I disagree with the framing of running Windows 11 on unsupported hardware as an undesirable option compared to desktop Linux, for several reasons. For context, I have several years' experience in the recycled and refurbished computer market and I regularly sell machines with Linux, ChromeOS Flex, Windows 11 on supported hardware, and Windows 11 on unsupported hardware.
The reality is that for the vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics. The problem is not that they're not usable when things are working right. The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire. A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows. ChromeOS Flex is a partial solution, as many people are familiar with it, but it is useless on a lot of hardware due to lack of drivers and is not a good fit for more powerful machines.
On the other hand, if you install Windows 11 on a machine that doesn't support it, you get all security updates for the next year, and all the drivers you need are typically present in Windows Update. In situations where there is a need for legacy drivers, they usually work after a simple install. I have installed Windows 11 on systems from 2011 and 2012 and had it work flawlessly, and fast enough for basic use. Windows 11 itself isn't perfect, but moving from 10 to 11 is nowhere near the complexity of moving from 10 to Linux.
Of course, the big issue is that after that year of security updates, one has to manually download the next "feature update" and install it to get another year of updates. This isn't hard to do per se, but it's approaching the kind of complexity that the average person isn't going to navigate smoothly. I don't have a great solution for this yet, though I am thinking about one. For now, I just include disclaimers and documentation about what to do to make things easier. Even so, compared to something like a Linux major version upgrade, this is quite straightforward.
There is no legal or ethical reason not to just run Windows 11 on technically unsupported hardware to keep it alive. I think that's the best way to go.
Can you actually install W11 on a machine that doesn't support TPM2? Iirc, Microsoft recently-ish got rid of the workarounds that allowed installation on machines that don't support TPM2. If there is still another workaround, I'd love to know about it (and especially if it requires a Microsoft account or can be done 'offline') since my daily driver doesn't have TPM2.
Also, what sorts of machines are you installing W11 on that are 'unsupported'? My daily driver initially came with W8.1 and for a while, I couldn't update to W10 because there were no W10 wifi drivers available; The manually-installed 8.1 ones were extremely flakey. And this isn't some no-name laptop too, it's a Thinkpad which you'd think would be well supported.
I just use Rufus to copy the ISO to the USB stick. And when selecting a W11 ISO, Rufus asks if I want to disable the TMP 2.0 requirement. This works just fine for the latest 24H2 ISO.
This is what I do. After you use Rufus for these settings, it will install on any machine with which 64-bit Windows 10 was compatible, pretty much. I've yet to have a machine not work.
Counter data point: an i7 860 based machine of mine with an Asus P7P55D motherboard from 2009 goes into boot loop after Windows 11 is installed. I tried multiple times, with the same result, before giving up.
There's only BIOS on such an old motherboard. Windows 11 locks up or reboots (can't remember precisely) after it has been installed from media and it's supposed to boot on its own. Perhaps even after showing those cheesy "we're setting up things for you" messages. I did not bother trying safe mode. This was a few months ago, so version 24H2 I think.
A Windows 11 24H2 ISO will install on a machine w/o a TPM 2.0 module using the command line argument "/Product Server". (You can do this as either an "upgrade" to Windows 10 or on a clean machine by using the Shift-F10 shortcut to get a command prompt and run the setup from there.)
I'm on mobile and don't have a reference handy but search-engine this and you'll find instructions.
I'd snag a 24H2 ISO. If the bypass functionality is removed from future releases you can always install from the older ISO and update to the current version. I think it's highly unlikely they'll push an update breaking already-installed unsupported PCs. That would garner so much bad press.
I have installed a half-dozen unsupported machines using a 24H2 ISOA snd this command line argument in the last couple months. It may be patched on newer builds but it's working fine on the ISO I'm using. If I remember I'll post a hash when I'm on a PC.
> On the other hand, if you install Windows 11 on a machine that doesn't support it, you get all security updates for the next year, and all the drivers you need are typically present in Windows Update.
This is very far from my lived experience.
Same generation of hardware, same workflow. Works flawlessly on linux distros. Something breaks after every single windows update when running win11, almost always related to driver compatibility with win11.
I’ve had to reinstall drivers after every update, had to find more recent but compatible drivers that aren’t explicitly listed as supported etc.
Once upon a time, I installed a quite usable version of Ubuntu, nicely configured on my parents computer.
Exactly because "vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics.", the first time they got into issues instead of doing the "call the son IT support", they went to the nearest PC store and got Windows reinstalled.
I was suddenly surprised during the next parents visit to find Windows again on that computer.
Since then, I rather have the local PC store support them, than me, and then also don't really care about GNU/Linux based systems, only whatever runs OSes from Microsoft, Apple and Google.
It isn't as if I am flying back to Portugal every weekend to do support, or find out how to make GNU/Linux actually fit their computer needs, and software needed by Portuguese goverment, banks and co.
Until the next windows update changes everything. I had my parent ran Linux for 15+ years because, unlike windows/Mac, the user interface didn't change every other year. Some 'simple' users prioritize stability over ready access to geek squad.
(If you have dementia, even a changed wallpaper can be a big deal. Popups with "new feature" or rando security notices are not helpful.)
And I guess you were down the street to keep it running when support was needed, and did not install either GNOME or KDE, which have had several UI changes throughout the years.
None of the PC stores on my hometown cares about GNU/Linux, but at least it is a known place that they can reach for, and I don't have to fly back home for support.
Doesn't RockyLinux get like 10y for each major release? That should be enough for them. If they need another ten then perhaps the next version can mimic the previous.
It's not like Linux is immune to UI changes during updates, Ubuntu has changed their DE a few times (which the average user could easily run into by just clicking Yes in an updater popup), Gnome has changed vastly from 2 to 3, KDE has changed quite a lot too.
Windows 10 has had the same UI for 10 years with a few minor changes.
But if you're comparing it to a non-updated Linux system, then it's no different than keeping them on Windows 7.
While I'm not an active user, I don't recall seeing much change in say XFCE or in Cinammon for that matter
In this particular regard, options are good to have, depending on how much you value that kind of stability you could even freeze only the DE and let the stuff around it update, which is a lot better than actually being stuck in any insecure OS
Laypeople don't install operating systems. As long as they get help to set up Linux with working drivers and configuration, the rest of Linux is actually easier because it doesn't change default browsers, add unwanted applications, pop-ups with scary text etc unlike Windows.
I've had a great experience putting my computer illiterate mother on Linux Mint. I've never had to help her once with the operating system or programs (she only uses Firefox and an IPTV application) whereas Windows was a mess at times.
Linux is the answer. I have transitioned coworkers, friends and family to Linux with PeppermintOS, so that's the one I typically recommend. Windows-dependent users seem to find it more friendly and familiar, and it runs nicely on every old machine I've installed it on. I usually just make a text file on the desktop with instructions on how to update it via the terminal and use Anydesk to walk them through anything else they want to learn, and they pick up on it quickly.
