“this is why i switched to linux” no shut up lol.
This is why I switched to Linux.
Comment on Windows 11 24H2 goes from “unsupported” to “unbootable” on some older PCs
spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 months ago
do hack to make software run on unsupported hardware software stops working with update surprised pikachu
“this is why i switched to linux” no shut up lol. this is not an issue for any average user and if you had the ability to hack the TPM requirements you have the ability to fix your borked install. 🙂🙂🙂
CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 months ago
echodot@feddit.uk 4 months ago
You lot think that the solution to everything is Linux except you have absolutely no understanding of corporate IT. It’s hilarious. No wait, it’s annoying.
kautau@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I agree with you, but did you read the article? This is about a specific CPU instruction, not TPMs.
In modern x86 CPUs, POPCNT is implemented as part of the SSE4 instruction set. For Intel’s chips, it was added as part of SSE4.2 in the original first-generation Core architecture, codenamed Nehalem. In AMD’s processors, it’s included in SSE4a, first used in Phenom, Athlon, and Sempron CPUs based on the K10 architecture. These architectures date back to 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 4 months ago
First generation Core i# line, the Core name itself goes back 2 gens before that.
kautau@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Makes sense, I didn’t write that, it’s a direct quote from the article
spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 months ago
yeah i did read the article. to clarify for anyone confused, folks are already bypassing the TPM requirement to get these windows installs working in the first place. the POPCNT instruction issue is only affecting installs that are already using this workaround to force W11 to run on a device it doesn’t want to work on.
kautau@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Ah I see what you mean. No install would be possible without a TPM but hacked installs allow it, however now the update is explicitly using a CPU instruction that only works with CPUs that support TPM. Makes sense, thanks for clarifying
WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 4 months ago
Gen-1 through Gen-7 CPUs also still work despite lack of TPM. If it was about trying to force the TPM thing, even just using AXV2 instruction requirement would have limited it to only Gen4-7 running without TPM. I’m sure there’s other ways they could try to limit installs with the TPM-check disabled.
nadir@lemmy.world 4 months ago
“Hack” the TPM. Ha!
Asnabel@szmer.info 4 months ago
No, the issue is that Microsoft officially supports only two versions of Windows. And support of the older one is ending next year. They are forcing users that are using perfectly capable hardware to artificially switch to - for many - needless new hardware.
jj4211@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Yes, this is bad, and should be called out as such.
However, tweaking the software to run against the intent of Microsoft is still just asking for pain. Versus voting with your feet, so to speak, and saying “fine, Microsoft, if that’s how you want to play it, then I’m going elsewhere”. Of course the number of people doing that will be negligible so as not to make a difference, but it’s better than forcing Windows 11 to run against Microsoft’s intent. That’s just asking for a fight that you won’t win.
echodot@feddit.uk 4 months ago
In order for this update to have any effect on you you would have had to have failed to upgrade your computer for basically 20 years in a row. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that support for older processors is dropped
mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 4 months ago
There is a service called 0patch that offers microcode patching for EoL windows versions, for about 30 bucks a year I’m still getting updates for my Win7 gaming rig. Never had an exploit or hijacking and I pirate quite a bit on that PC.
Plan on getting one for my Win10 daily driver next year.
And as for trust: Microsoft has awarded 0patch for several zero day exploits, and have used their patches in official releases before so not only are they trustworthy, they are literally faster at finding exploits than MS themselves.
Full disclosure: No relationship with the company other than as a happy paying customer.
spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 months ago
please identify the material changes that come with an end of support that force users to artificially switch.
in general i am entirely on the position against ms, but i genuinely do not see any concrete evidence of a “force”; ms’s own lifecycle policy even notes that products will continue to get “security and non-security updates.”
again i am anti-corporate, but i’d very much like to be accurate in my criticism, so any insight into the forces at play are appreciated 🙂