Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #150619 > unrolled thread

The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-19 14:47 +0000
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-19 20:42 +0000
      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 10:39 +0000
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-20 14:12 +0200
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-20 19:26 +0000
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-09-20 15:31 +0000
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 17:34 +0000
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:17 +0200
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-22 14:11 +0000
              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-22 22:17 +0200
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 22:08 +0000
      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-20 06:38 +0000
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 22:36 +0000
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-21 15:39 +0000
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 05:23 +0000
              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-22 15:58 +0000
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 21:40 +0000
                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-23 00:09 +0000
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:33 +0000
                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 02:19 +0000
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 06:25 +0000
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 16:55 +0000
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 10:12 +0200
                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-23 16:12 +0000
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 19:50 +0200
                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-24 08:15 +1200
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-09-23 16:01 -0500
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 02:14 +0000
                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 10:28 +0200
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 16:57 +0000
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-25 21:29 +1000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 07:34 -0400
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 15:25 +0000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:26 +0200
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:37 +0200
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 15:34 +0000
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 16:58 +0000
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:38 +0200
                                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 23:10 +0000
                                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-28 19:56 +0000
                                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 06:49 +0000
                                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-29 16:55 +0000
                                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-09-30 08:30 +0200
                                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-30 17:20 +0000
                                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-30 20:50 +1000
                                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Smithwicks <user@nonsenseurl.com.invalid> - 2025-09-30 12:02 -0400
                                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-30 17:04 +0000
                                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-10-01 08:36 +1300
                                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-30 19:54 -0500
                                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:26 +0000
                                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 19:44 +0000
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 10:29 +0200
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 17:06 +0000
                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:05 +0200
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-25 09:27 +1200
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-24 18:41 -0500
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 08:59 +0200
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 16:07 +0000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:11 +0200
                                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-25 16:31 +0000
                                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:26 +0200
                                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:30 +0000
                            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:09 +0000
                              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:34 +0000
                                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 23:10 +0000
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:33 +0000
                      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 02:12 +0000
                        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 06:19 +0000
                          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-24 17:05 +0000
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 11:00 +0200
      Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-20 12:48 +0000
        Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 13:54 +0000
        Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:17 +0200
          Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-21 10:09 +1200
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-20 23:42 -0400
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:51 +0200
        Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:51 +0200
          Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-24 08:18 +1200
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-23 17:38 -0500
              Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-24 08:39 -0400
          Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-23 21:01 +0000
            Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 03:05 +0200
      Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-22 16:42 -0700
        Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 09:09 +0200
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-23 05:00 -0400
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:29 +0200
          Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:10 -0700
            Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 17:45 +0200
              Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:27 -0700
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 08:57 +0200
                  Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2025-09-25 09:19 -0700
                    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:21 +0200
                Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-25 04:40 -0400
    Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-21 05:28 +0000
      Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2025-09-21 17:40 +1200
        Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-21 13:50 +0000
      Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-09-21 14:56 +0000
        Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-21 15:08 +0000
    Re: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems Marion <marionf@fact.com> - 2025-09-26 16:39 +0000

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#150677 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

On Sep 23, 2025 at 7:51:43 AM EDT, ""Carlos E.R."" <robin_listas@es.invalid>
wrote:

> On 2025-09-20 14:48, Tyrone wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
>> install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.
> 
> Hum.
> 
> I have a W11 virtual machine on a vmware host running on Linux. One day
> I needed to delete some files. Windows refused. Ok, boot Linux from a CD
> and do it. But Linux CD would not boot, because failed key. Fine,
> disable secure boot, then boot Linux CD, then delete the damn file,
> finally reboot Windows.
> 
> Hey, this is funny, Windows has lost internet access. What...? Did I
> delete something crucial? No, W11 decided that no secure boot implies
> networking is disabled, not secure.

Not sure what any of that has to do with anything I stated. Sounds like a
problem with your VM.  

