Does the author think the majority of people upgrade their software, let alone hardware, soon after an update unless it's automatic? The kind of people that would throw out a laptop just for a new...
laptop from 2016 [...] And if Microsoft gets their way, that machine is going straight in the trash.
Does the author think the majority of people upgrade their software, let alone hardware, soon after an update unless it's automatic? The kind of people that would throw out a laptop just for a new OS release are the same kind of people who have likely already thrown out a 5 year old laptop from 2016 for something new.
There's plenty of people are still using Windows 7 today; this site says 15%, and it was a slow decline to get there. According to the Microsoft Product Lifecycle for Win10, it will continue receiving official support until late 2025.
Windows 11 will be a free upgrade, and I can assure you there will be 1000 notifications and a few popups to encourage upgrading. Many will get the 'oh oh, your compuer isn't compatible, buy a new...
Windows 11 will be a free upgrade, and I can assure you there will be 1000 notifications and a few popups to encourage upgrading.
Many will get the 'oh oh, your compuer isn't compatible, buy a new one' mesaage, and into the bin it goes.
Worse, the existing used market will dry up and fall apart. There's enough problems getting old business hardware recycled every 3-5 years, who's going to bother when 90% or more of the buyers disappear because they can't install Windows anymore?
I'm still running Linux on a laptop from 2012, and it works pretty well deapite its age. We've hit a major computing plateau, one we wouldn't even really need to push as hard if we stopped relying on hardware advancemwnts to cover software deficiencies.
If I recall, Windows 10 was a free upgrade with plenty of prompts for over a year after it's release (and generally no hardware change required); that still didn't lead to a sharp shift (at least...
If I recall, Windows 10 was a free upgrade with plenty of prompts for over a year after it's release (and generally no hardware change required); that still didn't lead to a sharp shift (at least looking at the graph I linked in my first comment).
I think we can look to Apple to see how this might work in the real world. MacOS and iOS releases both often come with hardware requirements, and yet plenty of people still hang on to older Macs...
I think we can look to Apple to see how this might work in the real world. MacOS and iOS releases both often come with hardware requirements, and yet plenty of people still hang on to older Macs and iDevices. They just don't upgrade their OS. The bins are not overwhelmed with slightly-old iPads every time Apple release a new version of iOS.
Perhaps some people upgrade just because of the software but I suspect most people don't immediately throw old-but-working stuff in the bin. They sell it. Or give it to friends, kids, charities. Certainly that's been my experience, both of getting new stuff and getting other people's old stuff. Maybe I'm wrong. But I suspect the authors assumption that a software upgrade prompt will cause mass chucking-out of still working hardware is also wrong.
I don't think the Apple comparison is very fair. For one thing, an entry-level Macbook is going to be much higher quality than the average laptop running windows. They are also more expensive,...
I don't think the Apple comparison is very fair. For one thing, an entry-level Macbook is going to be much higher quality than the average laptop running windows. They are also more expensive, encouraging people to hold on to them for that much longer. And for 'expert' users, you can still run operating systems with greater degrees of support still available for them.
In any case, do we have any kind of hard metric as to when Apple users actually replace their hardware?
Android, then. There's a shedload of cheap-ass devices running old versions of android, because manufacturers don't bother sending out update past a certain point. People don't throw them away en...
Android, then. There's a shedload of cheap-ass devices running old versions of android, because manufacturers don't bother sending out update past a certain point. People don't throw them away en masse and buy more, and there are notifications that the OS is out of date - lots of apps simply won't install on my ancient Chuwi tablet which is running some terrifyingly old version (seriously I think it's KitKat), and the Play store tells me so. I don't care because it still does 90% of the things I want it to do.
I think what I was mostly getting at was not a precise like-for-like comparison but merely to suggest there is precedent for people not dumping stuff because of slightly old software, as opposed to the article's author who has fashioned the conclusion that there will be bins full of ex-Win-10 systems from... not a lot?