I appreciate the blog's efforts, but it seems like a lot of work and feels akin to staying with an abusive employer or something. Microsoft is no friend to its users and it pains me to watch people try to salvage that relationship.
Not for refurbishing, at least in countries where Microsoft copyright is enforced. You won't be able to get it legally because it's licensed for IoT use cases. Whereas if you go the Win11 Home/Pro route, there's a good chance you'll be able to convert the existing license from Win8/10
This is correct. Many (not all) machines with Windows 7 or greater OEM licenses will install Windows 11 without asking for a key. And when they do need a key, I use refurbisher/reseller keys that are pretty cheap to get and while they might be gray market, they are much more legal than using an LTSC key on a non-LTSC device.
It's not just TPM 2.0, you also need a supported CPU. Everything before Intel 8th gen and Zen+ (including 1st gen Ryzen) is not supported even if you have TPM 2.0
> The reality is that for the vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics
I have decades of experience in being "the computer guy" with some friends and family. My reality is different. My reality is that people find Linux easier to use than Windows. In my reality people are not happy to see the UI change radically across versions. With Linux I can always find a DE that is similar to what they used to have (see cynnamon, for example).
> The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire
I have the opposite experience: I had some acquintances go through forum posts and apply the solutions suggested there, all on their own, to my great surprise.
Instead, when someone says to me they have a problem with their Windows computer, I answer that they're too complicated: I don't know how to put my hands on them. If I search online it's very hard to wade through the vague suggestions, the "reinstall", "reboot" that never give you any additional knowledge after you've solved the problem. In my reality your sentence applies to Windows, not to Linux.
> A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows.
What are you comparing? "A machine designed for windows" vs what? I believe you meant "windows".
New hardware on Linux is way easier than Windows. New printer? You connect it and it just works. Wifi dongle? Same.
The way you talk about it sounds like 1999 Linux to me.
> There is no legal or ethical reason not to just run Windows 11 on technically unsupported hardware to keep it alive. I think that's the best way to go.
My main reason is this: GNU/Linux is built for the user. You as the user are the master. Windows is built to extract value from people using computers. Sometimes they (Microsoft) decide you're not in charge; for instance when you tell the computer to shut down, and the computer replies with "I'm installing updates, don't shut me down". And maybe it's a laptop. And maybe I'm off to take a train, and I'm about to be late.
I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?
I recently went to an open event where researchers were showing their work to people/kids, and I noticed how they all use windows. That made me sad. I think misinformation is the main thing holding Linux back. I believe you're believing and spreading misinformation in good faith.
This is not an apples to apples comparison. A single line in my cli letting me know one of my Rails project dependencies is requesting funding is _far_ less intrusive than Windows throwing popup notifications at me about some game they want me to play even though I requested to stop showing me that ad.
FOSS needs money, yes, but it also respects the user and can in no reasonable way be compared to Microsoft's abuse of power without some serious cognitive dissonance.
I was referring to Microsoft selling ad space on your computer. Not them using it themselves. In this regard, it's different from what Canonical did.
I'm talking about choices that disrupt user productivity on their computers. Not choices that might annoy users who read each and every line in a 40 lines CLI output.
All I can say is that I haven't seen a single AD in the last 15 years or so of using many different linux distros while as soon as I've booted any windows 10 or 11 machine, ADs were present everywhere and constantly reminded me that I'm the product.
I think one thing you might want to consider - and another commenter described a similar thing - is that I am not "the computer guy" for my customers. I am selling them a product. That product is a cheap computer. I will provide help when I can, but I don't offer long-term tech support.
But I also am not sure how to respond to things like:
> What are you comparing? "A machine designed for windows" vs what? I believe you meant "windows". New hardware on Linux is way easier than Windows. New printer? You connect it and it just works. Wifi dongle? Same. The way you talk about it sounds like 1999 Linux to me.
Except to say that almost always, I am selling machines that came with some version of Windows on them originally, so yes, they're designed for Windows.
> My main reason is this: GNU/Linux is built for the user. You as the user are the master. Windows is built to extract value from people using computers. Sometimes they (Microsoft) decide you're not in charge; for instance when you tell the computer to shut down, and the computer replies with "I'm installing updates, don't shut me down". And maybe it's a laptop. And maybe I'm off to take a train, and I'm about to be late.
> I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?
You're completely right about all of this. And as an expert user, I have a Linux Mint desktop I use fairly often. I also have worked on my personal Windows machines to lock them down so they can't do most of this.
But as a business owner trying to sell machines to customers, I have to sell them what they want and will be comfortable using. Linux machines do not sell for as high a price, have a higher rate of returns and negative reviews, and are more overhead for me in terms of helping people with them - even after delivering a machine I have rigorously tested.
I can't solve for every problem at once. I am trying to save computers from the wastebin, and get my customers a reliable, inexpensive machine. Also trying to teach them to use Linux is just one too many steps in the end.
> The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire. A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows.
There are two claims here:
1. these problems are harder to solve on Linux
2. these problems happen more often on Linux.
I'd really like to see some actual studies of this, because I suspect they are both bullshit.
Sure, here are a list of problems that people have come to me to help them solve on Linux machines:
1) Speakers are inexplicably swapped between left and right and you have to debug alsa/pulseaudio/pipewire to find out why
2) Bluetooth and WiFi don't work without drivers that require downloading and installing packages manually from different versions of the OS (eg the Ubuntu 22.04 drivers don't work but 21.04 do and that's not documented anywhere, I figured it out by reading logs and googling)
3) some devices or drivers don't work without enabling new kernel modules
4) some devices or drivers don't work without building a driver from source, the official binaries are not usable on a given system
5) sleep doesn't work correctly without manual configuration on command line
6) /etc/default/keyboard must be manually modified with the correct keyboard configuration for the device; the UI can't do it
If you think the above are problems a layperson with no computing (and specifically Linux) expertise can solve, you may not be spending a lot of time around actual laypeople.
Now do the same with Windows. The "layperson" can't install Windows or find drivers for unusual devices either. The reason it's often easier on Windows is because the manufacturers took the time to create the image with the required components. That's what you're doing. You're the manufacturer/refurbisher.
Windows update automatically installs all drivers nowadays. Once installed all drivers keep working since Windows doesn't break compatibility that often (one can still use Win 7 drivers on Win 11).
With Linux any driver compiled from source needs to be rebuilt at each kernel minor release. Some stuff has DKMS some don't. Some vendors keep up with distracted puppy level of change speed in kernel APIs. Most don't.
With Linux you have to support your family computers ~each month to pull updates. With Windows all updates are automatic and require 0 remote support.
> Windows update automatically installs all drivers nowadays
This is very untrue, there are many situations where windows update won't be able to find all drivers on a fresh install. You either need a proper OEM image with all drivers built-in or go driver hunting which is absolutely not fun and not doable by the average user.
