hardware requirements aren’t that huge … a cpu that supports 11 and 16GB RAM minimum. CPU has to support SSE4.2, which every 11 compatible cpu has. Honestly, this should be your minimum requirements nowadays. Anythjng that can’t do the job is literally 8+ years old.
i just directed someone to a 12th gen laptop (i5-1235u) with 16gb ram and 512gb nvme at dell for $430 in a ready-to-ship configuration, search their site for nn3520gsbbs to find it.
PC vendors are still selling laptops with 4GB RAM. 16GB should absolutely be the minimum (and should have been since 2020), but it’s very much not true that anything with less than 16GB is over 8 years old.
Anythjng that can’t do the job is literally 8+ years old.
So what? How about Microsoft lets me define what ‘the job’ is and I will decide for myself whether my machine is up to it? In my opinion the job of an operating system is to expose computing resources to whatever the user wants to do and then get the fuck out of the way.
The minimum requirements are there for them to set a lower limit on what they’re willing to support. You do whatever you want, just don’t complain when something doesn’t work, or breaks because you’re bypassing those limits.
People do this all the time and then complain and blame Microsoft for issues when they are using an configuration they were told was unsupported and might have issues.
The minimum requirements are there for them to set a lower limit on what they’re willing to support.
I agree and they’re free to do whatever they want. I get to have an opinion on their actions though.
What I take issue with is they are enforcing minimum specs because they’re choosing to put a bunch of stuff in the operating system that won’t run (well) below those specs. In other words they are choosing the job that the operating system has to do (GenAI in this case) and I think that is up to the user, not the OS vendor.
If the GenAI stuff they want to build in were optional then you could choose to purchase a cheaper computer or upgrade your existing hardware to a current OS. By going this route Microsoft is artificially inflating hardware requirements.
My PC has a i7-4790k overclocked to 4.5 GHz. It runs smoothly since I got it when it came out and it is still not a bottleneck in any of the games I play. But if I wanted to upgrade to Windows 11 I would need to buy a new CPU, new main board and new RAM, and it would not improve my gaming experience at all. It was my last machine running windows which I changed to Linux 2 months ago and I haven’t looked back.
That CPU would probably meet these requirements abd wouldn’t be affected. The normal Windows 11 requirements are a separate thing which are more demanding but can be bypassed. Though Linux is probably better anyway, especially for older machines. Itt’s requirements haven’t really changed in the last 10 years.
Like Bro I use Linux. I agree it’s more efficient, that’s why I said it’s better for older machines like yours.
What I don’t understand is criticising Windows over this specific new issue. It’s like hating the Nazis because they had bad interior decor, instead of the fact they committed genocide. Like it’s not even an issue, Windows has much bigger real issues.
Not everything is a comparison. It’s entirely possible to discuss one new negative thing about Windows without comparing it to the worse things you dislike about Windows. I don’t have an old computer, I have a wicked fast i7 12700kf, 32GB of DDR5 4800, 2TB Samsung 970 NVMe drive, Auoris RTX 30170 ti, and a z690 Auoris pro MOBO. That doesn’t mean I want my frickin OS gobbling up my resources. I bought powerful components for my uses, not for Microsoft to calculate how to best serve me ads on my computer, using my computing power. Oh, and I do use Linux.
It didn’t realize I was replying to someone else. The person I thought I was replying to was on a 4790K.
This change isn’t a problem at all, just like the Nazis interior decor wasn’t a problem. AI needing certain instructions to run well isn’t unreasonable at all. They are using these instructions and resources to provide a service. This isn’t them wasting resources unnecessarily, presumably they are only used if you engage those services. Don’t get me wrong Microsoft does waste resources but this isn’t an example of that afaik.
What you and others are doing is a motte and bailey argument. First you say these AI requirements are unreasonable, then I say actually they aren’t unreasonable at all and is well exceeded by the actual Windows 11 requirements or most machines made in the last 10 years, then you counter that the Windows 11 is slow and has unreasonable requirements. Do you see how the first and second points are unrelated? The general Windows 11 requirements are way more strict than requiring SSE 4.2. any PC back to like 1st or 2nd gen will have the needed instructions. Maybe the 16 GB requirement is a bit more than some people have, but it’s not a large amount either and you can just keep using it without the AI features.
I think the 16GB requirement is ridiculous, considering Microsoft’s own laptops and Surface Pros don’t come with 16GB standard. They seem to be trying to drive sales through intentional obsolescence of adequate hardware.
I’m only addressing that last line, but really think it through. Should you really expect, or even want, an OS that runs on a 386? It wasn’t that long ago that most Linux distros could. But they all moved away from it because that limited performance on anything more modern.
The newer instruction sets are created for a reason, and that reason is typically higher performance. If the OS (or any code, really) can use them, it will work better. But if you can’t or don’t, the code will be more compatible.
There also isn’t “any” computer; it’s simply not a thing. The question becomes how old (more technically, what minimum specs) do you want to support, and performance you want to be limited by?
While I agree that Microsoft has leaned too heavily into newer hardware as an expectation, there’s definitely a line to be drawn.
