Windows 11 May Not Run on Early Ryzen, Threadripper, Skylake-X, or Any Pre-2016 Intel PC

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
I don't know that it'd be difficult, but Apple's MO is "let's make it seamless..." which means trying to do things for people in the background if it believes they can be done automatically. Problem is that this is one of those situations where you really should tell users.
They could just put it in the settings menu for people to find. This is not just an Apple issue but the industry overall.
It's entirely logical. Why would Apple pour resources into supporting devices for five or so years if it was going to arbitrarily throttle phones after two or three years? That'd be a whole lot of wasted effort.
Why would Apple pour resources into udpates that slow down iPhones and disable devices that don't use OEM parts?
This is why I've wondered if Windows 11 may be this decade's Windows 8. That is, it's Microsoft's attempt to chase after a specific computing experience (like tablets) whether or not people want it, and at the expense of everyone who doesn't need it. And that's what could tank sales.
I believe that Windows 11 is mostly focused on the app store, as it's been a joke. Windows 11 introduces a proper repository system that Linux users have been enjoying for decades and now Microsoft has finally implemented it and it's called Winget. Microsoft is changing their approach and they want to appeal to everyone into their ecosystem. They want Steam to come onto their store and Microsoft will take 0% cut of sales. Even Android apps will run on Windows 11, which might mean Microsoft is coming for Android as well. They obviously want everyone to get used to the Windows app store which is probably why Windows 11 is again focused on tablets. The problem is that Microsoft also wants developers to make apps that target that experience, which is why Microsoft is using a heavy hand to get things going in a direction they want. Might explain the requirement for TPM as a form of DRM.

Every time Microsoft pushed consumers into a direction they lost sales. I honestly can't think of one time Microsoft succeeded in pushing the industry into a direction Microsoft wants. They will obviously lose sales but this is the same company who killed Xbox by pushing against used games. Microsoft has a fuck up quota that they have to maintain.

 

455olds

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
762

How likely is it that these workarounds will still work at launch, cause instability problems or problems with future updates? It would be nice if it worked without any problems or better yet Microsoft listen to people like they did with the xbox one launch and lower the requirements.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,564
How likely is it that these workarounds will still work at launch, cause instability problems or problems with future updates? It would be nice if it worked without any problems or better yet Microsoft listen to people like they did with the xbox one launch and lower the requirements.
Would be funny if Microsoft fixed the workarounds after people installed Windows 11. They one day when they install an update it breaks a lot of PCs. Microsoft is becoming more like Apple everyday.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,016
Why would Apple pour resources into udpates that slow down iPhones and disable devices that don't use OEM parts?
The throttling was to prevent iPhones from shutting down after their batteries degrade. And disabling devices that don't use official parts... that's ostensibly for security reasons (say, a modified Touch ID button could be used to harvest sensitive data), although Apple clearly stands to benefit in other ways if it has a say over part choices.


Every time Microsoft pushed consumers into a direction they lost sales. I honestly can't think of one time Microsoft succeeded in pushing the industry into a direction Microsoft wants. They will obviously lose sales but this is the same company who killed Xbox by pushing against used games. Microsoft has a fuck up quota that they have to maintain.
(Not touching on the app store angle because I'm mostly in sync, even if Winget might not be that big in practice)

It's not so much a quota as that Microsoft often has goal that make sense business-wise, but not for the public. DRM was only part of the problem for the Xbox One — I'd say the bigger issue was that Microsoft saw the XB1 as a Trojan horse for Windows in the living room (hence the "TV, TV, TV" focus of its launch event) rather than a games-first device. Zune, Windows Phone, Windows 8? Chasing after Apple in key business segments without really getting what made Apple successful, and often without parlaying Microsoft's advantages.

In the case of Windows 11, Microsoft seems to want pieces of both Apple and Google, and is pushing a UI and experience that prioritizes those things while affecting the overall Windows interface. It's not nearly as bad as Windows 8 (that was fuelled by Ballmer's obsession with Apple), but I can't help but think it'll have some of the same chilling effect, at least among business users.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,790
I used to have a Surface, and my current laptop is a 2-in-1, actually the touch screen features are welcome.

They were just not implemented correctly, they could have just copied Android/iOS, the tile thing was always cluttered and confusing.

