this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
113 points (87.9% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3714 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No chance.
You concentrate on the TPM but ignore the CPU requirements...? If you have a CPU that is up to spec, you have a TPM - they're built in the CPU. Most people just need to turn it on in the BIOS (or update their BIOS as motherboard manufacturers have turned on the TPM as "Windows 11 support")
The truth of it is, every "jump" OS, i.e. 95, XP, 7, 10 has run really poorly on >5 year old chips at the time of launching. And MS got panned at "how slow" is was. But it was also the norm to update your PC more often. Now speed increases have slowed and Moore's Law has ended, it's about security and performance hit of said security. The truth is, the kernel hardening and malware protection and encryption built into 11 to make it far less likely to get infected than 10 and 7 means it needs the hardware support to do it. Without it, it runs far slower or is less secure. Neither anyone wants.
When 10 support ends in 2 years time, the lowest supported processor for 11 will be nearly 9 years old...
Damn, some sense around these parts. Always felt the TPM issue was overblown. Unless you wanted Win11 on day 1, and no sensible user should be doing that anyway!