Comment on Windows 10 gets three more years of security updates, if you can afford them
knotthatone@lemmy.one 6 months agoBecause it’s forced obsolescence by a convicted monopolist. Microsoft is effectively withholding security updates from computers built before 2018 or so with the arbitrary TPM requirement to install Win11. While I don’t expect them to support everything forever, this is another step along their journey to make PCs like cellphones. Fixed support periods for no reason other than they want you buying new ones every x years. Next up will be widespread locked down bootloaders so you can’t install Linux if you wanted to. Throw away the old and buy new. Mamma needs more quarterly revenue.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
It’s not really forced obsolescence.
Firstly, you can clean install 11 without TPM no problem, and you can upgrade in place with some tweaks. It’s annoying, but in no way “forced.”
Secondly, the EOL has been known since original release. We know the EOL of current versions of Windows 11 as well (they moved to supporting specific versions, for instance 21H2 recently went EOL, in October. 23H2 is slotted for EOL in 2026. endoflife.date/windows
Fixed support periods make sense. Otherwise you’re going to have to spring an EOL on people arbitrarily. 10 years of free support on Windows 10, a product most people got for free, seems sane to me. I realize it won’t make sense to everyone.
Slippery slope fallacy much?
knotthatone@lemmy.one 6 months ago
You basically have to break the installer to get it to work, which supports my point that the limit is an arbitrary way to exclude PCs made before a certain date from the next version. There is no technical reason MS can’t allow old hardware to work and no marginal cost to Microsoft to chose to do so. Like I said, while I don’t expect them to support everything forever, Microsoft also made their bed with their illegal business practices that got us here and hordes of malware infested EOL’ed computers are everybody’s problem now. They shouldn’t be adding to that problem for arbitrary marketing reasons.
I’m not against to fixed support periods, but they really ought to be minimums and not halted based on arbitrary dates, especially in the consumer space where these machines will run whether they get patched or not.
This already happened during the last big Windows-on-ARM push w/ Win8. UEFI secure boot was required enabled on all new hardware but no requirement for user-added keys. It didn’t overtly restrict Linux (on MS’s part) but several manufacturers did lock down their devices. I don’t see any reason why that won’t happen again. It’s the norm in the cell phone and tablet ecosystem (which is a damn shame, but there may be hope on the regulatory front w/ right to repair laws gaining steam.)
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 months ago
Break the installer? Two values get flipped. Hell you can have Rufus do it for you if you’re not tech savvy.
As for all the arbitrary and short dates… most distorts have similar. Look at Ubuntu, all having free support periods of less than 10 years, all having paid support beyond that point for a few years.
So how long is a reasonable time to support a version of software? 5 years, like Ubuntu? 10 like Windows? Are there even that many that support for longer periods of time?
I can understand the worry about older hardware, but they have a direction they are choosing to go to make things more secure. Even if there’s an ulterior motive, security isn’t a bad thing to strive for. And if not this version… which? The next? The one after that? Never?