But clearly mobile is the direction the mainstream market is going, so this is not a bad thing for average consumers.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
753
No, it's because Windows on ARM, specifically, sucks. The chips are old, warmed-over parts; Microsoft has done a poor job of both fostering ARM app development and ensuring compatibility; it's a disgrace that 64-bit x86 emulation wasn't on the cards from day one.

You say ARM wasn't designed for the desktop because you've never used a decent implementation. I'd say Apple's is the first — it's faster than x86 equivalents, and the software transition has been largely seamless. It's just a question of whether or not it scales well to higher-end systems.
Everyone seems to forget that ARM started on the desktop - go look up the Acorn Archimedes and RiscPC.

The RISC OS created for them even survives to this very day, and will run natively on any cheap old Raspberry Pi. It's worth a try just to see something that isn't the usual Windows, Mac OS, or even something relatively more well-known but still obscure like AmigaOS, BeOS, or IRIX - just get used to using the middle mouse button in place of the right mouse button.

Same deal with PowerVR, the GPU architecture that Apple used to use for so long in their ARM SoCs - it was an ill-fated 3D accelerator line that lost out to 3dfx, ATI and NVIDIA, though it did score a console design win in the Dreamcast.

I'm not averse to ARM on the desktop by any means, but it does have a major uphill battle in that ARM devices never had an "IBM-compatible" moment where you can be assured that you can just grab any old OS and it will boot. The Raspberry Pi line is closest, but try that on all the Android-based smartphones and tablets with their locked, proprietary bootloaders... it's a headache.

Apple's in a unique position to take advantage of any architectural benefits from in-house SoC designs, because they can effectively strong-arm their developer base into rolling with the changes. They did it with 68k to PowerPC, and once again with PowerPC to Intel x86.

Microsoft can't do that, though - their biggest strength is literal decades of backwards compatibility owing to said "IBM-compatible" moment (though it gets shaky for Win9x games on any NT-derived iteration like everything from 2000/XP onward; I keep a 98SE retrogaming build specifically to account for this), and the moment they start throwing that out, you're better off switching to some flavor of Linux or BSD for most general computing tasks.

The only thing Microsoft really has going for them at this point is PC gaming (which also benefits from said decades of backwards compatibility); unfortunately, that also happens to be my primary use case for PCs, ruling out alternative OSes until the DirectX wrappers and such get better.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,016
Everyone seems to forget that ARM started on the desktop - go look up the Acorn Archimedes and RiscPC.

The RISC OS created for them even survives to this very day, and will run natively on any cheap old Raspberry Pi. It's worth a try just to see something that isn't the usual Windows, Mac OS, or even something relatively more well-known but still obscure like AmigaOS, BeOS, or IRIX - just get used to using the middle mouse button in place of the right mouse button.

Same deal with PowerVR, the GPU architecture that Apple used to use for so long in their ARM SoCs - it was an ill-fated 3D accelerator line that lost out to 3dfx, ATI and NVIDIA, though it did score a console design win in the Dreamcast.

I'm not averse to ARM on the desktop by any means, but it does have a major uphill battle in that ARM devices never had an "IBM-compatible" moment where you can be assured that you can just grab any old OS and it will boot. The Raspberry Pi line is closest, but try that on all the Android-based smartphones and tablets with their locked, proprietary bootloaders... it's a headache.

Apple's in a unique position to take advantage of any architectural benefits from in-house SoC designs, because they can effectively strong-arm their developer base into rolling with the changes. They did it with 68k to PowerPC, and once again with PowerPC to Intel x86.

Microsoft can't do that, though - their biggest strength is literal decades of backwards compatibility owing to said "IBM-compatible" moment (though it gets shaky for Win9x games on any NT-derived iteration like everything from 2000/XP onward; I keep a 98SE retrogaming build specifically to account for this), and the moment they start throwing that out, you're better off switching to some flavor of Linux or BSD for most general computing tasks.

The only thing Microsoft really has going for them at this point is PC gaming (which also benefits from said decades of backwards compatibility); unfortunately, that also happens to be my primary use case for PCs, ruling out alternative OSes until the DirectX wrappers and such get better.
That's true. ARM for computers worked well in that initial context, it's just that it took a long, long time for Apple to figure it out on a truly mainstream level.