Even a modern zen5 system I've dealt with recently required a few manual driver installs to get everything working, and you absolutely don't want to rely on Windows Update for the latest nvidia or amd graphics drivers, getting it directly from them has been the norm since... windows 98 days?
If you are talking about random USB accessories that the user might connect, sure the success rate is pretty decent, but even that isn't guaranteed.
> With Windows all updates are automatic and require 0 remote support.
This hasn't been my experience with windows update. They are automatic, but since MS isn't very good about making sure their updates don't break and fail to install correctly, or cause endless reboot cycles, or even cause data loss at some point you're likely to get a call when grandma's computer stops working or all of the photos she had of her grandchildren are suddenly gone.
My sample size is fairly small, but I've not encountered driver issues on anything in the last ~15 years. Most stuff is in tree (IME everything except nvidia), and despite what others report, I've never had an issue with nvidia binary drivers. My desktop with gtx1070 has been running the same installation for 8 years now.
Why do you think Linux can't do auto-updates? There's probably a built in option for your distribution, but if not, just run your update command on a timer.
Phones and ARM land seem to be a disaster of hardware support, but x86 PCs/laptops have all worked great for me.
Because they literally cannot. Linux package managers like to ask deeply technical questions. Even on Ubuntu dpkg will occasionally ask about configuration file changes and expect you to make decisions like keeping the existing one, replacing the config file with the new one or editing it. Windows never asks such questions. Its configs are relatively stable and usually Windows uses more formally defined forms like registry or XML files. They are much easier to write migration scripts for than human readable text files on Linux.
As far as I know even packages like `unattended-upgrades` from Ubuntu doesn't perform things like kernel upgrades which requires `apt dist-upgrade`. They are required for keeping good security. And forget about upgrading an actual version like from 24.04 to 24.10. On Windows upgrades from 24H1 to 24H2 are relatively painless and can easily rolled back. My Ubuntu running colleagues had to rescue their distros at least twice since a version upgrade went wrong.
That is a Debian/Ubuntu deb package quirk - RPM installation on Fedora/RHEL/OpenSUSE is fully non-interactive, as it should be.
So not only are less technical users not confused, but you will never return only to see a system upgrade stuck on some useless interactive prompt from a deb package.
No. I use RPM distros like OpenSUSE. They just don't ask the necessary questions just notify you. So if you installed SAMBA to share files or printers, the distro update will break stuff without telling you.
A user-friendly OS should require almost 0 system administration except emergencies. Windows is that OS and Linux is not. Android is closest Linux ever got and it is pretty good. I say that as a person who deals with my own cloud stuff (Nextcloud / Jellyfin media servers) and as one of the maintainers of our embedded distro at my day job.
A typical user shouldn't have to install samba. If you're the system admin for them, you install samba when you install their system (they wouldn't be installing windows either!). The only reason this is coming up is because you might not be forced to install samba as part of a typical linux install whereas a typical windows install includes everything you will never need.
That's the thing: the amount of sysadmin role I would like to play for my family is nearly 0. And, no simple file sharing or accessing NAS systems shouldn't require a "sysadmin".
They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't.
Windows OS design, the overall mentality of the developers designing software for Windows also reinforces this pattern. A consumer system should keep working without asking user unnecessary questions. They have to be designed to be somewhat future proof so breaking binary and configuration compatibility is minimal. With Linux systems (or any bazaar-style OS) this is impossible.
> They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't.
me: "Linux is not suitable for non-technical users of my family to keep up-to-date with minimal effort and I don't want them to be dependent on me to solve smaller problems".
you: Let me suggest a distro that goes against many binary conventions and uses a specialty functional programming language to configure itself that not even all Linux users bother to learn.
I think you are the one recommending an electronic screwdriver for nails.
Non-techies care about whether their systems continue to work with minimal effort and they are assured that the system is secure and I care about providing almost no support to them but still having functional IT at home (working printer, NAS, file sharing).
With Nixos it is more difficult to guarantee that the programs (drivers, third party stuff) keep working since you have to play the guarantor/sysadmin role. Breaking binary compatibility with existing apps opens up problems with drivers and other third parties that conform to rougly LFHS. Even when you compile from source which for me should never happen with consumer OSes.
I've experimented with linux auto updates and the only one I found which easily and clearly worked while staying in the background was Mint. Mint seems like a modern lightweight equivalent to what Ubuntu was 20 years ago.
Fedora might be second place with options between "do the updates ASAP but there might be weirdness if you're running something that gets updated" or "download and do a big install when you want to turn the PC off/restart". The bigger problem is that dnf-automatic and apt's automatic-updates seem pretty finicky to set up correctly and get feedback that it's happening, plus the documentation seems old and thin on the ground, it's just enough to cover the happy path and there doesn't seem to be any recent ongoing work. For Arch don't even bother because their attitude is that system admin must be handled by a human, automation for pacman isn't supported.
Yeah I can't remember the last time I looked for a driver for anything on Linux... Even with nvidia I only install it on my desktop because of cuda, but then it's not like windows comes with cuda enabled?!
It does though? And CUDA a freaking GPGPU programming framework? My parents and other family members give 0 fucks about it.
I actually helped more people to setup CUDA on Linux since the environment is so hostile to closed-source and/or out-of-the tree software. The easiest way to get working CUDA on Linux is actually using WSL nowadays. It automatically links with the Windows driver and places necessary interface libraries as symlinks.
My whole point was that it came with every driver I've ever needed, and the cuda thing was to show that only the most esoteric, non-parents-and-other-family device needed a driver.
./nvidia...... ENTER ENTER ENTER has always worked pretty well for me.
The difference is that with Windows, once you have the machine working, it tends to stay working. With Linux, these are problems that occur after installation and often after sale to the customer. Linux simply takes up a disproportionate amount of my time compared to Windows.
But your original skepticism was that these problems happen at all, and it sounds like now we agree they do, so I guess that's that.
> with Windows, once you have the machine working, it tends to stay working
In what world?!
> Linux simply takes up a disproportionate amount of my time compared to Windows.
I think maybe you just happened to learn to set up Windows first and then you insist on doing the exact same thing on Linux. If you learnt Linux first, you'd find Windows infuriating.
> With Linux, these are problems that occur after installation
Mine has been working since 2016. Never formatted or anything like that. Just kept updating nixos.
> I think maybe you just happened to learn to set up Windows first and then you insist on doing the exact same thing on Linux. If you learnt Linux first, you'd find Windows infuriating.
I'm just sort of confused by this comment. Honestly, I'm confused by a lot of this comment chain. It doesn't feel like you understand or appreciate the circumstances under which I operate.
I'm running a business. I'm setting up machines for customers. This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal preferences. I'm a Linux user of nearly two decades. That does not matter. My job is to deliver a useful experience for my customers. Windows offers that more reliably than Linux does. My personal opinions don't enter into it; the implication that I don't know how to set up a Linux machine is just false. Likewise, that we can produce one Linux machine under the control of an expert such as yourself that works well is not proof that this will work for consumers.