I would suggest that most people probably just don't care very much. MS had to push really hard to get people to ditch XP when it hit EOL and XP was several entire versions behind current at that point. Does the author really think a significant proportion of people are going to do anything other than click the "Don't show this again" button on the upgrade prompt? Especially if they tried it once and it told them their computer couldn't run the upgrade.
Standard Windows release cycle is like 3 years. Windows XP - 2001 Windows Vista - 2006 Windows 7 - 2009 Windows 8 - 2012 Windows 10 - 2015 Windows 11 - 2021 The gap between 10 and 11 is the...
Standard Windows release cycle is like 3 years.
Windows XP - 2001
Windows Vista - 2006
Windows 7 - 2009
Windows 8 - 2012
Windows 10 - 2015
Windows 11 - 2021
The gap between 10 and 11 is the largest since the turn of the century.
Even still, Windows 10 will be supported for another four years, giving it a life-span of 10 years. It's not going anywhere soon.
The gap between 10 and 11 is also the period when Microsoft changed its business model from selling softwares to selling targeted advertising in the manner of Google or Fakebook. Also, Vista and...
The gap between 10 and 11 is also the period when Microsoft changed its business model from selling softwares to selling targeted advertising in the manner of Google or Fakebook.
Also, Vista and W8 can barely count as "release" seeing how uncooked they were.
I see it the other way around. Vista and Windows 8 were significant shifts in the underlying OS and design language. By comparison Windows 7 and 10 were minor updates. If we're omitting releases...
I see it the other way around. Vista and Windows 8 were significant shifts in the underlying OS and design language. By comparison Windows 7 and 10 were minor updates. If we're omitting releases for being too small, those are the ones to skip.
I'll agree with this. 7 was an iteration on Vista more than I think a lot of people realize. Most skipped it, but honestly Vista was a solid OS. Windows 8 as well. I used Win8 and Win8.1 from...
I'll agree with this. 7 was an iteration on Vista more than I think a lot of people realize. Most skipped it, but honestly Vista was a solid OS. Windows 8 as well. I used Win8 and Win8.1 from their release and honestly Windows 10 (at least in 2015) was just a slightly different version of Windows 8. Since then Windows 10 has taken a life of its own, and honestly I prefer Windows 8 to modern Windows 10 (so long as there is a Start Menu replacement.)
Yep. Visa died for 7's sins. Much of the "improvement" from Visa to 7 were other manufacturers updated their drivers and computer hardware improving in speed. To be fair, it was buggy on release,...
Yep. Visa died for 7's sins. Much of the "improvement" from Visa to 7 were other manufacturers updated their drivers and computer hardware improving in speed. To be fair, it was buggy on release, but with the service pack updates, Windows 7 and Vista differed mainly for marketing reasons, as Vista could be used as the scapegoat ("It's Windows 7! It's much better than Vista! Please try it!" and when people tried it, they did like it, now that their prior biases were wiped clean by Vista's death).
I work in IT and I can tell you with great assurance that Microsoft might not be hammering OS sales to the consumer, they're making mega bank on Server OS sales and Volume License Agreements. I...
I work in IT and I can tell you with great assurance that Microsoft might not be hammering OS sales to the consumer, they're making mega bank on Server OS sales and Volume License Agreements. I work for a small enterprise and we spend in excess of $100k a year with Microsoft.
Windows has the slowest and most conservative release cycle of any OS. They should probably be releasing a big number release every year and just using it as a marketing moment for what they have...
Windows has the slowest and most conservative release cycle of any OS. They should probably be releasing a big number release every year and just using it as a marketing moment for what they have worked on in the year like iOS rather than let them roll out silently.
This marks a significant change in Microsoft’s hardware support policy. Microsoft was happy to tout that pretty much any Windows 7 machine could run Windows 8 and 10. Any machine that ran Vista...
This marks a significant change in Microsoft’s hardware support policy. Microsoft was happy to tout that pretty much any Windows 7 machine could run Windows 8 and 10. Any machine that ran Vista well could easily run 7. They went out of their way to push early Vista support on lots of machines that were arguably not good enough as they were Windows XP machines with different stickers.