ARM would need that "IBM-compatible" moment to become truly ubiquitous, but I do think we'll get something in between for a while where ARM is more than niche... just not universal.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Microsoft might be in a tough spot. I don't think Apple's about to enjoy a giant surge in market share, but I can imagine an awkward situation in the next few years where Microsoft has to bend over backward to rationalize sticking with x86 on most Windows PCs while Macs run rings around them in key conditions. I suspect Microsoft is extremely thankful that Intel appears ready to lean on outside fabs like TSMC for help, because I can't imagine consumer Windows faring well if Intel chips continue to be two or more process jumps behind.
 

TheOne&OnlyZeke

100% Irish
Joined
Jul 21, 2000
Messages
11,088
Stuck it onto an old Inspiron 7000 2in1
Seemed to work fine on it. touchscreen etc all working ok. and that thing has a CPU from....2014 maybe
It was a clean install though
 

viscountalpha

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
2,618
Given the windows 11 cpu restrictions, I don't see very good adoption for this latest windows variant. It looks like a huge bust for both hardcore and casuals alike.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,790
Microsoft has famously walked back on a lot of stuff, so they could be testing the waters here, but they also may have legitimate reasons for their stance.

For what it's worth, I'm running Windows 10 currently because I wound up finding some big deal-breaker bugs on Linux I couldn't fix, but I'm also finding issues on Windows, so it's a pick your poison deal.

I'll give Windows 11 a chance, it may be okay. Or hope by that time the bugs with Wayland on Linux will be solved, because I need it to work for my use case.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,189
Someone needs to explain to me why supporting 20 year old cpus is needed. Even 5 year old hardware. It seems as though they want to focus on locking down the systems for security reasons.

Microsoft owns the OS industry, it’s on them to stop the incredible uptick in ransomware and hacking. Yes businesses should do their part but this need to remain backwards compatible has been a godsend and PITA at the same time. How many countless PCs are on botnets?

It just seems to me like Microsoft should be the ones to force the issue finally. If a business needs Windows 95, 2000 or 7/8 let them use it but start the migration for people with better underlying security infrastructure and platforms.

Granted this is MS we’re talking about but still. I use macOS, Linux and Windows 10. The former have at least taken ample steps to deal with security. Apple more so but they have that luxury since they make their own hardware now too.

EDIT: In other words make the next Windows totally dedicated to security from the ground up. Force the use of security hardware, run apps in their own containers, use FIDO/FIDO2 and push that across the board as a web standard. It already is, but put the OS and Microsoft’s name with it to encourage use.

There are so many other things they can do it’s too many to list here but Microsoft doing a major push would help address a lot of problems.
 
Last edited:

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
Someone needs to explain to me why supporting 20 year old cpus is needed. Even 5 year old hardware. It seems as though they want to focus on locking down the systems for security reasons.

Microsoft owns the OS industry, it’s on them to stop the incredible uptick in ransomware and hacking. Yes businesses should do their part but this need to remain backwards compatible has been a godsend and PITA at the same time. How many countless PCs are on botnets?

It just seems to me like Microsoft should be the ones to force the issue finally. If a business needs Windows 95, 2000 or 7/8 let them use it but start the migration for people with better underlying security infrastructure and platforms.

Granted this is MS we’re talking about but still. I use macOS, Linux and Windows 10. The former have at least taken ample steps to deal with security. Apple more so but they have that luxury since they make their own hardware now too.

EDIT: In other words make the next Windows totally dedicated to security from the ground up. Force the use of security hardware, run apps in their own containers, use FIDO/FIDO2 and push that across the board as a web standard. It already is, but put the OS and Microsoft’s name with it to encourage use.

There are so many other things they can do it’s too many to list here but Microsoft doing a major push would help address a lot of problems.

The simple answer is if you have hardware and it’s running and working there’s no point in upgrading.

If MS wants everyone in the latest and greatest patched OS then they have to realize people use computers and don’t always upgrade them.

I have 7 year old computer that is doing everything I need it to do. Why on earth would I upgrade at the prices right now?

I certainly may not be able to upgrade to 11 but they need to keep updating 10 for a long time. Not everyone upgrades like people change socks.
 
Last edited:

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,016
Someone needs to explain to me why supporting 20 year old cpus is needed. Even 5 year old hardware. It seems as though they want to focus on locking down the systems for security reasons.

Microsoft owns the OS industry, it’s on them to stop the incredible uptick in ransomware and hacking. Yes businesses should do their part but this need to remain backwards compatible has been a godsend and PITA at the same time. How many countless PCs are on botnets?

It just seems to me like Microsoft should be the ones to force the issue finally. If a business needs Windows 95, 2000 or 7/8 let them use it but start the migration for people with better underlying security infrastructure and platforms.