The fact is, I am running Windows 11 on several 10 year old (and older) PCs. 
The whole point of Rufus is to remove the checks for TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot
during the install. Many other people are doing the same thing. Rest assured
that a Lenovo IdeaPad Z710 with a 4th gen i7 does not have Secure Boot or TPM
2.0.  It does have UEFI boot.  It is running Windows 11 24H2 just fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150707 — Re: Some claims about full support for the major consumer operating systems

On 2025-09-23 23:01, Tyrone wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2025 at 7:51:43 AM EDT, ""Carlos E.R."" <robin_listas@es.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-09-20 14:48, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> None have TPM 2.0 and Secure boot. But those are only checked during the
>>> install. Neither are needed to actually RUN Windows 11.
>>
>> Hum.
>>
>> I have a W11 virtual machine on a vmware host running on Linux. One day
>> I needed to delete some files. Windows refused. Ok, boot Linux from a CD
>> and do it. But Linux CD would not boot, because failed key. Fine,
>> disable secure boot, then boot Linux CD, then delete the damn file,
>> finally reboot Windows.
>>
>> Hey, this is funny, Windows has lost internet access. What...? Did I
>> delete something crucial? No, W11 decided that no secure boot implies
>> networking is disabled, not secure.
> 
> Not sure what any of that has to do with anything I stated. Sounds like a
> problem with your VM.

No. The point is that Windows was not happy with the machine not been 
secure and refused to allow me to go to internet. A check done after 
installation of W11. Secure boot is needed to actually run W11, at least 
on some hardware.

Unless you manage to trick W to not check, somehow.
> The fact is, I am running Windows 11 on several 10 year old (and older) PCs.
> The whole point of Rufus is to remove the checks for TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot
> during the install. Many other people are doing the same thing. Rest assured
> that a Lenovo IdeaPad Z710 with a 4th gen i7 does not have Secure Boot or TPM
> 2.0.  It does have UEFI boot.  It is running Windows 11 24H2 just fine.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150662

On 9/20/2025 2:00 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

> Is Win 10 upgradable ?  No.  Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
> hardware.
This is not really true.

See 
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-upgrade-your-incompatible-windows-10-pc-to-windows-11-for-free/>

I did this on one Ryzen 5 Windows 10 laptop we have and it worked just fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150664

sms,

>> Is Win 10 upgradable ?  No.  Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
>> hardware.
> This is not really true.
>
> See 
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-upgrade-your-incompatible-windows-10-pc-to-windows-11-for-free/>
>
> I did this on one Ryzen 5 Windows 10 laptop we have and it worked just 
> fine.

I don't think you ever noticed the title of that link.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150666

On Tue, 9/23/2025 3:09 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> sms,
> 
>>> Is Win 10 upgradable ?  No.  Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
>>> hardware.
>> This is not really true.
>>
>> See 
>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-upgrade-your-incompatible-windows-10-pc-to-windows-11-for-free/>
>>
>> I did this on one Ryzen 5 Windows 10 laptop we have and it worked just 
>> fine.
> 
> I don't think you ever noticed the title of that link.
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
> 
> 

There is a good chance the CPU part is compatible.

   https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/minimum/supported/windows-11-supported-amd-processors

There might some other issue.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150667

Paul,

> There is a good chance the CPU part is compatible.
...
> There might some other issue.

Like the requirement for TPM 2.0 perhaps ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150694

On 9/23/2025 12:09 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> sms,
> 
>>> Is Win 10 upgradable ?  No.  Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
>>> hardware.
>> This is not really true.
>>
>> See
>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-upgrade-your-incompatible-windows-10-pc-to-windows-11-for-free/>
>>
>> I did this on one Ryzen 5 Windows 10 laptop we have and it worked just
>> fine.
> 
> I don't think you ever noticed the title of that link.
> 
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

LOL, you stated " Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
hardware."

That is untrue. What is true is that it requires a workaround.

Actually, Microsoft itself was allowing Windows 11 to be installed on 
that same hardware, without any workaround necessary, for a long time 
before prohibiting it due to new minimum hardware requirements.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150695

sms,

> LOL, you stated " Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
> hardware."
>
> That is untrue. What is true is that it requires a workaround.

Noipe, that statement is quite true.

That you refuse Win 11's refusal (and force it) doesn't mean that it isn't a 
refusal I'm afraid.

And that refusal is what most users* will ever see when they press the 
"upgrade to win 11" button.