I see that you and a lot of other folks in this thread feel a strong loyalty to Linux and a desire to drive people towards it. There's nothing wrong with that. But insisting up is down isn't going to do it, and that's what this communication feels like.
> a strong loyalty to Linux and a desire to drive people towards it
No loyalty here. It serves me. The moment it stops being useful, I will find something else. I don't care what other people use. I do care that they don't bother me for support. So I'm in the lucky position that whenever somebody has an issue with Windows, I can say "sorry, I don't understand how it works and I don't know how to fix it."
According to "corporate responsibility" and "sustainability" at Microsoft they are committed to "swift, collective action and technological innovation" for "carbon negativity" and "zero waste" by 2030 [1]. Evidently the Windows team did not get the memo, as the e-waste producing minimum processor & TPM requirements in Windows 11 have been shown to be entirely arbitrary. One of the easiest things MSFT could do for the environment could start here.
> minimum processor & TPM requirements in Windows 11 have been shown to be entirely arbitrary.
I am curious who thinks they managed to show this. My understanding was that the minimum processor requirement was born out of hardware feature requirements.
I know Virtualisation Based Security is on by default in Win11, and Intel processors older than 7th Gen don't have Mode-Based-Execution-Control, so they emulate it at a hefty penalty (they call it Restricted User Mode).
It's already been a decade(!), yet I still remember the introduction of this amazingly spyware-filled OS like it was yesterday, and the large public backlash it caused. Unfortunately its successor is even worse, which may be why it still has a fanbase today.
Meanwhile, I know there are plenty who are still using Win7 and below, and there's even a nontrivial community writing drivers for newer hardware and such.
This "Windows now sucks and finally will trigger a wave of users switching to Linux" is something that goes back to Vista days, it is getting tiresome, because has it has been proven, unless it is the Linux kernel being wrapped in Android, ChromeOS or WebOS userland, the common people won't even bother.
People don't like uncertainty. Installing after-market operating systems will always be a hobbyist thing. Not entirely dissimilar to cars: some people will go into the details and even of those not many will customise their vehicle.
Because "the market" is so small, nobody bothers making things that you can buy off the shelf. And when I mean "off the shelf", I literally mean at a physical store you can actually go to and try things.
Having a "developer edition" or a drop down on a website isn't going to move the needle, because you have to know what you're looking for in order for that dropdown to be meaningful.
Once we have a handful of manufacturers actually selling Linux based laptops in stores I think we'll get more adoption, however you can see how strong the stranglehold that these giant companies have on the market when you merely compare AMD to Intel; even now AMD remains a niche CPU in stores despite absolutely trouncing Intel for the last half-decade, and seeing any market penetration in stores took years despite being clearly superior in performance, battery life and temperature - Linux, for many people is not "clearly superior" in such clear cut ways.
Additionally, the netbooks wave proved the point that even when there are computers at the store with GNU/Linux pre-installed, it isn't a pure version of a well known distro, rather a customized OEM variant, as they have been doing since the early days of UNIX, CP/M, MS-DOS, because "differentiation and added value".
It is hardly any different from getting that IoT board, that only works with the snowflake distro that was made available on the release date, and nothing else.
“We’ll switch up everything you’re familiar with, but you see, you really should, because security” feels like a really terrible idea. Your browser is still receiving updates. You don’t need to panic or scare people needlessly. They’ll be fine.
And the conflation of “unsupported” and “ewaste” is also wrong. Tons of people keep using their computers after EOL, including my mom. Why would they notice or care?
Switching your family members to Linux works because they’re your family members. You know how they use computers, their comfort level, their needs. They can call you for help. A repair cafe, helping people they’ll likely never see again? Installing Linux, or heck, things as complex as dual-booting (which they suggest)? You’re kidding! Just leave people alone with their fine, basically-secure computers.
But it didn't happen overnight, it happened 3 years after Windows 7 EOL. The only security updates Windows 10 users won't receive are patches to Windows itself, for bugs or vulnerabilities which most users are unlikely to run into.
The article did mention that it would probably require multiple sessions with an individual to make the switch due to needing to spend some time figuring out what their needs are. Of course, the mileage will vary, but it seems they at least gave some consideration to your point knowing how people use their computers and their comfort level with them.
Every time I see one of these posts, I get anywhere between disappointed and pet-peeved that they don’t have the complete/nuanced picture.
Windows 10 support does not end in October 2025 any more than it ends in January 2032.
See what I did there? Without context, claiming “windows 10 does in October” really isn’t true!
…And that’s because the LTSC IOT version gets security updates till 2032!
Now, installing and running the LTSC iot version can be daunting… about as daunting as installing Linux or any other OS. Which this article anyway suggests.
Yes, you’ll need to run the installer again. And yes, you’ll lose app data. But that’s the same as installing a Linux distro!
Now, the biggest kerfuffle is that you’ll either need to form a company, or use one to get a legitimate license key… unless of course, there was an open source tool on GitHub that could help you with that.
Now, if doing that is beyond your moral compass… then you might be better off with some other OS.
I disagree with the framing of running Windows 11 on unsupported hardware as an undesirable option compared to desktop Linux, for several reasons. For context, I have several years' experience in the recycled and refurbished computer market and I regularly sell machines with Linux, ChromeOS Flex, Windows 11 on supported hardware, and Windows 11 on unsupported hardware.
The reality is that for the vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics. The problem is not that they're not usable when things are working right. The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire. A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows. ChromeOS Flex is a partial solution, as many people are familiar with it, but it is useless on a lot of hardware due to lack of drivers and is not a good fit for more powerful machines.
On the other hand, if you install Windows 11 on a machine that doesn't support it, you get all security updates for the next year, and all the drivers you need are typically present in Windows Update. In situations where there is a need for legacy drivers, they usually work after a simple install. I have installed Windows 11 on systems from 2011 and 2012 and had it work flawlessly, and fast enough for basic use. Windows 11 itself isn't perfect, but moving from 10 to 11 is nowhere near the complexity of moving from 10 to Linux.
Of course, the big issue is that after that year of security updates, one has to manually download the next "feature update" and install it to get another year of updates. This isn't hard to do per se, but it's approaching the kind of complexity that the average person isn't going to navigate smoothly. I don't have a great solution for this yet, though I am thinking about one. For now, I just include disclaimers and documentation about what to do to make things easier. Even so, compared to something like a Linux major version upgrade, this is quite straightforward.
There is no legal or ethical reason not to just run Windows 11 on technically unsupported hardware to keep it alive. I think that's the best way to go.
Can you actually install W11 on a machine that doesn't support TPM2? Iirc, Microsoft recently-ish got rid of the workarounds that allowed installation on machines that don't support TPM2. If there is still another workaround, I'd love to know about it (and especially if it requires a Microsoft account or can be done 'offline') since my daily driver doesn't have TPM2.