Granted this is MS we’re talking about but still. I use macOS, Linux and Windows 10. The former have at least taken ample steps to deal with security. Apple more so but they have that luxury since they make their own hardware now too.

EDIT: In other words make the next Windows totally dedicated to security from the ground up. Force the use of security hardware, run apps in their own containers, use FIDO/FIDO2 and push that across the board as a web standard. It already is, but put the OS and Microsoft’s name with it to encourage use.

There are so many other things they can do it’s too many to list here but Microsoft doing a major push would help address a lot of problems.
You've just illustrated the problem Microsoft has faced for around 15 years or more: it wants to move on, but it spent decades convincing developers (intentionally or otherwise) that they should expect all software to run forever. And while it's willing to make cutoffs, it frequently ends up limiting new features precisely to avoid angering that contingent that threatens to switch if they can't run all their old apps. Hence why Microsoft gutted some of Vista's planned features. And then there's Windows 7's XP mode — I found it very telling that Microsoft in 2009 delivered compatibility for a 2001 OS so that companies could run software from 1996.

I say Microsoft should strike a balance between its longstanding "legacy support at all costs" mindset and Apple's relatively short window. Sure, support systems and software dating back 10 years or so, but make it a hard cutoff so that companies know they have to drag their computers into the modern era at some point. No special support contracts, no extravagant compatibility features to keep that 20-year-old database app running for another decade. That could theoretically prevent the WannaCry-style exploits of before while giving companies a bit of breathing room to transition their software.

Windows 11 is a start in that direction; I just don't know if it's the right start.
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
14,782
Last edited:

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,189
You've just illustrated the problem Microsoft has faced for around 15 years or more: it wants to move on, but it spent decades convincing developers (intentionally or otherwise) that they should expect all software to run forever. And while it's willing to make cutoffs, it frequently ends up limiting new features precisely to avoid angering that contingent that threatens to switch if they can't run all their old apps. Hence why Microsoft gutted some of Vista's planned features. And then there's Windows 7's XP mode — I found it very telling that Microsoft in 2009 delivered compatibility for a 2001 OS so that companies could run software from 1996.

I say Microsoft should strike a balance between its longstanding "legacy support at all costs" mindset and Apple's relatively short window. Sure, support systems and software dating back 10 years or so, but make it a hard cutoff so that companies know they have to drag their computers into the modern era at some point. No special support contracts, no extravagant compatibility features to keep that 20-year-old database app running for another decade. That could theoretically prevent the WannaCry-style exploits of before while giving companies a bit of breathing room to transition their software.

Windows 11 is a start in that direction; I just don't know if it's the right start.

Yea I’m just looking at it from a global security standpoint. I’m not sure if compatibility causes all of these exploits (the archaic code base), but surely it’s some of the problem. There’s only so much security administrators can do other than routine patch management (which falls on Microsoft in the first place) to prevent this stuff.

I’m not saying MS should control the networks but at the OS level it’s their problem. Managing a Linux or Apple networking environment from my experience is far more secure and IMO easier.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,579
The simple answer is if you have hardware and it’s running and working there’s no point in upgrading.

If MS wants everyone in the latest and greatest patched OS then they have to realize people use computers and don’t always upgrade them.

I have 7 year old computer that is doing everything I need it to do. Why on earth would I upgrade at the prices right now?

I certainly may not be able to upgrade to 11 but they need to keep updating 10 for a long time. Not everyone upgrades like people change socks.
You don't need to upgrade.You're going to continue getting OS updates for the next 5 years. After that, if you expect Microsoft to continue supporting 11 year old hardware then I don't know what to tell you.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
You don't need to upgrade.You're going to continue getting OS updates for the next 5 years. After that, if you expect Microsoft to continue supporting 11 year old hardware then I don't know what to tell you.

That’s the rub right?

Do we start putting end of life dates/stickers on all hardware that won’t work after “x” date?

If a person is surfing the web and emails as a primary function hardware can last a long time. Thanks for pushing them to other tools, phones, tablets etc.

All I am saying is there’s no reason to upgrade hardware for some. If you have custom applications in business this also can become a problem even related to hardware.

So I understand it just not sure I agree or see every single benefit if it.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
33,317
That’s the rub right?

Do we start putting end of life dates/stickers on all hardware that won’t work after “x” date?