* the few technically inclined users like you excepted.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150708

On 9/24/2025 8:45 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> sms,
> 
>> LOL, you stated " Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
>> hardware."
>>
>> That is untrue. What is true is that it requires a workaround.
> 
> Noipe, that statement is quite true.
> 
> That you refuse Win 11's refusal (and force it) doesn't mean that it isn't a
> refusal I'm afraid.
> 
> And that refusal is what most users* will ever see when they press the
> "upgrade to win 11" button.
> 
> * the few technically inclined users like you excepted.
Not sure what upside you see in lying, but whatever lights your board.

I ran into this whole thing two weeks ago when my wife asked me to 
upgrade her HP laptop to Windows 11 from Windows 10 because she was 
having an issue running an application in Windows 10. TPM was not built 
into her laptop which is about four years old.

Took me all of five minutes to a) Google the workaround, and b) perform it.

Had I upgraded to Window 11 as soon as it was available, no workaround 
would have been required since Microsoft didn't even require TPM for 
Windows 11 until December 3, 2024, more than three years after it was 
launched, I just never bothered to do the upgrade sooner.

Actually, it's the Mac that requires a much more complicated workaround 
to install the latest version of OS-X, using the OpenCore Legacy 
Patcher. I've done this too! See 
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1ilxd9o/how_to_install_macos_ventura_or_newer_on_an_older/>.

Certainly I wish that Microsoft and Apple didn't make these upgrades 
require a workaround, but it's understandable that the hardware 
requirements change.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150709

sms,

> Not sure what upside you see in lying, but whatever lights your board.
...
> Had I upgraded to Window 11 as soon as it was available, no workaround 
> would have been required since Microsoft didn't even require TPM for 
> Windows 11 until December 3, 2024

So, whats the lie again ?  That you tell us that the times have changed, but 
that you nonetheless want to make it sound as if "the old times" are still 
valid today ?  That one ?

> Took me all of five minutes to a) Google the workaround, and b) perform 
> it.

A craftsman was asked why he billed so much while all he did was taking his 
hammer and hitting the device.  "Well," he said ,"you're paying for me 
knowing that I can solve the problem by tapping the device, where to tap and 
how hard."

I hope I don't need to explain how that applies on your above statement.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150720

On 9/24/2025 11:57 PM, R.Wieser wrote:

> So, whats the lie again ?

No change.

"Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10 hardware.  You're stuck with 
it until you buy new hardware."

It's not true. You're not "stuck" with Windows 10. There's a simple 
solution.

And of course installing a newer version of OS-X requires a much more 
complicated workaround to be installed on older Mac hardware.

Here's the difference ─ Microsoft did allow, with no workaround 
required, Windows 11 to be installed on non-TPM systems shipped with 
Windows 10, for more than three years after Windows 11 was released ─ 
there was no refusal at all and no workaround required!

Conversely, Apple never allowed OS-X to be installed on older Mac 
systems without a workaround, there was no "grace period." You can't 
blame Apple for the lack of support because the switch from x86 to their 
own silicon made it impractical to continue to support old hardware with 
newer versions of OS-X.

With Microsoft, I think that they should have continued with an option 
to ignore TPM, with the user accepting any risk, instead of requiring a 
workaround.

No doubt that Microsoft, like Apple, wants people to buy new hardware 
since that generates more revenue for them. Microsoft is not only 
getting the revenue from each copy of the operating system, they're also 
selling more copies of Microsoft Office and other applications.

----

“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it 
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not 
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as 
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150723

sms,

>> So, whats the lie again ?
>
> No change.

Kiddo, I called you a liar, and all you can say "no change" ?  Right.

> "Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10 hardware.  You're stuck
> with it until you buy new hardware."
>
> It's not true. You're not "stuck" with Windows 10. There's a simple 
> solution.

A craftsman was asked why he billed so much while all he did was taking his
hammer and hitting the device.  "Well," he said ,"you're paying for me
knowing that I can solve the problem by tapping the device, where to tap and
how hard."

