Linux

6856 readers

140 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

395

Linux or Landfill? End of Windows 10 Leaves PC Charities with Tough Choice (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

111 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're the ones that keep making the requirements more and more unreasonable with every update.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The TPM chip is the issue here, and not a requirement under Linux.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

See that's where you're wrong though, because my computer does have a TPM chip and still can't run Win11. That's because Microsoft locked them down to v2.0 or newer ones and mine's only a v1.2 chip.