If a person is surfing the web and emails as a primary function hardware can last a long time. Thanks for pushing them to other tools, phones, tablets etc.

All I am saying is there’s no reason to upgrade hardware for some. If you have custom applications in business this also can become a problem even related to hardware.

So I understand it just not sure I agree or see every single benefit if it.
Here’s the question though; why should Microsoft care about people just using an 11 year old PC to send emails?
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
Here’s the question though; why should Microsoft care about people just using an 11 year old PC to send emails?

Why shouldn’t they care? On the surface it may be a good thing to push them to another platform. I don’t have to agree with it though it may just be so small it’s insignificant to start with. But if I’m transitioning why on earth would I ever want or recommend a company that does this? Regardless of right or wrong.

That’s probably the very basic end of it.

We have some very specialized boxes (20k a pop) to do some very critical and specialized tasks for our business. At this point they are 5-7 years old. We will have to replace them at EOL windows 10 if they aren’t compatible (Dictated by IT policy). Good discussion I’ll have to check them next week and monitor at official release. Given we aren’t talking one box but 10-20 in deployment. So upgrading is a pain in the butt both financially and for longevity.

I imagine there’s other business that had some pains transitioning OS’s in the past with specialized hardware.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
There is no doubt windows 7 was the best windows interface ever... Why are the working to break it more?

Start menu in win 7 was best it could be... Win 10 was several huge steps backwards. This seems worse
That's not what the [H] crowd said. They claimed it was an absolute disaster that they'd eliminated the Win 95 start menu and I'd swear they also claimed it used up too much screen real estate, but I could be wrong on that one. The whining about how it was going to be impossible for secretaries and accounts to adjust to 7 was incessant on these forums.

Reality? Win 10 and 7 are almost identical. TBH, even with 8.1 - I never used 8.0) it worked the same as 7. It looked different and I prefer the start menu, but either way its <start>+type app name = run. For windows settings, I don't even have to know that name...just describe what I'm looking for and it comes up.

Seriously don't think the way I interface with the OS has changed since the latter days of Vista, but it's possible that I didn't realize I could search until I moved to 7. My guess is 11 will be pretty much the same as 10 and have virtually no affect on how I get stuff done....IOW nothing will change for me.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
33,317
Why shouldn’t they care? On the surface it may be a good thing to push them to another platform. I don’t have to agree with it though it may just be so small it’s insignificant to start with. But if I’m transitioning why on earth would I ever want or recommend a company that does this? Regardless of right or wrong.

That’s probably the very basic end of it.

We have some very specialized boxes (20k a pop) to do some very critical and specialized tasks for our business. At this point they are 5-7 years old. We will have to replace them at EOL windows 10 if they aren’t compatible (Dictated by IT policy). Good discussion I’ll have to check them next week and monitor at official release. Given we aren’t talking one box but 10-20 in deployment. So upgrading is a pain in the butt both financially and for longevity.

I imagine there’s other business that had some pains transitioning OS’s in the past with specialized hardware.
Because you don't generate revenue for them, only potential bad press (security issues) and support costs. Being bluntly honest. EA licenses, corporate sales, OEM sales, and government generate revenue. As does Azure and services. None of which you really consume, outside of Office365 (possibly), which runs on, well, almost anything. Enthusiasts especially don't generate revenue - we're rarely, if ever, buying MSRP licenses! I pay my $whatever a month for O365, but that's about it. My last 6 windows licenses cost an average of $8 each.

Corporate world runs a 3 or 5 year depreciation cycle; all systems <5 years old will be supported. That's what they're tracking against. Sure, they care about the press, but we're not actually really their customer anymore. EOL for Windows 10 is 2024; by then they'll be 8-10 years old from what you say - at that point, they definitely don't care, and you're going to be thinking about replacing them anyway.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,907
The more I think about this... considering what Valve has been talking about (relaunching SteamOS), and now with Nvidia showing off actual AAA games on ARM+Arch Linux.

I have to wonder if Windows 11 isn't really just MS attempt to quickly relaunch Windows ARM more then anything. Windows 10 ARM was never going to sell. BUT if MS manages to get some average consumer hype going for Windows 11. Which they can show off with new ARM running hardware that can actually run games. (assuming Valve is not only working on Proton for Linux gaming but some sort of ProtonARM as well) Well anyway with that stuff in mind... I could see MS making some silly decisions in regard to how they force people to upgrade hardware as well. If your 3 or 4 year old machine can't run windows 11 perhaps that new ARM running Microsoft machine with shiny new W11 looks good.

