this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
653 points (96.6% liked)

linuxmemes

20753 readers
1467 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 99 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The joke is that the system requirements for Linux can be effectively nothing, but of course, some sort of processor is required. It’s hyperbole.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think it's also relevant with Windows 10 nearing the end of support, meaning a lot of devices that "can't run windows 11" are "heading to the landfills" (according to some news articles)

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Fact: If it can run Win10, it can run Win11.

Those limitations imposed by MS can be circumvented with Rufus.

I've successfully installed Win11 on a Core2Quad with 2GB of RAM... on a spinning drive.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That thing must be blazing fast too.

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My point was, it can be done.

That rig is currently running a dual boot Void/Win10 install. Sure, the Win10 install is slow AF (did I mention the spinning drive is IDE 😅), but I only use that if I have to and there is no other choice (software extremely tied to Windows and not even Wine can help). Also, I usually use LTSC editions (can't be bothered with debloating and it's officially supported by MS, so there are no hickups during updates and stuff like that) and that also helps a lot to be honest (regarding speed).

So, in general, if you only need Windows from time to time, yes, it is a viable option.

[–] noproblemmy@programming.dev 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At this point it is about malicious compliance. Oops I can't have windows anymore.

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I still don't get why they did that, that just hurts their market share... probably not by a lot, but still, some people will look into other options if they think their computer is good enough for them.

[–] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 3 points 1 month ago

They also get a lot of people to buy new hardware

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sure it can be done, but no corporation in the world will do that and the extremely large population of people who simply don't care all that much about computers (and I don't mean that as an insult) won't do it either.

So effectively, a whole bunch of machines will get scrapped or their users won't get any updates. And knowing MS' history, they'll probably scare people into buying a new PC via pop-ups every week.

[–] 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, as much as I'd hate to admit it, that is true. I was just pointing out the fact that it can be done, for those that might not know that it can be done (a lot of dual booters out there, including myself).