Also, what sorts of machines are you installing W11 on that are 'unsupported'? My daily driver initially came with W8.1 and for a while, I couldn't update to W10 because there were no W10 wifi drivers available; The manually-installed 8.1 ones were extremely flakey. And this isn't some no-name laptop too, it's a Thinkpad which you'd think would be well supported.
I just use Rufus to copy the ISO to the USB stick. And when selecting a W11 ISO, Rufus asks if I want to disable the TMP 2.0 requirement. This works just fine for the latest 24H2 ISO.
https://rufus.ie/pics/screenshot4_en.png
There are other software to help with this too.
https://github.com/builtbybel/Flyby11
This is what I do. After you use Rufus for these settings, it will install on any machine with which 64-bit Windows 10 was compatible, pretty much. I've yet to have a machine not work.
Counter data point: an i7 860 based machine of mine with an Asus P7P55D motherboard from 2009 goes into boot loop after Windows 11 is installed. I tried multiple times, with the same result, before giving up.
Interesting -- did you install using UEFI or legacy BIOS/CSM?
Does the install complete and then fail, or does it never complete? What stage does it end at?
There's only BIOS on such an old motherboard. Windows 11 locks up or reboots (can't remember precisely) after it has been installed from media and it's supposed to boot on its own. Perhaps even after showing those cheesy "we're setting up things for you" messages. I did not bother trying safe mode. This was a few months ago, so version 24H2 I think.
A Windows 11 24H2 ISO will install on a machine w/o a TPM 2.0 module using the command line argument "/Product Server". (You can do this as either an "upgrade" to Windows 10 or on a clean machine by using the Shift-F10 shortcut to get a command prompt and run the setup from there.)
I'm on mobile and don't have a reference handy but search-engine this and you'll find instructions.
Thanks. Hopefully if there's a 25H1 or 25H2 they will also support this, since my plan is to hold onto W10 until the end of the year.
I'd snag a 24H2 ISO. If the bypass functionality is removed from future releases you can always install from the older ISO and update to the current version. I think it's highly unlikely they'll push an update breaking already-installed unsupported PCs. That would garner so much bad press.
Wasn't this patched out about 18 months ago?
I have installed a half-dozen unsupported machines using a 24H2 ISOA snd this command line argument in the last couple months. It may be patched on newer builds but it's working fine on the ISO I'm using. If I remember I'll post a hash when I'm on a PC.
> On the other hand, if you install Windows 11 on a machine that doesn't support it, you get all security updates for the next year, and all the drivers you need are typically present in Windows Update.
This is very far from my lived experience.
Same generation of hardware, same workflow. Works flawlessly on linux distros. Something breaks after every single windows update when running win11, almost always related to driver compatibility with win11.
I’ve had to reinstall drivers after every update, had to find more recent but compatible drivers that aren’t explicitly listed as supported etc.
Last i checked you can still use DISM to apply a image to the local drive, this bypasses the installer completely.
You can install an older image and upgrade it, but the main problem is user apps that assume the TPM is there (Adobe CC, Adobe DC, EAC, etc)
Once upon a time, I installed a quite usable version of Ubuntu, nicely configured on my parents computer.
Exactly because "vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics.", the first time they got into issues instead of doing the "call the son IT support", they went to the nearest PC store and got Windows reinstalled.
I was suddenly surprised during the next parents visit to find Windows again on that computer.
Since then, I rather have the local PC store support them, than me, and then also don't really care about GNU/Linux based systems, only whatever runs OSes from Microsoft, Apple and Google.
It isn't as if I am flying back to Portugal every weekend to do support, or find out how to make GNU/Linux actually fit their computer needs, and software needed by Portuguese goverment, banks and co.
Until the next windows update changes everything. I had my parent ran Linux for 15+ years because, unlike windows/Mac, the user interface didn't change every other year. Some 'simple' users prioritize stability over ready access to geek squad.
(If you have dementia, even a changed wallpaper can be a big deal. Popups with "new feature" or rando security notices are not helpful.)
And I guess you were down the street to keep it running when support was needed, and did not install either GNOME or KDE, which have had several UI changes throughout the years.
None of the PC stores on my hometown cares about GNU/Linux, but at least it is a known place that they can reach for, and I don't have to fly back home for support.
Doesn't RockyLinux get like 10y for each major release? That should be enough for them. If they need another ten then perhaps the next version can mimic the previous.
It's not like Linux is immune to UI changes during updates, Ubuntu has changed their DE a few times (which the average user could easily run into by just clicking Yes in an updater popup), Gnome has changed vastly from 2 to 3, KDE has changed quite a lot too.
Windows 10 has had the same UI for 10 years with a few minor changes.
But if you're comparing it to a non-updated Linux system, then it's no different than keeping them on Windows 7.
While I'm not an active user, I don't recall seeing much change in say XFCE or in Cinammon for that matter
In this particular regard, options are good to have, depending on how much you value that kind of stability you could even freeze only the DE and let the stuff around it update, which is a lot better than actually being stuck in any insecure OS
Laypeople don't install operating systems. As long as they get help to set up Linux with working drivers and configuration, the rest of Linux is actually easier because it doesn't change default browsers, add unwanted applications, pop-ups with scary text etc unlike Windows.
I've had a great experience putting my computer illiterate mother on Linux Mint. I've never had to help her once with the operating system or programs (she only uses Firefox and an IPTV application) whereas Windows was a mess at times.
Linux is the answer. I have transitioned coworkers, friends and family to Linux with PeppermintOS, so that's the one I typically recommend. Windows-dependent users seem to find it more friendly and familiar, and it runs nicely on every old machine I've installed it on. I usually just make a text file on the desktop with instructions on how to update it via the terminal and use Anydesk to walk them through anything else they want to learn, and they pick up on it quickly.
I appreciate the blog's efforts, but it seems like a lot of work and feels akin to staying with an abusive employer or something. Microsoft is no friend to its users and it pains me to watch people try to salvage that relationship.
You could also just run W10/11 LTSC; W10 LTSC is supported till 2032.
Not for refurbishing, at least in countries where Microsoft copyright is enforced. You won't be able to get it legally because it's licensed for IoT use cases. Whereas if you go the Win11 Home/Pro route, there's a good chance you'll be able to convert the existing license from Win8/10
This is correct. Many (not all) machines with Windows 7 or greater OEM licenses will install Windows 11 without asking for a key. And when they do need a key, I use refurbisher/reseller keys that are pretty cheap to get and while they might be gray market, they are much more legal than using an LTSC key on a non-LTSC device.
The vast majority of people only use the very basics - web.
What is unsupported hardware in this context? Machines without TPM 2.0?
It's not just TPM 2.0, you also need a supported CPU. Everything before Intel 8th gen and Zen+ (including 1st gen Ryzen) is not supported even if you have TPM 2.0
> The reality is that for the vast majority of people, even the simplest desktop Linux distributions are simply too high a learning curve to be useful outside the very basics
I have decades of experience in being "the computer guy" with some friends and family. My reality is different. My reality is that people find Linux easier to use than Windows. In my reality people are not happy to see the UI change radically across versions. With Linux I can always find a DE that is similar to what they used to have (see cynnamon, for example).
