Forced obsolescence - again

[MaryD]

I'm a gamer, but not a "Run around with a 4" cannon under each arm" gamer. I use good but nowhere near bleeding edge hardware.

So Microsoft brought out Windows 11 and stated the minimum CPU was an Intel 2 core at 1 GHz. I had two 4 core systems at 2.2 GHz and 3.2 GHz but they were AMD and not acceptable.

I now have two 6 core systems at 3.8 GHz and 3.6 GHz. Mid-range by now? I assume they will be judged "Not upgradable to Windows 12" fairly soon.

If I build or buy a minimum Windows 12 system to run anything that can't be moved to Linux and won't run without an Internet connection, how long before Windows 13 makes it obsolete?

My Windows XP system is still working fine, thank you.

 

[Armageus]

Not sure what your exact point is?

Number of cores and clock speed doesn't mean or tell us much?


Officially the currently supported CPUs are Intel 8th Gen (Released October 2017) and AMD Ryzen+ (Released April 2018).

Even high end 8 and 9 year old processors by todays standards are now firmly beaten by new budget processors.

 

[NetMan]

My Windows XP system is still working fine, thank you.

No its not it hasn't received security updates in years, most software developers have not only stopped suporting it they will block you from even installing their software.

Want to install Steam well oops they ended support, want to stream something that uses DRM protection well you can't because its been depreciated..

I loved XP and Windows 7 was the last OS before they started playing silly games with the Start menus making things more difficult for people that managed networks and used redirected desktops. I managed hundreds of machines with these operating systems but they are dead operating systems now that won't have drivers for new hardware so unless you have a retro computer that isn't connected to the internet then you shouldn't be using them.

So Microsoft brought out Windows 11 and stated the minimum CPU was an Intel 2 core at 1 GHz. I had two 4 core systems at 2.2 GHz and 3.2 GHz but they were AMD and not acceptable.

That wasn't the requirement though was it you also needed TPM 2, a UEFI bios and secure boot but you already know that don't you.

I now have two 6 core systems at 3.8 GHz and 3.6 GHz. Mid-range by now? I assume they will be judged "Not upgradable to Windows 12" fairly soon.

Pure speculation on your part and you know full well that the frequency they run at and the number of cores is pretty meaningless as regards to what features they support also 6 cores is very much entry level.

If I build or buy a minimum Windows 12 system to run anything that can't be moved to Linux and won't run without an Internet connection, how long before Windows 13 makes it obsolete?

Now you are just ranting the Core2Duo I'm writing this on was released in 2008 and could have shipped with Vista since then there has been Windows7, Windows8, Windows 8.1 and numerous versions of Windows 10 all of which were supported.

You can bypass most of the hardware requirements using workarounds like Rufus with certain caveats, you can switch to linux, you could run your old OS and software in a Virtual Machine, you could dual boot and use linux when you wanted to access the internet and your unsupported retro OS when you wanted to use an old application or you could find modern alternatives to those old apps that no longer work.


So calm down and just enjoy your retro PC.

 

[MaryD]

The XP(32) system is for programs that won't run on anything else, even XP(64). It is not connected to the Internet, so the lack of security patches doesn't matter.

The systems that wouldn't accept Windows 11 did have TPM 2, a UEFI bios and secure boot. (I checked one did - possibly not the other) They were rejected on "CPU not supported". One was Ryzen 3 and the other older.

6 cores may well be entry level now (for gamers or in general?) but it wasn't in 2016 when one of these systems was built shortly before Windows 11 arrived.

 

[Armageus]

The systems that wouldn't accept Windows 11 did have TPM 2, a UEFI bios and secure boot. (I checked one did - possibly not the other) They were rejected on "CPU not supported". One was Ryzen 3 and the other older.

6 cores may well be entry level now (for gamers or in general?) but it wasn't in 2016 when one of these systems was built shortly before Windows 11 arrived.

So 10 year old, 1st gen Ryzen...

They can still be made to work with relatively little effort by Using Rufus to create an install USB

 

[NetMan]

The XP(32) system is for programs that won't run on anything else, even XP(64). It is not connected to the Internet, so the lack of security patches doesn't matter.

So its an air gapped retro system, there are people that enjoy building these retro computers out of old parts and using them for very old operating systems and games.

You can either continue using it as it is knowing its limitations, try and turn it into a Virtual Machine or find modern alternatives to those programs. But saying it “is still working fine” is stretching it a bit when many of its functions have been depreciated, it is not capable of running current software and it can’t safely be connected to the internet.

The systems that wouldn't accept Windows 11 did have TPM 2, a UEFI bios and secure boot. (I checked one did - possibly not the other) They were rejected on "CPU not supported". One was Ryzen 3 and the other older.

So it was a 4 core Ryzen3 1200 or 1300x that is almost ten years old which is double the life expectancy of a PC? Then it was probably because it doesn’t support MBEC which is a core security feature of Windows 11: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...hardware-requirements-according-to-microsoft/

As Armageus has said there are ways to install Windows 11 on unsupported hardware but have you checked what CPU’s your motherboard supports with the latest BIOS because you might be able to drop in a newer supported CPU.

6 cores may well be entry level now (for gamers or in general?) but it wasn't in 2016 when one of these systems was built shortly before Windows 11 arrived.

Technology constantly evolves Socket AM5 has 8, 12 and 16 core CPU’s, Intel socket 1851 245kf CPU has 14 cores (6 performance cores and 8 efficient cores), their 285k CPU has 24 cores (8 performance cores and 16 efficient cores).

These are current gen processors and I’m ignoring high end workstation processors such as Threadripper which can have 96 cores because they can cost as much as a small car.

They started hitting thermal limits and couldn’t just keep increasing CPU frequency and its getting harder and harder for them to shrink the CPU die.

So core counts have increased instead but its not as simple as just the number of cores some CPU’s have 3d cache, IPC has improved, RAM has got faster so taking a 9600x six core AM5 as an example it will be 60-100+% faster at the same time as being more energy efficient than an old 6 core 1600x.

The current problem is the cost of parts because the AI boom has taken a large percentage of global silicon manufacturing capacity.