The technical requirements for 11 were reasonable when it came out and even more so today. Laptops being ewaste when they were built that way isn’t Microsoft’s fault.
What is unreasonable about 4 gb of ram, a processor made in the last decade, and a tpm chip? Even Linux doesn’t run well under 8, let alone 4, because linux’s memory management and handling of low memory is a catastrophic embarrassment. (Yes it uses less idle, but you get to 80% and the system will lock up)
Well if we’re going to just talk about the kernel with 1-2 embedded apps, sure.
or if you’re going back to 1990 yes, applications back then we’re less demanding than chrome. However that was 35 years ago.
But this article isn’t about your little nxp chip or the much weaker 486 chip, it’s about laptops humans are using with like…modern web browsers. Which will happily eat 10 gb of ram if you let them. And then Linux will shit the bed and lock up the moment you’re out of swap or zram.
I have no idea what you mean by moving goalposts.
The TPM attitude is common among Linux fanboys and I don’t really get it. It’s a chip for making security simpler for the average user. If you’re worried about laptops getting trashed because users won’t install Linux, the tpm chip is for them. Also it’s over a decade old.
The technical requirements for 11 were reasonable when it came out and even more so today. Laptops being ewaste when they were built that way isn’t Microsoft’s fault.
They’re the ones that keep making the requirements more and more unreasonable with every update.
What is unreasonable about 4 gb of ram, a processor made in the last decade, and a tpm chip? Even Linux doesn’t run well under 8, let alone 4, because linux’s memory management and handling of low memory is a catastrophic embarrassment. (Yes it uses less idle, but you get to 80% and the system will lock up)
Linux runs just fine in 4. Or much less. It depends a lot on what you use it for. My 486 had a whooping 32 Megs of memory and ran Linux just fine.
Regarding MS, the main problem is the changing of the goalpost. And I’m not so sure there’s even any point to the whole TPM thing anyway.
Well if we’re going to just talk about the kernel with 1-2 embedded apps, sure.
or if you’re going back to 1990 yes, applications back then we’re less demanding than chrome. However that was 35 years ago.
But this article isn’t about your little nxp chip or the much weaker 486 chip, it’s about laptops humans are using with like…modern web browsers. Which will happily eat 10 gb of ram if you let them. And then Linux will shit the bed and lock up the moment you’re out of swap or zram.
I have no idea what you mean by moving goalposts.
The TPM attitude is common among Linux fanboys and I don’t really get it. It’s a chip for making security simpler for the average user. If you’re worried about laptops getting trashed because users won’t install Linux, the tpm chip is for them. Also it’s over a decade old.
The TPM chip is the issue here, and not a requirement under Linux.
TPM chip is a decade old, built into all but shit laptops, and is a net positive for overall system security.
Id argue it’s more than not required under Linux, it’s barely supported under Linux and is a giant pain to get working.