> The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire
I have the opposite experience: I had some acquintances go through forum posts and apply the solutions suggested there, all on their own, to my great surprise. Instead, when someone says to me they have a problem with their Windows computer, I answer that they're too complicated: I don't know how to put my hands on them. If I search online it's very hard to wade through the vague suggestions, the "reinstall", "reboot" that never give you any additional knowledge after you've solved the problem. In my reality your sentence applies to Windows, not to Linux.
> A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows.
What are you comparing? "A machine designed for windows" vs what? I believe you meant "windows". New hardware on Linux is way easier than Windows. New printer? You connect it and it just works. Wifi dongle? Same. The way you talk about it sounds like 1999 Linux to me.
> There is no legal or ethical reason not to just run Windows 11 on technically unsupported hardware to keep it alive. I think that's the best way to go.
My main reason is this: GNU/Linux is built for the user. You as the user are the master. Windows is built to extract value from people using computers. Sometimes they (Microsoft) decide you're not in charge; for instance when you tell the computer to shut down, and the computer replies with "I'm installing updates, don't shut me down". And maybe it's a laptop. And maybe I'm off to take a train, and I'm about to be late.
I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?
I recently went to an open event where researchers were showing their work to people/kids, and I noticed how they all use windows. That made me sad. I think misinformation is the main thing holding Linux back. I believe you're believing and spreading misinformation in good faith.
> I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?
The same way FOSS projects, and Linux distros happen to do, because they need the money.
https://github.com/standard/standard/issues/1381
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fw...
https://linuxiac.com/ubuntu-once-again-angered-users-by-plac...
This is not an apples to apples comparison. A single line in my cli letting me know one of my Rails project dependencies is requesting funding is _far_ less intrusive than Windows throwing popup notifications at me about some game they want me to play even though I requested to stop showing me that ad.
FOSS needs money, yes, but it also respects the user and can in no reasonable way be compared to Microsoft's abuse of power without some serious cognitive dissonance.
Only the form changes, the goal is the same.
When FOSS does ads, respects the user, when big corp does ads, exploits the user.
I was referring to Microsoft selling ad space on your computer. Not them using it themselves. In this regard, it's different from what Canonical did.
I'm talking about choices that disrupt user productivity on their computers. Not choices that might annoy users who read each and every line in a 40 lines CLI output.
I don't see a difference, does Canonical themselves write the code for the software they do ads for?
Some people consider being annoyed every couple of 40 lines CLI output disruptive for their work.
All I can say is that I haven't seen a single AD in the last 15 years or so of using many different linux distros while as soon as I've booted any windows 10 or 11 machine, ADs were present everywhere and constantly reminded me that I'm the product.
So those links didn't happen.
avoid Ubuntu and microsoft products (like windows or npm) and you should be fine
Like Github, VSCode and Typescript?
I think one thing you might want to consider - and another commenter described a similar thing - is that I am not "the computer guy" for my customers. I am selling them a product. That product is a cheap computer. I will provide help when I can, but I don't offer long-term tech support.
But I also am not sure how to respond to things like:
> What are you comparing? "A machine designed for windows" vs what? I believe you meant "windows". New hardware on Linux is way easier than Windows. New printer? You connect it and it just works. Wifi dongle? Same. The way you talk about it sounds like 1999 Linux to me.
Except to say that almost always, I am selling machines that came with some version of Windows on them originally, so yes, they're designed for Windows.
> My main reason is this: GNU/Linux is built for the user. You as the user are the master. Windows is built to extract value from people using computers. Sometimes they (Microsoft) decide you're not in charge; for instance when you tell the computer to shut down, and the computer replies with "I'm installing updates, don't shut me down". And maybe it's a laptop. And maybe I'm off to take a train, and I'm about to be late.
> I even read that windows embeds ads. In the OS. How is this remotely acceptable?
You're completely right about all of this. And as an expert user, I have a Linux Mint desktop I use fairly often. I also have worked on my personal Windows machines to lock them down so they can't do most of this.
But as a business owner trying to sell machines to customers, I have to sell them what they want and will be comfortable using. Linux machines do not sell for as high a price, have a higher rate of returns and negative reviews, and are more overhead for me in terms of helping people with them - even after delivering a machine I have rigorously tested.
I can't solve for every problem at once. I am trying to save computers from the wastebin, and get my customers a reliable, inexpensive machine. Also trying to teach them to use Linux is just one too many steps in the end.
> The problem is that when things go wrong, problems rapidly begin to require levels of knowledge far outside what a layperson can reasonably acquire. A missing driver, updates that need to be installed, configuration problems - these all run rampant on Linux to degrees far beyond what one experiences with a machine designed for Windows.
There are two claims here:
1. these problems are harder to solve on Linux
2. these problems happen more often on Linux.
I'd really like to see some actual studies of this, because I suspect they are both bullshit.
Sure, here are a list of problems that people have come to me to help them solve on Linux machines:
1) Speakers are inexplicably swapped between left and right and you have to debug alsa/pulseaudio/pipewire to find out why
2) Bluetooth and WiFi don't work without drivers that require downloading and installing packages manually from different versions of the OS (eg the Ubuntu 22.04 drivers don't work but 21.04 do and that's not documented anywhere, I figured it out by reading logs and googling)
3) some devices or drivers don't work without enabling new kernel modules
4) some devices or drivers don't work without building a driver from source, the official binaries are not usable on a given system
5) sleep doesn't work correctly without manual configuration on command line
6) /etc/default/keyboard must be manually modified with the correct keyboard configuration for the device; the UI can't do it
If you think the above are problems a layperson with no computing (and specifically Linux) expertise can solve, you may not be spending a lot of time around actual laypeople.
Now do the same with Windows. The "layperson" can't install Windows or find drivers for unusual devices either. The reason it's often easier on Windows is because the manufacturers took the time to create the image with the required components. That's what you're doing. You're the manufacturer/refurbisher.
Windows update automatically installs all drivers nowadays. Once installed all drivers keep working since Windows doesn't break compatibility that often (one can still use Win 7 drivers on Win 11).
With Linux any driver compiled from source needs to be rebuilt at each kernel minor release. Some stuff has DKMS some don't. Some vendors keep up with distracted puppy level of change speed in kernel APIs. Most don't.
With Linux you have to support your family computers ~each month to pull updates. With Windows all updates are automatic and require 0 remote support.
> Windows update automatically installs all drivers nowadays
This is very untrue, there are many situations where windows update won't be able to find all drivers on a fresh install. You either need a proper OEM image with all drivers built-in or go driver hunting which is absolutely not fun and not doable by the average user.
Even a modern zen5 system I've dealt with recently required a few manual driver installs to get everything working, and you absolutely don't want to rely on Windows Update for the latest nvidia or amd graphics drivers, getting it directly from them has been the norm since... windows 98 days?
