This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
However, Linux still lacks some popular applications, such as Microsoft Office and Slack, though alternatives are available.
Lol nice bait. Real talk though, just toss shortcuts to word.office.com, excel.office.com and outlook.office.com on the desktop and nobody will be any wiser
Slack
??? Slack works just fine on Linux
Quality reporting right here
Yeah there's a reason I didn't even call that one out and just called it a bait. It's in flathub, frequently featured in flathub, and in the same article they spoke with a nonprofit that stated they preload older computers with Linux Mint now, which has a graphical software center that covers both Flathub and the Ubuntu repos
Or use Libre Office which just does the same without costing you money or data.
Go Linux without a doubt. The hardware is still usable.
My 10yo netbook runs the latest Debian Linux. If it was running on its original OS (XP) it would not only crawl but be dangerously vulnerable.
Microsoft's requirements for Windows 11 include a 1GHz or faster CPU with at least two cores, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of storage,
All of this is no problem and essentially any computer manufactured in the last couple decades can meet these requirements. They're effectively irrelevant for this discussion.
Secure Boot capability, and TPM 2.0 compatibility.
This is the problem right here. Pretty much every last computer you hear about that isn't compatible it's one or both of these, almost always the TPM 2.0 module.
That of course is if the reason you aren't "upgrading" is because the hardware isn't supported. For a great many of us our hardware is supported, we just don't want all the bullshit anti-features Microsoft has crammed into Windows 11. Windows 10 was already bad enough with it's constant telemetry spyware, that annoying Cortana garbage shoehorned in anywhere they could manage, the absolute atrocity that they turned the start menu search function into, and the annoying Teams and OneDrive integrations that randomly reinstalled and re-enabled themselves after updates.
Then MS went and had to cram in even more spyware by way of their horrible copilot garbage. All for what? What are we getting with 11 that's better than 10? What feature justifies that upgrade? Nothing, that's the answer. There's no reason at all that 11 needed to be made.
Microsoft's requirements for Windows 11 include a 1GHz or faster CPU with at least two cores, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of storage,
All of this is no problem and essentially any computer manufactured in the last couple decades can meet these requirements. They're effectively irrelevant for this discussion.
IDK about you, but the Pentium 4 is not an ideal CPU for modern workloads. The absolute oldest hardware I would use today for anything is the Core2Duo with 8GB RAM. I know this because we have an A1276 MacBook Pro with the P8600 C2D, and it's barely sufficient. You look at it and the cooling fan begins a launch sequence 😅 and that's running Linux Mint. Windows 10/11 would grind it to a halt trying to run multiple tasks.
Super-slim distros like Tiny Core or Puppy will be a rocket on a P4.
And barely usable for standard user tasks in 2025.
Windows 10 actually ran ok with all the aero effects turned off on my Mac mini core2duo T7600 & 3.25gb ram, wish I could have gotten 64 bit running though.
I believe it, but the Core architecture was a pretty significant upgrade from Netburst. Pentium 4 CPUs were really good at converting electricity to heat 😅
I will leave this here for anyone who needs to use Windows but wants a little more privacy.
If you're buying a PC that doesn't have the specs to run Windows 11, you're probably only using it for web browsing tasks anyway. I'd wager that many of them wouldn't even notice that they're using a different OS.
My PC isn't compatible with Windows 11.
I cobbled it together from spare parts as my wife has upgraded over the years. It was a pretty beefy computer when she first built it, and it's gotten a couple upgrades along the way, but the CPU and MoBo are probably about 10 years old if not older (it's an AMD FX-something, I'm unsure of the exact specs, it's whatever parts were in her bin of cast-offs stuck with a new case and hard drive)
And I'm happily gaming on it. I may not be maxing out the latest AAA titles in glorious 8k epic quality 120hz HDR VR yadda yadda yadda, but I can still run pretty much any game out there on some acceptable mid-to-high quality settings and decent performance.
I'm probably going to have to either upgrade the MoBo and processor come October, or make the jump to Linux (which I'm not exactly opposed to, but I do like not having to fuck with wine and proton to run my games)
It's a perfectly serviceable board, still doing just fine by me, and there's no reason it can't give someone at least a few more good years of use, even as a gaming computer if you're not a graphics snob.
But if I decide to upgrade, unless I find someone who wants to run Linux on it, or understands the risk of running win10 with no security updates, it's probably going to become e waste.
My old PC has the horsepower to run 11. I even forced it on there. I got a tpm module too. But the cpu itself isn't officially supported, even though it's a i7 5930K with 6 cores and 12 threads @4 GHz.
So much for windows 10 being the last version.
This was apparently never an official statement. It was someone in an interview that misspoke.