This seems confusingly written (or I'm reading it wrong): It seems to start listing hardware requirements deemed "reasonable", then some CPUs from 2016 and 2013 that "meet the requirements"? Does...
This seems confusingly written (or I'm reading it wrong): It seems to start listing hardware requirements deemed "reasonable", then some CPUs from 2016 and 2013 that "meet the requirements"? Does that mean they would meet requirements but aren't supported?
The 2016 CPU meets all the requirements given by Microsoft but isn't on the whitelist. The 2013 CPU meets all "meaningful" requirements from Microsoft, is still perfectly serviceable in 2021, but...
The 2016 CPU meets all the requirements given by Microsoft but isn't on the whitelist. The 2013 CPU meets all "meaningful" requirements from Microsoft, is still perfectly serviceable in 2021, but is missing the full TPM 2.0 and isn't on the whitelist.
Current word is that Windows 11 will just refuse to upgrade/install if it doesn't like the look of your system. There will certainly be workarounds, especially since these requirements are all...
Current word is that Windows 11 will just refuse to upgrade/install if it doesn't like the look of your system. There will certainly be workarounds, especially since these requirements are all waived for things like VMs, but vanilla Windows 11 will resist being placed on such a system. I'm not sure if it'll be uncooperative enough to refuse to boot if its wishes are overriden or worked around though.
Does the author think the majority of people upgrade their software, let alone hardware, soon after an update unless it's automatic? The kind of people that would throw out a laptop just for a new OS release are the same kind of people who have likely already thrown out a 5 year old laptop from 2016 for something new.
There's plenty of people are still using Windows 7 today; this site says 15%, and it was a slow decline to get there. According to the Microsoft Product Lifecycle for Win10, it will continue receiving official support until late 2025.
Windows 11 will be a free upgrade, and I can assure you there will be 1000 notifications and a few popups to encourage upgrading.
Many will get the 'oh oh, your compuer isn't compatible, buy a new one' mesaage, and into the bin it goes.
Worse, the existing used market will dry up and fall apart. There's enough problems getting old business hardware recycled every 3-5 years, who's going to bother when 90% or more of the buyers disappear because they can't install Windows anymore?
I'm still running Linux on a laptop from 2012, and it works pretty well deapite its age. We've hit a major computing plateau, one we wouldn't even really need to push as hard if we stopped relying on hardware advancemwnts to cover software deficiencies.
If I recall, Windows 10 was a free upgrade with plenty of prompts for over a year after it's release (and generally no hardware change required); that still didn't lead to a sharp shift (at least looking at the graph I linked in my first comment).
Why do you imagine they'd put it in the bin instead of just not buying a new one until they need it?
I have a Windows laptop from 2011 that was originally for Windows 7, but it's running Windows 10 now. It works great. I'm not sure what your point is.
I think we can look to Apple to see how this might work in the real world. MacOS and iOS releases both often come with hardware requirements, and yet plenty of people still hang on to older Macs and iDevices. They just don't upgrade their OS. The bins are not overwhelmed with slightly-old iPads every time Apple release a new version of iOS.
Perhaps some people upgrade just because of the software but I suspect most people don't immediately throw old-but-working stuff in the bin. They sell it. Or give it to friends, kids, charities. Certainly that's been my experience, both of getting new stuff and getting other people's old stuff. Maybe I'm wrong. But I suspect the authors assumption that a software upgrade prompt will cause mass chucking-out of still working hardware is also wrong.
I don't think the Apple comparison is very fair. For one thing, an entry-level Macbook is going to be much higher quality than the average laptop running windows. They are also more expensive, encouraging people to hold on to them for that much longer. And for 'expert' users, you can still run operating systems with greater degrees of support still available for them.
In any case, do we have any kind of hard metric as to when Apple users actually replace their hardware?
Android, then. There's a shedload of cheap-ass devices running old versions of android, because manufacturers don't bother sending out update past a certain point. People don't throw them away en masse and buy more, and there are notifications that the OS is out of date - lots of apps simply won't install on my ancient Chuwi tablet which is running some terrifyingly old version (seriously I think it's KitKat), and the Play store tells me so. I don't care because it still does 90% of the things I want it to do.