My point was, where do you draw the line? Any answer is equally arbitrary. MS drew it at 8th Gen Intel Core. Would 6th Gen have been the right answer? 3rd? Core 2 Duo? All of them can run Win 10 just fine, and can (at least technically, and for today) run Win11.
I have a computer I use mostly in my office, but sometimes I run games on it, because why not, that has a Xeon x3460. It can run literally every game I’ve thrown at it at 60fps, and it can do literally any workload I need it to do. It’s 15 years old. This isn’t the 80s or 90s where technology is changing so fast that you have to upgrade every year or two to keep up. There’s very little reason to upgrade if you have a working computer.
That CPU came out in 2009. I think things have changed since then. The Intel stagnation issue ended with Ryzen.
Not saying you should throw away your machine, but expecting it to support all features of an OS made 15 years later is unreasonable. They also aren’t saying it won’t work, just that you don’t get all features. It already is way past what Windows 11 was designed to run on (which imo was unreasonable at the time).
If you want to use 15 year old hardware then use Linux. I do anyway for other reasons, and it keeps my FX-6300 server running fine too.
I’ve just moved my work PC from a cast off from a customer - it had a BIOS date stamped 2012, and was a rather shag Lenovo with a … Intel Core something and four GB RAM. Cheap though, ie free. I did wedge in a SSD to make it usable.
I run KDE which isn’t known for being tiny and I have a Postgres DB and a few containers for experiments running. The new box is a i5 Intel G13 thingy - HP mini jobbie. Luxury
To ensure that I am as disadvantaged as everyone else, I run ESET Endpoint AV and full disc encryption on it. It boots EFI and Secure Boot is enabled. I will pass a Cyber Essentials Plus audit (UK standard) without having to employ any misdirection. I’ve also read up on the US standards. The STIG for Ubuntu 22.04 is doable but my desktop is running 23.04 and 24.04 has just come out.
I run my company and we have some customers who have some rather more stringent requirements than others. We also have our own standards.
hardware requirements aren’t that huge … a cpu that supports 11 and 16GB RAM minimum. CPU has to support SSE4.2, which every 11 compatible cpu has. Honestly, this should be your minimum requirements nowadays. Anythjng that can’t do the job is literally 8+ years old.
every laptop that’s on sale right now under $600 has less than 16gb of RAM
it’s not compatible with windows 11, but today apple is still selling $1500 laptops with 8gb of RAM
i just directed someone to a 12th gen laptop (i5-1235u) with 16gb ram and 512gb nvme at dell for $430 in a ready-to-ship configuration, search their site for nn3520gsbbs to find it.
Amazing price but I see $699 when browsing from Italy the USA store (and not available at all in Italian store)
If it was available in my country for that price I’d buy it even if my laptop is still newish
PC vendors are still selling laptops with 4GB RAM. 16GB should absolutely be the minimum (and should have been since 2020), but it’s very much not true that anything with less than 16GB is over 8 years old.
So what? How about Microsoft lets me define what ‘the job’ is and I will decide for myself whether my machine is up to it? In my opinion the job of an operating system is to expose computing resources to whatever the user wants to do and then get the fuck out of the way.
The minimum requirements are there for them to set a lower limit on what they’re willing to support. You do whatever you want, just don’t complain when something doesn’t work, or breaks because you’re bypassing those limits.
People do this all the time and then complain and blame Microsoft for issues when they are using an configuration they were told was unsupported and might have issues.
I agree and they’re free to do whatever they want. I get to have an opinion on their actions though.
What I take issue with is they are enforcing minimum specs because they’re choosing to put a bunch of stuff in the operating system that won’t run (well) below those specs. In other words they are choosing the job that the operating system has to do (GenAI in this case) and I think that is up to the user, not the OS vendor.
If the GenAI stuff they want to build in were optional then you could choose to purchase a cheaper computer or upgrade your existing hardware to a current OS. By going this route Microsoft is artificially inflating hardware requirements.
Most people don’t want Win 11.
My PC has a i7-4790k overclocked to 4.5 GHz. It runs smoothly since I got it when it came out and it is still not a bottleneck in any of the games I play. But if I wanted to upgrade to Windows 11 I would need to buy a new CPU, new main board and new RAM, and it would not improve my gaming experience at all. It was my last machine running windows which I changed to Linux 2 months ago and I haven’t looked back.
That CPU would probably meet these requirements abd wouldn’t be affected. The normal Windows 11 requirements are a separate thing which are more demanding but can be bypassed. Though Linux is probably better anyway, especially for older machines. Itt’s requirements haven’t really changed in the last 10 years.
Idk about you, but I want an OS that is efficient, not one that gobbles every resource I have.
Like Bro I use Linux. I agree it’s more efficient, that’s why I said it’s better for older machines like yours.
What I don’t understand is criticising Windows over this specific new issue. It’s like hating the Nazis because they had bad interior decor, instead of the fact they committed genocide. Like it’s not even an issue, Windows has much bigger real issues.