If you are talking about random USB accessories that the user might connect, sure the success rate is pretty decent, but even that isn't guaranteed.
> With Windows all updates are automatic and require 0 remote support.
This hasn't been my experience with windows update. They are automatic, but since MS isn't very good about making sure their updates don't break and fail to install correctly, or cause endless reboot cycles, or even cause data loss at some point you're likely to get a call when grandma's computer stops working or all of the photos she had of her grandchildren are suddenly gone.
My sample size is fairly small, but I've not encountered driver issues on anything in the last ~15 years. Most stuff is in tree (IME everything except nvidia), and despite what others report, I've never had an issue with nvidia binary drivers. My desktop with gtx1070 has been running the same installation for 8 years now.
Why do you think Linux can't do auto-updates? There's probably a built in option for your distribution, but if not, just run your update command on a timer.
Phones and ARM land seem to be a disaster of hardware support, but x86 PCs/laptops have all worked great for me.
> Why do you think Linux can't do auto-updates?
Because they literally cannot. Linux package managers like to ask deeply technical questions. Even on Ubuntu dpkg will occasionally ask about configuration file changes and expect you to make decisions like keeping the existing one, replacing the config file with the new one or editing it. Windows never asks such questions. Its configs are relatively stable and usually Windows uses more formally defined forms like registry or XML files. They are much easier to write migration scripts for than human readable text files on Linux.
As far as I know even packages like `unattended-upgrades` from Ubuntu doesn't perform things like kernel upgrades which requires `apt dist-upgrade`. They are required for keeping good security. And forget about upgrading an actual version like from 24.04 to 24.10. On Windows upgrades from 24H1 to 24H2 are relatively painless and can easily rolled back. My Ubuntu running colleagues had to rescue their distros at least twice since a version upgrade went wrong.
That is a Debian/Ubuntu deb package quirk - RPM installation on Fedora/RHEL/OpenSUSE is fully non-interactive, as it should be.
So not only are less technical users not confused, but you will never return only to see a system upgrade stuck on some useless interactive prompt from a deb package.
No. I use RPM distros like OpenSUSE. They just don't ask the necessary questions just notify you. So if you installed SAMBA to share files or printers, the distro update will break stuff without telling you.
A user-friendly OS should require almost 0 system administration except emergencies. Windows is that OS and Linux is not. Android is closest Linux ever got and it is pretty good. I say that as a person who deals with my own cloud stuff (Nextcloud / Jellyfin media servers) and as one of the maintainers of our embedded distro at my day job.
A typical user shouldn't have to install samba. If you're the system admin for them, you install samba when you install their system (they wouldn't be installing windows either!). The only reason this is coming up is because you might not be forced to install samba as part of a typical linux install whereas a typical windows install includes everything you will never need.
That's the thing: the amount of sysadmin role I would like to play for my family is nearly 0. And, no simple file sharing or accessing NAS systems shouldn't require a "sysadmin".
They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't.
Windows OS design, the overall mentality of the developers designing software for Windows also reinforces this pattern. A consumer system should keep working without asking user unnecessary questions. They have to be designed to be somewhat future proof so breaking binary and configuration compatibility is minimal. With Linux systems (or any bazaar-style OS) this is impossible.
> They should work out of the box for a consumer computer system with minimal configuration and updates shouldn't break functionality. Windows provides this Linux doesn't.
Have you asked for a refund?
> Because they literally cannot
Nixos works fine, thanks!
> On Windows upgrades from 24H1 to 24H2 are relatively painless and can easily rolled back.
Nixos does this, but I can't remember the last time I used it. Maybe early on, about 9 years ago.
> > Because they literally cannot
> Nixos works fine, thanks!
me: "Linux is not suitable for non-technical users of my family to keep up-to-date with minimal effort and I don't want them to be dependent on me to solve smaller problems".
you: Let me suggest a distro that goes against many binary conventions and uses a specialty functional programming language to configure itself that not even all Linux users bother to learn.
You just showed how detached you are.
> that goes against many binary conventions
Why would non-technical users care about binary conventions? Wasn't the whole point that you'd set it up for them and they couldn't break it?
That's what nixos does. You refuse to use the right tool for the job and moan that the hammer isn't driving the screw correctly.
I think you are the one recommending an electronic screwdriver for nails.
Non-techies care about whether their systems continue to work with minimal effort and they are assured that the system is secure and I care about providing almost no support to them but still having functional IT at home (working printer, NAS, file sharing).
With Nixos it is more difficult to guarantee that the programs (drivers, third party stuff) keep working since you have to play the guarantor/sysadmin role. Breaking binary compatibility with existing apps opens up problems with drivers and other third parties that conform to rougly LFHS. Even when you compile from source which for me should never happen with consumer OSes.
> to guarantee that the programs (drivers, third party stuff) keep working
You clearly haven't used Windows...
I've experimented with linux auto updates and the only one I found which easily and clearly worked while staying in the background was Mint. Mint seems like a modern lightweight equivalent to what Ubuntu was 20 years ago.
Fedora might be second place with options between "do the updates ASAP but there might be weirdness if you're running something that gets updated" or "download and do a big install when you want to turn the PC off/restart". The bigger problem is that dnf-automatic and apt's automatic-updates seem pretty finicky to set up correctly and get feedback that it's happening, plus the documentation seems old and thin on the ground, it's just enough to cover the happy path and there doesn't seem to be any recent ongoing work. For Arch don't even bother because their attitude is that system admin must be handled by a human, automation for pacman isn't supported.
Yeah I can't remember the last time I looked for a driver for anything on Linux... Even with nvidia I only install it on my desktop because of cuda, but then it's not like windows comes with cuda enabled?!
It does though? And CUDA a freaking GPGPU programming framework? My parents and other family members give 0 fucks about it.
I actually helped more people to setup CUDA on Linux since the environment is so hostile to closed-source and/or out-of-the tree software. The easiest way to get working CUDA on Linux is actually using WSL nowadays. It automatically links with the Windows driver and places necessary interface libraries as symlinks.
My whole point was that it came with every driver I've ever needed, and the cuda thing was to show that only the most esoteric, non-parents-and-other-family device needed a driver.
./nvidia...... ENTER ENTER ENTER has always worked pretty well for me.
The difference is that with Windows, once you have the machine working, it tends to stay working. With Linux, these are problems that occur after installation and often after sale to the customer. Linux simply takes up a disproportionate amount of my time compared to Windows.
But your original skepticism was that these problems happen at all, and it sounds like now we agree they do, so I guess that's that.
> with Windows, once you have the machine working, it tends to stay working
In what world?!
> Linux simply takes up a disproportionate amount of my time compared to Windows.
I think maybe you just happened to learn to set up Windows first and then you insist on doing the exact same thing on Linux. If you learnt Linux first, you'd find Windows infuriating.
> With Linux, these are problems that occur after installation
Mine has been working since 2016. Never formatted or anything like that. Just kept updating nixos.
