vista as "the last good Windows" back in 2013.

I still think Win2k was the last good Windows. XP was buggier and 7’s classic theme didn't look right.

Win2k WAS the last good Windows.

Dave Cutler was still in charge, and his attitude towards stamping out bugs is sorely lacking today.

No, Microsoft reserves odd numbers for good versions. That's why there was no 9. 11 will be brilliant! ;)

When Windows XP PCs started to become obsolete, one way to extend their life (at least for people that only used them to browse the web) was to install Firefox. I've actually helped someone do this when their freemail provider stopped supporting IE 8. There's people for whom a new computer is an expensive purchase and they will use it until the wheels fall off.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/end-support-windows-xp-...

Only 1.97% of steam users use windows 7, so I don't think we can assume either demographic is a fair representation of all users

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

Steam users are not a "fair representation of all users" either. The gamer demographic is biased towards newer and faster hardware than the average user, and the newest greatest hardware is only going to be supported on the latest OS version(s).

I agree. I claim that both sets are biased, whch is why we can't use the steam charts or Firefox usage data to draw any conclusions about the broader population

I left my laptop, that ran Windows 7, running for a couple of hours, and came back to see a notification that says welcome to Windows 10.

Not sure how that’s relevant to someone who can’t upgrade because of unsupported hardware. You can’t get autoupgraded to an OS your hardware doesn’t support. And most such people would happily continue using Windows 10 without caring (or knowing, most likely)

The fact you can get auto upgraded from 7 to 10 at all is concerning

Consider yourself lucky it only took 2 hours to install.

I don't think Microsoft would want to make that same mistake again. I would expect Microsoft start pushing Windows 11 automatically through Windows Update for anyone on Windows 10, or at least start pushing heavily through popups/notifications to start the update like they did with Windows 10.

We're talking about computers that (officially) cannot run Windows 11. Obviously they won't be auto-upgraded.

I'm sure they'll loosen the restriction of having TPM enabled. That seems to be the only limiting factor.

Or they could perhaps find a way to build a piece of software that will enable it automatically...

So what is the point of a restriction that they will later loosen?

> I'm sure they'll loosen the restriction of having TPM enabled. That seems to be the only limiting factor.

They've added restrictions since: 8th gen Intel Core or 2nd gen AMD Zen required.

That's just some list in the documentation, mostly intended for OEMs building new computers with pre-installed Windows.

NO WAY there will be literal cpuid checks excluding earlier processors.

This is not the Windows Logo program, which is intended for OEMs.

There do not need to be any CPUID checks to exclude processors; just a random update will not work and Microsoft will shrug it off, well, that CPU is not on the supported list anyway.

That wouldn’t work if the person’s computer doesn’t support Windows 11, though, which is the entire argument the blog post is making. That because windows 11 won’t work people will just throw away their computers and create more electronic waste.

"computer locked, you need to buy a new one to keep enjoying our stuff"

Microsoft isn’t going to do that.

...yet.

Remember all the talk about "Windows as a service"?

Given what's happened so far, I fully expect them to try something like that at some point. "We only offer subscriptions of the latest version, and your current hardware doesn't meet our minimum requirements, so you'll have to replace it to continue using Windows." Maybe it'll trigger a mass exodus to Linux --- or perhaps more likely, back to older and cracked pre-subscription versions of Windows.

> "Windows as a service"

A computer able to run only a RDP client able to connect only to a Windows VM licensed to you, running on Azure with every autoupdate turned on /s

A similar scenario is not impossible. Somehow it has become acceptable to use a always-online workflows. There are complete lines of products that won't work at all if you're not online, and some will switch off after a certain time (like Adobe). There is an enormous push in that direction from all industries. People give in without any resistance. It's become normal and acceptable that pieces of code on all your devices connect to different services and send data you have no idea about. If an app stops working because you lose the internet connection, somehow it's not the problem of the app but yours. So I can imagine a scenario similar to the one you describe in a decade or two.

I think at the end of the day, they are happier with an illegitimate Windows user, than a non-Windows user. They'll nag, push, try everything to annoy, but they won't lock you out completely, because that could mean losing you for good.

Of course, I can only infer this from their past behavior.

Soooo, the people who can't install Windows 11 will continue to not care?

I don't understand the logic of your response. It's not like Microsoft will brick machines not eligible for Win 11

They will drop support in 4 years though (or so they say) which is very short notice for desktops OSes.

