this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
1051 points (94.6% liked)
Technology
60033 readers
2951 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well you see, they learned their lesson from Windows 7 and having to support it for years longer than they intended to.
They know the same thing will happen for 10, because they are literally forcing a bunch of hardware out, even though all of it can technically run Windows 11 and just don't have a TPM 2.0 chip. They made this choice, this was a business decision and they know it's coming.
So what did they learn? To not give it away for free. Now they're rolling out a program to charge consumers for access to extended updates for Windows 10.[^1]
Back in the Windows 7 days, they only did that for corporations, extended updates with a cost attached. Now you, the consumer, get the joy of paying for these updates as well.
Not only are they purposefully creating trash, they're also squeezing people for money in the process.
They're doing exactly what they did with Windows 7, this time they just plan to charge you for the convenience.
Stay classy, Microsoft.
[^1]: "Individuals or organizations who elect to continue using Windows 10 after support ends on October 14, 2025, will have the option of enrolling their PCs into a paid ESU subscription."
You forgot the "best" part, which is that requiring TPM 2.0 is purely self-serving for Microsoft in that it serves no purpose but to make it more difficult to run non-Windows OSs on the hardware in the future.
Nobody needs a TPM except for the copyright cartel trying to destroy computer owners' property rights.
Oh I mean, I thought that was implied, but yeah, go off about it, it fucking sucks!
EDIT: In response to your edit. ACKSHUALLY the TPM requirement is a big deal for corporations, because it does help increase corporate security. The thing is, the average user doesn't actually need that extra security so much and will likely never use it so making it a requirement for the consumer-level Windows is abject bullshit.
Like I said, "nobody." Corporations aren't people; they don't count.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxUsRedO4UY
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=FxUsRedO4UY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I upgraded my CPU in preparation for 11 but have since installed Linux instead. It seems like you're saying simply having a TPM makes it harder to use other OSs?
TPM doesn't make running linux harder. People just have their biases and will happily spew BS as long as it goes with their biases.
I don't know why, but your post made me question if TPM 2.0 expansions outside the processor are a thing. Turns out they are as long as your board supports them. I was just able to get one for mine for $25.
If you have 8th gen intel or ryzen 3000 series (maybe 2k but not 1k) emulation is built into the CPU so you don't need it.
I still have a 4th Gen devil's canyon in my main pc. It still outperforms most current gen chips apparently, so I plan on running it til it burns the house down.
Yep, before I upgraded recently, my motherboard had a port for TPM, but it was only able to support TPM 1.0, so it was still SOL.
Old box is now running Linux and a handful of network services.
It says it'll be free for Window 365 users. Ie. 70 bucks and that includes office.
Obviously it's not great, but it's better than adobe.
Windows 95 cost two hundred 30 years ago.
I honestly don't have an issue paying for updates of EOL software. But I also grew up in a time when that was normal. I remember paying for iOS 3.
Consumers can also pay for extended Windows 7 updates, of course. I also don't see why just that (consumers can also pay) part is bad and much worse than a stupid requirement to force users to pay.