> I think maybe you just happened to learn to set up Windows first and then you insist on doing the exact same thing on Linux. If you learnt Linux first, you'd find Windows infuriating.
I'm just sort of confused by this comment. Honestly, I'm confused by a lot of this comment chain. It doesn't feel like you understand or appreciate the circumstances under which I operate.
I'm running a business. I'm setting up machines for customers. This has absolutely nothing to do with my personal preferences. I'm a Linux user of nearly two decades. That does not matter. My job is to deliver a useful experience for my customers. Windows offers that more reliably than Linux does. My personal opinions don't enter into it; the implication that I don't know how to set up a Linux machine is just false. Likewise, that we can produce one Linux machine under the control of an expert such as yourself that works well is not proof that this will work for consumers.
I see that you and a lot of other folks in this thread feel a strong loyalty to Linux and a desire to drive people towards it. There's nothing wrong with that. But insisting up is down isn't going to do it, and that's what this communication feels like.
> a strong loyalty to Linux and a desire to drive people towards it
No loyalty here. It serves me. The moment it stops being useful, I will find something else. I don't care what other people use. I do care that they don't bother me for support. So I'm in the lucky position that whenever somebody has an issue with Windows, I can say "sorry, I don't understand how it works and I don't know how to fix it."
At least on linux such bugs are fixable in theory, on windows they are unfixable even by experts.
According to "corporate responsibility" and "sustainability" at Microsoft they are committed to "swift, collective action and technological innovation" for "carbon negativity" and "zero waste" by 2030 [1]. Evidently the Windows team did not get the memo, as the e-waste producing minimum processor & TPM requirements in Windows 11 have been shown to be entirely arbitrary. One of the easiest things MSFT could do for the environment could start here.
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/sus...
> minimum processor & TPM requirements in Windows 11 have been shown to be entirely arbitrary.
I am curious who thinks they managed to show this. My understanding was that the minimum processor requirement was born out of hardware feature requirements.
I know Virtualisation Based Security is on by default in Win11, and Intel processors older than 7th Gen don't have Mode-Based-Execution-Control, so they emulate it at a hefty penalty (they call it Restricted User Mode).
It's already been a decade(!), yet I still remember the introduction of this amazingly spyware-filled OS like it was yesterday, and the large public backlash it caused. Unfortunately its successor is even worse, which may be why it still has a fanbase today.
Meanwhile, I know there are plenty who are still using Win7 and below, and there's even a nontrivial community writing drivers for newer hardware and such.
This "Windows now sucks and finally will trigger a wave of users switching to Linux" is something that goes back to Vista days, it is getting tiresome, because has it has been proven, unless it is the Linux kernel being wrapped in Android, ChromeOS or WebOS userland, the common people won't even bother.
it's a chicken and egg problem.
People don't like uncertainty. Installing after-market operating systems will always be a hobbyist thing. Not entirely dissimilar to cars: some people will go into the details and even of those not many will customise their vehicle.
Because "the market" is so small, nobody bothers making things that you can buy off the shelf. And when I mean "off the shelf", I literally mean at a physical store you can actually go to and try things.
Having a "developer edition" or a drop down on a website isn't going to move the needle, because you have to know what you're looking for in order for that dropdown to be meaningful.
Once we have a handful of manufacturers actually selling Linux based laptops in stores I think we'll get more adoption, however you can see how strong the stranglehold that these giant companies have on the market when you merely compare AMD to Intel; even now AMD remains a niche CPU in stores despite absolutely trouncing Intel for the last half-decade, and seeing any market penetration in stores took years despite being clearly superior in performance, battery life and temperature - Linux, for many people is not "clearly superior" in such clear cut ways.
Additionally, the netbooks wave proved the point that even when there are computers at the store with GNU/Linux pre-installed, it isn't a pure version of a well known distro, rather a customized OEM variant, as they have been doing since the early days of UNIX, CP/M, MS-DOS, because "differentiation and added value".
It is hardly any different from getting that IoT board, that only works with the snowflake distro that was made available on the release date, and nothing else.
“We’ll switch up everything you’re familiar with, but you see, you really should, because security” feels like a really terrible idea. Your browser is still receiving updates. You don’t need to panic or scare people needlessly. They’ll be fine.
And the conflation of “unsupported” and “ewaste” is also wrong. Tons of people keep using their computers after EOL, including my mom. Why would they notice or care?
Switching your family members to Linux works because they’re your family members. You know how they use computers, their comfort level, their needs. They can call you for help. A repair cafe, helping people they’ll likely never see again? Installing Linux, or heck, things as complex as dual-booting (which they suggest)? You’re kidding! Just leave people alone with their fine, basically-secure computers.
Not sure what universe you live in but Chrome stopped supporting Windows 7 and will stop supporting Windows 10 eventually.
But it didn't happen overnight, it happened 3 years after Windows 7 EOL. The only security updates Windows 10 users won't receive are patches to Windows itself, for bugs or vulnerabilities which most users are unlikely to run into.
The article did mention that it would probably require multiple sessions with an individual to make the switch due to needing to spend some time figuring out what their needs are. Of course, the mileage will vary, but it seems they at least gave some consideration to your point knowing how people use their computers and their comfort level with them.
> Your browser is still receiving updates.
Browsers have steadily dropped old Windows versions faster than the historical trend. I wouldn't rely on this.
Firefox ESR supports Windows 7 until at least August 2025. If you visit the download page from a Windows 7 computer it will show you the ESR download.
It's not a good idea to rely on the browser being safe when the OS itself is unsafe.
Does Windows 11 have an equivalent of Windows 10's LTSC/IoT variants with (most of) the bloat and anti-features excised?
1. That's not what ltsc is.
2. There is even an officially supported version of windows 11 without the hardware requirements
Thank you for the valuable input
They do now, actually.
it released earlier this year.
What's it called?
Windows 11 LTSC
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-windows-...
Brilliant. Thank you very much.
Every time I see one of these posts, I get anywhere between disappointed and pet-peeved that they don’t have the complete/nuanced picture.
Windows 10 support does not end in October 2025 any more than it ends in January 2032.
See what I did there? Without context, claiming “windows 10 does in October” really isn’t true!
…And that’s because the LTSC IOT version gets security updates till 2032!
Now, installing and running the LTSC iot version can be daunting… about as daunting as installing Linux or any other OS. Which this article anyway suggests.
Yes, you’ll need to run the installer again. And yes, you’ll lose app data. But that’s the same as installing a Linux distro!
Now, the biggest kerfuffle is that you’ll either need to form a company, or use one to get a legitimate license key… unless of course, there was an open source tool on GitHub that could help you with that.
Now, if doing that is beyond your moral compass… then you might be better off with some other OS.
I think there is a way to preserve app data by tweaking a config before "upgrading" to win10 ltsc? Or was it only true for win11 ltsc?
There's not a kill switch, you know. You can just keep using it.