this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
547 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

69046 readers
2698 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (15 children)

Every 2nd microsoft OS is bad. Its normal for them. XP good, vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad, 10 good, 11 bad.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

No. They're all bad, some are just worse than others. You've all just been stockholm syndromed into thinking better of the "less bad" ones.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Everything after w7, id agree. Windows 7 was actually legit. It ran fine on my amd athlon with 512MB ram. Ran dolphin back in the day too. Now after that it was all shite

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I generally agree, but I feel like Windows 8.1 was a vast improvement on 8. It was really more like Windows 9 with a Windows 8 theme.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is just Vista all over again. Calm down people. Go to Linux or church if you're scared.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The difference is, that you could just continue using XP until Win7 was released or continue using Win7 until Win10 was released. Win10 will reach end of life next year and then the only supported Windows will be Windows 11. Vista or Win8 were never as forced as Win11 is now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

not really because Vista does not have strong hardware requirements. But, this one have

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Vista was absolutely the slowest thing imaginable. They reduced the requirements as part of a marketing campaign for "Vista-ready" PCs, but PCs that ran it "well" were few and far between. Even after 7 came out if you went back to Vista it was noticeably slower.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Today, sure.

2005 was a different story, one the opposite of this one.

While Vista didn't have high specified requirements, it gobbled resources so updating from XP to Vista you'd have a noticable slowdown.

Win11 is the opposite of that story. While modern PC models (as in 5-year-old when Win11 first came out) can run Win11 fine, Microsoft forces requirements which aren't needed.

Sure, while having a better TPM and newer processor is a good thing, making anything other than that ewaste (because windows runs 90+% of consumer PCs, with Apple being the majority of the 10%) definitely isn't.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 8 months ago (3 children)

wants people to use windows 11 make it difficult to use windows 11 people find ways to use windows 11 anyway (what you wanted in the first place) punish them for using windows 11

???

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

People that are running a windows modified to disable the hardware eligibility checks are probably also disabling/deleting the telemetry and activation checks.

Microsoft doesn't want you to use windows 11, they want your money and data.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Greed.

Sure, they want you to run Win11, but chances are you're already running it, or at least Win10, so there's not much to gain there.

By making higher requirements for Win11 than neccessary Microsoft makes a killing on Windows licences.

OEMs have to pay Microsoft for keys. And for MS to make money off of keys, OEMs need to make more PCs. And how does MS force/incentivise them to do that? By 80% of the Win10 PCs incompatible with Win11.

Oh, and also, now they get to push their Copilot key as well.

Microsoft has a vested interest in PC sales not stagnating any more than they do, and sometimes it takes an artificial push to make that a reality.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

They're run by fire ants

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago

Fighting with Windows 11 introduced me to Linux Mint, which works perfectly! I'm not an OS geek, so I really don't care about the OS -- it's just the thing I deal with on the way to Firefox.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why though? This just means that Windows 11 will run on more devices? Why is so important for your device to have a TPM and Secure Boot enabled, and a supported processor? If I were Microsoft, I would put the requirements even lower or even removed them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

This is just my theory, but maybe they want to turn it all into android-levels of lockdown for even stricter DRM and such.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

I only use Windows 11 because it came preinstalled on the latest laptop I bought. Otherwise I have been a Linux user for over 15 years and will switch back sooner or later. Microsoft is making their products the immoral choice and I do recommend boycotting them.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›