I think what I was mostly getting at was not a precise like-for-like comparison but merely to suggest there is precedent for people not dumping stuff because of slightly old software, as opposed to the article's author who has fashioned the conclusion that there will be bins full of ex-Win-10 systems from... not a lot?
I would suggest that most people probably just don't care very much. MS had to push really hard to get people to ditch XP when it hit EOL and XP was several entire versions behind current at that point. Does the author really think a significant proportion of people are going to do anything other than click the "Don't show this again" button on the upgrade prompt? Especially if they tried it once and it told them their computer couldn't run the upgrade.
I actually somewhat agree that it's too soon for Windows 11. I'd be releasing it in 2023 at the earliest.
WIndows 10 still has some life left in it.
Standard Windows release cycle is like 3 years.
The gap between 10 and 11 is the largest since the turn of the century.
Even still, Windows 10 will be supported for another four years, giving it a life-span of 10 years. It's not going anywhere soon.
The gap between 10 and 11 is also the period when Microsoft changed its business model from selling softwares to selling targeted advertising in the manner of Google or Fakebook.
Also, Vista and W8 can barely count as "release" seeing how uncooked they were.
I see it the other way around. Vista and Windows 8 were significant shifts in the underlying OS and design language. By comparison Windows 7 and 10 were minor updates. If we're omitting releases for being too small, those are the ones to skip.
I'll agree with this. 7 was an iteration on Vista more than I think a lot of people realize. Most skipped it, but honestly Vista was a solid OS. Windows 8 as well. I used Win8 and Win8.1 from their release and honestly Windows 10 (at least in 2015) was just a slightly different version of Windows 8. Since then Windows 10 has taken a life of its own, and honestly I prefer Windows 8 to modern Windows 10 (so long as there is a Start Menu replacement.)
Yep. Visa died for 7's sins. Much of the "improvement" from Visa to 7 were other manufacturers updated their drivers and computer hardware improving in speed. To be fair, it was buggy on release, but with the service pack updates, Windows 7 and Vista differed mainly for marketing reasons, as Vista could be used as the scapegoat ("It's Windows 7! It's much better than Vista! Please try it!" and when people tried it, they did like it, now that their prior biases were wiped clean by Vista's death).
I work in IT and I can tell you with great assurance that Microsoft might not be hammering OS sales to the consumer, they're making mega bank on Server OS sales and Volume License Agreements. I work for a small enterprise and we spend in excess of $100k a year with Microsoft.
Windows has the slowest and most conservative release cycle of any OS. They should probably be releasing a big number release every year and just using it as a marketing moment for what they have worked on in the year like iOS rather than let them roll out silently.
This marks a significant change in Microsoft’s hardware support policy. Microsoft was happy to tout that pretty much any Windows 7 machine could run Windows 8 and 10. Any machine that ran Vista well could easily run 7. They went out of their way to push early Vista support on lots of machines that were arguably not good enough as they were Windows XP machines with different stickers.
This seems confusingly written (or I'm reading it wrong): It seems to start listing hardware requirements deemed "reasonable", then some CPUs from 2016 and 2013 that "meet the requirements"? Does that mean they would meet requirements but aren't supported?
The 2016 CPU meets all the requirements given by Microsoft but isn't on the whitelist. The 2013 CPU meets all "meaningful" requirements from Microsoft, is still perfectly serviceable in 2021, but is missing the full TPM 2.0 and isn't on the whitelist.
Ah, got it. Does Windows 11 plain not run on those older CPUs or is it just not "officially supported"?
Current word is that Windows 11 will just refuse to upgrade/install if it doesn't like the look of your system. There will certainly be workarounds, especially since these requirements are all waived for things like VMs, but vanilla Windows 11 will resist being placed on such a system. I'm not sure if it'll be uncooperative enough to refuse to boot if its wishes are overriden or worked around though.