[Santosh83]

Everybody is focusing on local/MS account. But for me the more insidious requirement is mandating TPM chip. Not only in the short term a ton of computers will either have to be discarded (because you can't add a TPM chip to an existing system despite 'open' PC architecture), or stay on outdated Win10, in the long term the DRM implications are worrying.

[dogma1138]

Many PC motherboards have a TPM header either dedicated or sometimes shared with the USB 3.0 header.

You can buy a 20 pin TPM module for about £3 which can plug into the standard header and for about £7-8 for those snowflakes like ASUS that use the same 20 pin interface but with a slightly modified pin out.

The only question would be the BIOS initialization, but many OEMs have already released new BIOS revisions with added/better external TPM support or have announced their intention to do so.

For those system who don’t have a TPM header, Intel PTT and AMD’s PSP fTPM would provide the required compatibility.

And this is a good thing if this was still optional it would not put pressure on manufacturers to add TPM support as a standard feature.

Windows 10 will be supported to at least 2025 with feature updates and probably longer with critical security updates.

The fact that people complain about this is ridiculous.

[devetec]

TPM modules are not £3. They're $50 or more now. Many people use older hardware without TPM support, and many people don't know what TPMs are and how to add them. Entire enterprises of hardware would have to be upgraded. It's a ploy to create more sales for hardware manufacturers.

[dogma1138]

No they aren’t $50… since I don’t want to include eBay/Amazon here is from CCL computers in the UK for £8.99 https://m.cclonline.com/product/214437/90MC03W0-M0XBN/Compon...

Here is an ASRock one for £13.99 from Scan https://www.scan.co.uk/products/asrock-trusted-platform-modu...

[devetec]

I'm in America, might explain the price difference.

[xg15]

> or stay on outdated Win10

This will be the most straight-forward thing to happen. I predict that MS will have to start another massive campaign to get people to upgrade again, like they did with WinXP. I wonder how well that will work if it means buying a new PC though.

[PaulKeeble]

In the XP days we were still looking at fairly substantial improvements in CPU speeds, but the past decade has been really disappointingly poor on that front and people are fully aware that old PCs can more than happily cope with their software needs. It is much harder to force them to do something where the tangible benefits of doing it are reduced so dramatically.

[xg15]

Indeed - but I believe it was already difficult in the XP days. From personal experience, many of my non-technical peers initially saw no point in updating at all: They were perfectly content with their PC's performance, and had all programs they needed. Sweeping UI changes and old programs not working anymore was seen as significant risks.

MS had to rely on a lot of developer advocacy, an increased focus on the risk of unpatched security vulnerabilities (a valid point IMO) and a general narrative of avoiding "outdated software", (as if software had an expiry date) to increase the willingness to update. Even with that, in the end they had to patch XP to add nag screens to make people update.

Now, with less performance improvements, less developer advocacy (I hope) and more obvious anti-features, I imagine they will need to employ even more force to make people update.

[johnwalkr]

I predict they will give up this requirement. Not only do a lot of systems not have TPM and secure boot, probably half of windows 10 systems don’t have them set up correctly to meet the requirement which means a ton of people will meet the requirements on paper and then get confused as to why windows won’t upgrade.

[dafelst]

The strange thing is that Microsoft know exactly how many win10 machines already meet this requirement via their telemetry, so ostensibly they have made this decision with full knowledge (assuming no data mining fuck ups, which are disappointingly common at MS) of how many machines will or won't be able to upgrade.

Some options:

- they don't care about the machines that don't have compatible TPMs (lower value customers?)

- a ploy to drive hardware sales?

- something else?

[johnwalkr]

I kind of doubt it is a business decision. It probably comes from a security requirement for Windows Hello or something else. Or it could be from a technical manager that doesn't want to support endless configurations. Either way, I just can't imagine that the backwards-compatibility DNA of MS will let this stay.

[yrro]

How is the TPM used for DRM?

[Santosh83]

By establishing an unbreakable trusted software chain, which in turn will enforce DRM.