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.
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:
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 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
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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...