I'm going to confidently predict right now that there's no way security updates for Windows 10 will cease in 2025.

By cutting off at 8th Gen and TPM 1.2+2.0, they’re cutting off a lot of current and high end systems built by enthusiasts, while supporting far slower and inferior PCs.

That’s the problem. No one’s arguing they’re chasing off cheap Celeron, they’re trying to get rid of even some Threadrippers and multi-socket setups, that could have 128GB or more of RAM, for “performance”.

So, what's in those generations that might actually matter to Microsoft? As you say, it's unlikely to be about performance. Is it some instruction set, or feature flags? It's unlikely to be about virtualization capabilities, as Intel still happily sells the newest chips "differentiated" to be virtually challenged. Did those generations introduce some crypto algorithm/primitive that Microsoft doesn't want to go without? A new system management mode? On-die microphone?

Intel sales is desperate to stop brand loyalty vanishing, processors losing relevance, while Microsoft is trying to recuperate costs on cancelled Windows 10X code. Those are suspicions I have.

The “only the latest Intel enable $use_case” cliche is their default marketing narrative. Microsoft or AMD or NVIDIA normally don’t do that.

> they’re cutting off a lot of current and high end systems built by enthusiasts, while supporting far slower and inferior PCs.

No they don't. All those systems may not have hardware TPM, but they support firmware TPM, which is enough to check the checkbox.

So your issue is that MS will force the upgrade onto machines they have explicitly said can't be upgraded? Is that really your concern?

> I don't think Microsoft would want to make that same mistake again.

The mistake of not pushing it? I still remember the uproar when people needed to Google how to say "no" to the upgrade dialog - if it did not simply install without asking, that is. I honestly can't see how they would push Windows 11 any harder.

I prefer Windows 7. I like it's UI better. MS' ideal world would apparently not include any OS besides Windows 10 and 11, which is a great shame because i think there's so many great UI features in older Windows.

The most dislikable thing about Windows 7 is the limitation of clear text SMB2.

It's a good trade for local accounts and a superior ui to what followed.

Win10 is fine for most people, and each benefit of Win11 can seem a little "niche", but lots of people will fit into at least one of those little niches. Gamers in particular, who have gotten perfectly acceptable performance out of e.g. Ryzen 1x00 CPUs, will need to upgrade to get the most out of their fast SSDs or other features like Auto HDR.

A lot of people are probably happy to not have their computer taken away for an hour every other week.

Security fixes and support.

Most users don't care about that.

Users care: so much so that they pay money for antivirus.

They just don't understand the consequences of some of their actions or inactions, because they are not security professionals.

You still get 4 years with 10.

The Intel 8th gneration was introduced in 2017. So people who bought a computer in 2016 can still push it to ~9 years of service life, which is pretty good for an average Windows computer if they manage to do it. I imagine your average Windows consumer will have replaced a computer once already in that span once all the installed crap has stalled the computer to inoperable speeds.

This honestly doesn't really strike me as a major issue. Especially since smartphones have like less than three years of security fixes on average.

>This honestly doesn't really strike me as a major issue.

You're saying this from a position of privilege. There are a lot of people that don't enjoy the same financial security that you and I do that will be affected immensely by this. I know a few and this is not news in their favor.

Working in PC repair, a majority of my customers can't just up and buy a new PC just because Microsoft arbitrarily decides that whatever they have isn't good enough, even though it has sufficient performance.

And they don't have to. They can keep using the PC they have until 2025. After that, there's always Linux Mint.

New Thinkpads in 2017 (T470/X270/etc.) were still using 7th generation Intel chips, so it is for some users a forced update after eight years.

That said, people have hacked the leaked OEM version of Windows 11 to install on to 2010 or 2011 vintage computers, so there’s a reasonable chance Microsoft will not make 2018 era computers a hard cutoff for Windows 11 installs. Even if they do, there will probably be workarounds around allowing it to be installed it on Kaby Lake and older CPUs; we know right now Windows 11 will install on an older computer without significant issue (with some hacking, depending on just how old the computer is).

For the record, I find the three year lifecycle for Android phones very annoying. I may have my next phone be an iPhone (they can have 5-6 year support lifetimes, if I get a brand new model when it comes out) or hope the Fairphone becomes available in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com