Not everything is a comparison. It’s entirely possible to discuss one new negative thing about Windows without comparing it to the worse things you dislike about Windows. I don’t have an old computer, I have a wicked fast i7 12700kf, 32GB of DDR5 4800, 2TB Samsung 970 NVMe drive, Auoris RTX 30170 ti, and a z690 Auoris pro MOBO. That doesn’t mean I want my frickin OS gobbling up my resources. I bought powerful components for my uses, not for Microsoft to calculate how to best serve me ads on my computer, using my computing power. Oh, and I do use Linux.
It didn’t realize I was replying to someone else. The person I thought I was replying to was on a 4790K.
This change isn’t a problem at all, just like the Nazis interior decor wasn’t a problem. AI needing certain instructions to run well isn’t unreasonable at all. They are using these instructions and resources to provide a service. This isn’t them wasting resources unnecessarily, presumably they are only used if you engage those services. Don’t get me wrong Microsoft does waste resources but this isn’t an example of that afaik.
What you and others are doing is a motte and bailey argument. First you say these AI requirements are unreasonable, then I say actually they aren’t unreasonable at all and is well exceeded by the actual Windows 11 requirements or most machines made in the last 10 years, then you counter that the Windows 11 is slow and has unreasonable requirements. Do you see how the first and second points are unrelated? The general Windows 11 requirements are way more strict than requiring SSE 4.2. any PC back to like 1st or 2nd gen will have the needed instructions. Maybe the 16 GB requirement is a bit more than some people have, but it’s not a large amount either and you can just keep using it without the AI features.
I think the 16GB requirement is ridiculous, considering Microsoft’s own laptops and Surface Pros don’t come with 16GB standard. They seem to be trying to drive sales through intentional obsolescence of adequate hardware.
16 GB should be the minimum for a new PC these days. The fact they are selling less takes the piss.
you should be able to ‘rufus’ an installer for that. the instruction in the ‘new’ minimum requirement dates back to 1st gen.
Imagine unironically defending Microsoft making their product shittier
Maybe they should just make the OS work on any computer? Kinda seems like they’re shooting themselves in the foot, yeah?
I’m only addressing that last line, but really think it through. Should you really expect, or even want, an OS that runs on a 386? It wasn’t that long ago that most Linux distros could. But they all moved away from it because that limited performance on anything more modern.
The newer instruction sets are created for a reason, and that reason is typically higher performance. If the OS (or any code, really) can use them, it will work better. But if you can’t or don’t, the code will be more compatible.
There also isn’t “any” computer; it’s simply not a thing. The question becomes how old (more technically, what minimum specs) do you want to support, and performance you want to be limited by?
While I agree that Microsoft has leaned too heavily into newer hardware as an expectation, there’s definitely a line to be drawn.
I’m not sure if you are overthinking, by trying to equate a 386 with a top of the line only a few years old.
Or if you under-thought, buy not going back to a 286, or an XT, or a mainframe.
Or that you are in lala land by not including Macs on a Power PC chip.
My point was, where do you draw the line? Any answer is equally arbitrary. MS drew it at 8th Gen Intel Core. Would 6th Gen have been the right answer? 3rd? Core 2 Duo? All of them can run Win 10 just fine, and can (at least technically, and for today) run Win11.
I have a computer I use mostly in my office, but sometimes I run games on it, because why not, that has a Xeon x3460. It can run literally every game I’ve thrown at it at 60fps, and it can do literally any workload I need it to do. It’s 15 years old. This isn’t the 80s or 90s where technology is changing so fast that you have to upgrade every year or two to keep up. There’s very little reason to upgrade if you have a working computer.
That CPU came out in 2009. I think things have changed since then. The Intel stagnation issue ended with Ryzen.
Not saying you should throw away your machine, but expecting it to support all features of an OS made 15 years later is unreasonable. They also aren’t saying it won’t work, just that you don’t get all features. It already is way past what Windows 11 was designed to run on (which imo was unreasonable at the time).
If you want to use 15 year old hardware then use Linux. I do anyway for other reasons, and it keeps my FX-6300 server running fine too.
Funny. Linux doesn’t care how old your hardware is. It still works fine. Too bad Windows can’t be that robust.
I’ve just moved my work PC from a cast off from a customer - it had a BIOS date stamped 2012, and was a rather shag Lenovo with a … Intel Core something and four GB RAM. Cheap though, ie free. I did wedge in a SSD to make it usable.
I run KDE which isn’t known for being tiny and I have a Postgres DB and a few containers for experiments running. The new box is a i5 Intel G13 thingy - HP mini jobbie. Luxury
To ensure that I am as disadvantaged as everyone else, I run ESET Endpoint AV and full disc encryption on it. It boots EFI and Secure Boot is enabled. I will pass a Cyber Essentials Plus audit (UK standard) without having to employ any misdirection. I’ve also read up on the US standards. The STIG for Ubuntu 22.04 is doable but my desktop is running 23.04 and 24.04 has just come out.
I run my company and we have some customers who have some rather more stringent requirements than others. We also have our own standards.
Please stop! I can only get so hard!
Do you need my PayPal or Venmo account so you can send me money to replace perfectly working hardware?
Microsoft itself doesn’t even sell their own laptops with 16GB RAM standard, it’s always an expensive upgrade.