Is the windows11 mandate to upgrade hardware akin to older corp's toxic messes? Just a thought. So as I understand it, largely the only reason for the "your computer can't run windows 11" thing is because of TPM 2.0 as a minimum. This creates a vast array of unusable computers that are stuck on TPM 1.x, even fully functional. In the end it feels like an artificial requirement. Sure it's packaged in the trappings of fear and uncertainty (stronger crypto is good right?) But the crypto there is /good enough/ for most CONSUMER use cases. /FORCING/ them to throw away perfectly good computers feels... wrong. On the level of "love canal" wrong, for the amount of e-waste it is effectively driving. Sure the hardware vendors love it. And it's all spun up as "we're keeping you secure and better." But let's be honest. I feel like the real reason for the push is better DRM, in the end. They keep the IP holders happy by making it harder for consumers to rip video. I might be completely wrong, dunno :) It just seems very suspect. I wouldn't know where to even begin, but has anybody calculated the environmental impact (if any?) of forcing obsolescence on computers largely to the benefit of the IP holders? There's going to be a constant rate of ewaste as it is. Has that gone up thanks to windows 11 and the various pushes to retire "old" hardware that is still just fine? I know Linux has seen a big bump of desktop users (relatively speaking) thanks to this. Just makes me wonder, but I'm not in the know to calculate and figure this stuff out. |