Where did Microsoft put an official announcement saying the statement from an official Microsoft employee, Jerry Nixon, speaking at an official Microsoft conference, Ignite, was incorrect?
Edit:
When reached for comment, [Microsoft] didn't dismiss them at all
Recent comments at Ignite about Windows 10 are reflective of the way Windows will be delivered
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/7/8568473/windows-10-last-version-of-windows
Well, that's not surprising to see. Thanks for the clarification.
In other words it was the sales department doing what they always do, pulling complete bullshit out of their ass and then expecting the engineering team to deliver it.
IMHO each new version of Windows looks & feels different to the last anyway, so most (general users) wouldn't know the difference - they just need a web browser an email client and an office suite.
That 1 Windows-only program they use is probably not compatible with the next version of Windows too
That 1 Windows-only program they use is probably not compatible with the next version of Windows too
No it probably is, Microsoft puts a ton of effort into backwards compatibility
Yeah a lot of problems with Windows can actually be explained by some kind of backwards compatibility lol
how is this a hard choice? windows will keep ratcheting to shit. it will not improve. the question is: linux now, or tons of expense and trouble, and linux later?
The choice is hard because many charities already have a hard time maintaining what they have. To move to linux, they'd need people to know linux. Many volunteers that support this stuff simply don't and are barely power-users themselves. I spend a good chunk of my day interacting with JUST windows users who have no idea how a computer actually works... they just know how to barely operate windows.
I would also like to mention the situation of printers. I can get my office printer working on chromeOS, Windows, Mac, but no Linux distro (other than chromeOS) wanted to play nice with it.
okay but windows will at some point become unusable. that's not a question, that WILL happen. I already find it frustrating.
so do you rip off the band-aid, or spend a bunch of money to let the wound keep festering, then have to rip off the band-aid even worse later?
okay but windows will at some point become unusable.
Why would windows 10 magically become unusable? It's not like Microsoft is going to send out a firmware brick at the EoL.
You know that you can still install XP today and get online... With minimal work you can actually get online completely on modern sites.
The same could be said for any linux distro.
not like microsoft is going to send out a firmware brick at the EoL
I don't expect it, but I would only be slightly surprised.
can still install XP today
yes. windows xp was a fully local OS, and when you installed it, you stilled owned your computer. these things are not true of windows 10.
the same could be said for any linux distro
sure, and I could say you're a chainsaw juggling pedophile lizard person who came from the future to make sure flavored foams don't have a resurgence in upscale dining at any cost because the consequences, drawn out 200 years, are so much worse than fascism and several possible extinction events. saying shit is easy. doesn't make it true.
...does it? do you need a heated rock?
yes. windows xp was a fully local OS, and when you installed it, you stilled owned your computer. these things are not true of windows 10.
Yes you can? It's windows 11 that tries to lock you out, and even then you can install it without internet if you know the magic incantation...
But windows 10 will just install with a local account if you don't give it internet (unplug ethernet and never setup a wifi).
sure, and I could say you’re a chainsaw juggling pedophile lizard person who came from the future to make sure flavored foams don’t have a resurgence in upscale dining at any cost because the consequences, drawn out 200 years, are so much worse than fascism and several possible extinction events. saying shit is easy. doesn’t make it true.
The fuck? Any linux install will eventually become unsupported. That is my claim to counter your nonsense claim of Windows becoming unusable.
Go take your pills.
nuh uh! there's a hacked version that can do that!
could say the same about literally any software.
the fuck
I mean, i proved that I could say it. and proved how little impact saying it had upon the facts. whether or not you're a chainsaw juggling pedophile lizard-person from the future, here to save us from unfortunate upscale dining trends. you either were or you weren't, and me saying it changed nothing.
any linux install will
they update pretty cleanly without anti-features. it's just a version numbering thing, dude. im sure there's some old hardware that's been dropped, but I'm running some pretty out-there linux installs on pre-2010 hardware with no difficulty.
There's a barrier of entry to linux for sure BUT it really depends on the distro.
The issue I think is "marketing". I'm sure most of these computer agnostic folks would be fine using Linux Mint or Ubuntu but to someone who doesn't understand these things, just the fact that there's a choice to make there is probably barrier enough.
If we lower the barrier of entry for installation and choice for them, the decision to switch becomes way easier, I think.
Sounds like an easy choice to me.
Pick a newbie friendly version. I'm going to suggest linux mint, but there may be better options.
That's literally what the representative from the charity said they did in the linked article
I think it should be viewed as a trade-off. If you want cheaper refurbished PCs you'll have to tolerate adjusting to Linux. If you want to deal with Microsoft you'll have to pay for it: Licensing and new hardware and all.
So, the question becomes: does a particular charity have a shortage of tech people working for them or a shortage of money? Which would be easier to get?