In a worst case scenario for MS where people really are buying up Steam Decks... and media tek / NV running gaming laptops... as well as potential gaming chromebooks with actual storage and steam library support. Perhaps if they can sell W11 as some fantastic new windows... well perhaps they can convince some deck owners and perhaps even some Nvidia ARM machine (assuming its even possible) owners to install W11. Or perhaps all they have to do is make W11 attractive enough to get potential ARM oems to stick W11 on them.

Anyway just a thought... if the PC ARM push is happening sooner rather then later (2022) MS is going to need something to sell... and they aren't going to want win 11 running on 10 year old hardware. Shiny new... built for the new ARM overlords. Never mind that chromeos or that steamos stuff. :)
 

travm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reality? Win 10 and 7 are almost identical. TBH, even with 8.1 - I never used 8.0) it worked the same as 7. It looked different and I prefer the start menu, but either way its <start>+type app name = run. For windows settings, I don't even have to know that name...just describe what I'm looking for and it comes up.
Win 10 and 7 start menus are miles apart. My beef is, <start>+ type app name fails on win 10 as often as it's successful. Half the time I click thinking it found my program, only to have edge open (cringe) a webpage where I can buy software I already own.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
33,317
Win 10 and 7 start menus are miles apart. My beef is, <start>+ type app name fails on win 10 as often as it's successful. Half the time I click thinking it found my program, only to have edge open (cringe) a webpage where I can buy software I already own.
Turn off web search in start.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
33,317
Still not 100 percent. And it breaks launcher shortcuts.
You mean the winkey + number?

Don't really use that, if so - but ok. I use the VMware/Citrix optimization tools to disable most of that crap (the web search/etc), so... I never notice. :p
 

Axman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
14,782
Totally not following.

Hitting Super and typing the name of the game doesn't work correctly with most launchers if web search is disabled. Either it won't bring up the shortcuts because they are HTML or it won't list the shortcuts in most frequently used, or both.

Windows 10, even with replacement Start menus, is garbage for all of that. It's fundamentally retarded at its core.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
33,317
Hitting Super and typing the name of the game doesn't work correctly with most launchers if web search is disabled. Either it won't bring up the shortcuts because they are HTML or it won't list the shortcuts in most frequently used, or both.

Windows 10, even with replacement Start menus, is garbage for all of that. It's fundamentally retarded at its core.
I just use super+”ste” to launch steam, glance at store to see if anything new, launch game. Never launch the games directly; but I also keep a lot installed at times.
 

Wade88

Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
936
That’s the rub right?

Do we start putting end of life dates/stickers on all hardware that won’t work after “x” date?

If a person is surfing the web and emails as a primary function hardware can last a long time. Thanks for pushing them to other tools, phones, tablets etc.

All I am saying is there’s no reason to upgrade hardware for some. If you have custom applications in business this also can become a problem even related to hardware.

So I understand it just not sure I agree or see every single benefit if it.
This is a terrible take because 11 year old PCs on the Internet are safe harbors for all kinds of malware and spam distribution.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,809
This is a terrible take because 11 year old PCs on the Internet are safe harbors for all kinds of malware and spam distribution.
Assuming they are Intel x86-64 systems that aren't (or can't be) patched for Meltdown/Spectre/Foreshadow/etc., this is true.
Beyond that, could you please elaborate?
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
Win 10 and 7 start menus are miles apart. My beef is, <start>+ type app name fails on win 10 as often as it's successful. Half the time I click thinking it found my program, only to have edge open (cringe) a webpage where I can buy software I already own.
Maybe for you. Literally nothing has changed for me. Now when I first installed 10, it didn't always know which control panel/settings app to open, but once I picked one a few times, it defaulted to the one I wanted. Aside from that, the start menus worked exactly the same IME.
 
Last edited:

travm

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1,908
Maybe for you. Literally nothing has changed for me. Now when I first installed 10, it didn't always know which control panel/settings app to open, but once I picked one a few times, it defaulted to the one I wanted. Aside from that, the start menus worked exactly the same IME.
That is the issue. It isn't consistent, and changes. Literally all I want is a quick way to launch installed programs, just like Windows 7. Instead it's a dynamic trying to think for you list. I'm glad it works well for you, but you just described the main difference, and IME it's not very good at guessing what I want it to display.
 
Top