Enforcing minimum requirements is a significant change, and an arbitrary one that will be used in the future to force uses to upgrade hardware when they don’t need to. We have already seen similar actions with web browser requirements that don’t need tonexist because other browsers run fine by spoofing the user agent strings.
Why should microsoft decide that an install of windows that was working should suddenly stop?
Enforcing minimum requirements is a significant change
There is no change at all here, the minimum requirements were already enforced at install. You have to purposely bypass that enforcement to install it on the affected hardware in the first place.
You can choose to bypass enforced limits and install it on unsupported hardware if you want. However, you do not have any room to complain if an update in the future ends up breaking your install when you purposely bypassed limits that would have prevented you from running into that issue in the first place. They don’t support that hardware, so updates shouldn’t be expected to be tested against unsupported hardware, and if it breaks that’s not their problem, it’s unsupported.
Just because it worked when you installed it, that doesn’t mean that future updates will not cause issues. Companies often have long term plans for their software, and limits with no immediate effect like that will often take those long term plans into account when they’re known that far ahead of time, even if the specific functionality isn’t implemented yet.___
Microsoft gets to decide what they want to officially support, this update made no change to what they were willing to support. They never supported that install configuration and had limits in place to prevent someone from doing that. These limits aren’t exactly hard to bypass if you really want to, but the average Joe that clicks next on an install wizard and is not any sort of “power user” won’t run into issues in the future, because they’re going to be running on officially supported hardware.
So much of the Linux community is so full of itself, declaring every damn year as the “year of the Linux desktop”, it never is, and never will be mainstream for the average person until the community actually gets rid of the surplus of horribly toxic users that feel they’re superior simply because they don’t use Windows. The users that immediately respond negatively to any simple help request and seem to go out of their way to attack new users. It only takes one of those users to send the average person back to what they know, abandoning Linux forever.
Until they accept that nearly everything must work through a GUI with a terminal never being needed by the end user. As soon as the average person runs into an issue needing a terminal, they’ll just abandon it entirely and go back to the Windows system they already know, never to try it again.
The average person doesn’t give a shit about the sort of thing in the article, because they’ll never run into it. They’re not the ones bypassing minimum requirements for this to get anywhere near affecting them.
Enforcing minimum requirements is a significant change, and an arbitrary one that will be used in the future to force uses to upgrade hardware when they don’t need to. We have already seen similar actions with web browser requirements that don’t need tonexist because other browsers run fine by spoofing the user agent strings.
Why should microsoft decide that an install of windows that was working should suddenly stop?
There is no change at all here, the minimum requirements were already enforced at install. You have to purposely bypass that enforcement to install it on the affected hardware in the first place.
You can choose to bypass enforced limits and install it on unsupported hardware if you want. However, you do not have any room to complain if an update in the future ends up breaking your install when you purposely bypassed limits that would have prevented you from running into that issue in the first place. They don’t support that hardware, so updates shouldn’t be expected to be tested against unsupported hardware, and if it breaks that’s not their problem, it’s unsupported.
Just because it worked when you installed it, that doesn’t mean that future updates will not cause issues. Companies often have long term plans for their software, and limits with no immediate effect like that will often take those long term plans into account when they’re known that far ahead of time, even if the specific functionality isn’t implemented yet.___
Microsoft gets to decide what they want to officially support, this update made no change to what they were willing to support. They never supported that install configuration and had limits in place to prevent someone from doing that. These limits aren’t exactly hard to bypass if you really want to, but the average Joe that clicks next on an install wizard and is not any sort of “power user” won’t run into issues in the future, because they’re going to be running on officially supported hardware.
Sounds like there was a change.
They don’t have to deny the ability to install on older hardware to justify not supporting it.
Lol what a wall of text to essentially market linux
Oh fuck off with that.
So much of the Linux community is so full of itself, declaring every damn year as the “year of the Linux desktop”, it never is, and never will be mainstream for the average person until the community actually gets rid of the surplus of horribly toxic users that feel they’re superior simply because they don’t use Windows. The users that immediately respond negatively to any simple help request and seem to go out of their way to attack new users. It only takes one of those users to send the average person back to what they know, abandoning Linux forever.
Until they accept that nearly everything must work through a GUI with a terminal never being needed by the end user. As soon as the average person runs into an issue needing a terminal, they’ll just abandon it entirely and go back to the Windows system they already know, never to try it again.
The average person doesn’t give a shit about the sort of thing in the article, because they’ll never run into it. They’re not the ones bypassing minimum requirements for this to get anywhere near affecting them.
Try to install Windows Vista on a Pentium 150 with 32 Mb of RAM and tell me again how not supporting old hardware is new.
Windows XP could run on it with some tweaks, why don’t they support it with the next version?