[p_ing]

> But the TPM nonsense potentially marks even rather new and ultra-powerful computers as unsuitable for the upgrade.

TPM has been built into processors for what... 5-7 years now? What mythical "new" x64 is this individual talking about?

When I see someone arguing against TPM, it's fairly easy to write their argument off. They don't understand what it's used for or why, which is fine, but like those gamers discussing fixed page files, their opinion is just wrong.

> There's another piece of self-contradiction in that article - BitLocker uses TPM 2.0 for encryption key storage. Amazing, except, again, HOME users cannot even run this BitLocker thingie, even if they want.

The author is uninformed. Microsoft calls the Win 11 Home version "Device Encryption", essentially an unconfigurable version of Bitlocker. It's still BL under the hood.

> ut then, when you think about it, if the system has TPM and encryption, and it's configured in a "clever" way, then you can't have this lovely freedom of deleting unnecessary stuff, now can you?

Author isn't aware of dislocker. But keep on being smarmy.

Anyway, this article is hardly worth HN's time.

[nemomarx]

I had a Ryzen 1700 that didn't meet the windows 11 tpm standard. It was still working well for everything I threw at it, but I guess a little short of "modern".

It still seems a arbitrary cut off for waste though. If TPM is standard enough on hardware surely adoption would happen regardless of OS requirements?

[fresh_broccoli]

> I had a Ryzen 1700 that didn't meet the windows 11 tpm standard.

It's not TPM, Zen1 does support TPM 2. Also, its instruction set is identical to Zen+ (Ryzen 2xxx), which is supported by Win11. After all, Zen+ was just a die shrink of Zen1 with some minor fixes.

It really seems like they blacklisted Zen1 for no real reason.

[p_ing]

> rather new and ultra-powerful computers

> Ryzen 1700

Surely you jest.

[nemomarx]

what benchmark is it failing to match up to? other than AI work I can't think of a use case for a home machine where it would really be even noticeably slow. certainly it's fine for compiling code and etc. 2017 doesn't really seem old to me since improvements in chips has slowed down.

[p_ing]

The "new" benchmark. I quoted the author who said "new" and "ultra-powerful".

[snakeyjake]

I don't have a dog in this race because I haven't used Windows as my primary OS since the Windows 8 days, but my main "makin money" computer, a threadripper 3970X workstation is not officially supported by Windows 11.

Five years after I got it there are very few consumer machines that are as powerful, or can address as much memory.

I know I can make it work through tricks and overrides but that's not good enough for consumers. Not hobbyists, regular people.

[porridgeraisin]

5-7 years is new.

My laptop is that old, and my computer is a year older, and my other computer is from 2012.

Not planning to replace any of them anytime soon.

The 2012 computer has had RAM upgrades of course (it shipped with 4gb!). It has an Intel i7 4770S, and nothing it's used for saturates the CPU to even 70% utilisation multi-tasking. Most of the time it's sitting around at < 10%. So it's objectively a bad decision to upgrade it.

[sumtechguy]

> When I see someone arguing against TPM, it's fairly easy to write their argument off. They don't understand what it's used for or why, which is fine, but like those gamers discussing fixed page files, their opinion is just wrong.

interesting. TPM as an optional feature and going forward I would be perfectly fine with. It is a forced feature no one is really asking for. That is why the pushback. Instead it is 'oh just buy a new PC'. Totally blind to the people with older PC's that are perfectly fine to continue using. But now they need to refresh and spend several hundred bucks for a feature they do not understand or care about.

[p_ing]

At what point do you make the cut off?

A big piece of Windows 11 is VBS, which requires TPM. It's not just device encryption, but security of core operating system components. Microsoft gets repeatedly hammered, rightfully so, for security, and VBS was the means to right-track that.

[Dalewyn]

>It is a forced feature no one is really asking for.

Microsoft mandated TPM after gauging both user feedback and real world metrics and finding that TPM helped increase security by a significant margin. I am inclined to believe them.

Techbeards like most of the audience here have a passionate hatred for TPM whether righteously or otherwise. For everyone else in the real world, TPM is at best a security boon and at worst something you don't even know is there.

[mrkeen]

I had a 16-core 32-thread Threadripper that I was rather fond of.

Not good enough for win 11.

[dfedbeef]

I installed win11 on that exact PC and use it every day. Enable the TPM.

[vladvasiliu]

> Author isn't aware of dislocker. But keep on being smarmy.

I'm not aware of that, either.

But since the author talks about doing this change from Linux, my Arch can handle BitLocker drives "out of the box" (meaning I didn't do anything specific to have that, I just clicked once out of curiosity on a BL drive and it worked). The only "catch" is that it requires the long key, it doesn't support password unlock AFAIK.

[secondcoming]

They can take my 4790k from my cold, dead hands

[w0m]

> Why would this be an option even? Why allow apps to override a PRIVACY setting? It's like saying, you're allergic to peanuts, but ALLOW waiters to ignore your request, cor. This is becoming so ridiculous I'm struggling to find words to describe my utter disdain and contempt for these low-IQ games.

Author is both complaining about being railroaded and about being given choices paragraphs apart.

> All in all, a meaningless chapter in a meaningless story.

Author is self aware.