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150712

On Thu, 9/25/2025 2:27 AM, sms wrote:
> On 9/24/2025 8:45 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
>> sms,
>>
>>> LOL, you stated " Win 11 *refuses* to be installed on Win 10
>>> hardware."
>>>
>>> That is untrue. What is true is that it requires a workaround.
>>
>> Noipe, that statement is quite true.
>>
>> That you refuse Win 11's refusal (and force it) doesn't mean that it isn't a
>> refusal I'm afraid.
>>
>> And that refusal is what most users* will ever see when they press the
>> "upgrade to win 11" button.
>>
>> * the few technically inclined users like you excepted.
> Not sure what upside you see in lying, but whatever lights your board.
> 
> I ran into this whole thing two weeks ago when my wife asked me to upgrade her HP laptop to Windows 11 from Windows 10 because she was having an issue running an application in Windows 10. TPM was not built into her laptop which is about four years old.
> 
> Took me all of five minutes to a) Google the workaround, and b) perform it.
> 
> Had I upgraded to Window 11 as soon as it was available, no workaround would have been required since Microsoft didn't even require TPM for Windows 11 until December 3, 2024, more than three years after it was launched, I just never bothered to do the upgrade sooner.
> 
> Actually, it's the Mac that requires a much more complicated workaround to install the latest version of OS-X, using the OpenCore Legacy Patcher. I've done this too! See <https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1ilxd9o/how_to_install_macos_ventura_or_newer_on_an_older/>.
> 
> Certainly I wish that Microsoft and Apple didn't make these upgrades require a workaround, but it's understandable that the hardware requirements change.

In Windows 11, use the Settings wheel from the Start Menu,
type "TPM" in the search box there. Win10 provides this information
as well, so either OS has a check for TPM type (if enabled in BIOS!) .

   [Picture]

    https://i.postimg.cc/vmB9rsXy/TPM-BIOS-level-options.gif

The reason the BIOS (firmware) TPM emulation was created, is it
"costs zero dollars" to do it. At the time, the TPM on the left
costs $25 to add to the computer, and the price has shot through
the ceiling for the plugin one. The local computer store, no
longer stocks any plugin ones, as they know how a TPM that costs
half as much as a motherboard, would sell.

The machine on the right in that photo, has this in the BIOS menu,
in some security section. The BIOS (UEFI) firmware file, works with multiple
motherboards of the same family, and that is how the Plugin option
was offered, even though there is no place to plug in a TPM.

      TPM (plugin)     <=== It doesn't even have the PINS to plug this in!!!
      TPM (firmware)   <=== Using this currently for Secure Boot experiments
      None             <=== Your wifes laptop could be using this setting.
                            This may even have been the default on my machine.

If a machine is four years old, that's enough time for an fTPM to be present.
It doesn't cost anything, and it can use whatever Secure Enclave isn't pinned
off on your CPU. The AMD x86 processor, has an ARM single core enclave,
as an example of some baggage it has on board :-) I don't really have a good
history of Intel enclaves to offer -- the one that enabled playback of
BluRay 4K video discs, is pinned off on a number of 11th to 14th generation
processors, leaving fewer options as potential TPM surrogates there. But
Intel normally always has something up its sleeve, which is why I can't be
sure there isn't something added in there.

In one AMD laptop, AMD has placed a Pluton, but we have zero information
out here in the wild, concerning whether the Pluton appears in a picture
similar to the one I provided at the top. The Pluton AMD placed in the
laptop, is a Microsoft creation. And Microsoft has used Pluton in some
marketing materials, implying it isn't dead. (Even though it looks
pretty dead to me as a project.) That's the way it is with security
processors. Here today, gone tomorrow. The first gen TPM had some
bug/issue, requiring it to be flashed up, and maybe that's what you
find in a properly maintained TPM 1.4. The TPM 2.0 should be fine
out of the box, as far as issues of that sort go. When you buy a TPM
at the store for $25 to $75, that is already flashed to the current
interface level. You can flash a TPM 2.0 backwards to become a TPM 1.4,
but that's just an academic point showing how the internal (Infineon) firmware
affects it. The TPM is a processor, which is why it has a ROM inside it
and supports flashing for repairs.

If you mention the model details of the laptop, I'll try to look it up
for you.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150639 — Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

I fired up my iPad Air 2 today. This model was released on October 16, 2014
and discontinued on March 21, 2017.  There is an update for it. iPadOS 15.8.5.
 158.2MB. 

Here is an Actual Fact (not an Arlen Claim):   Apple support is outstanding. 

Do let us know what 11 YEAR OLD ANDROID DEVICE is still getting updates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150640 — Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit... (was: The truth about full support for the major consumer operating systems)

On 2025-09-21 05:28:14 +0000, Tyrone said:

> I fired up my iPad Air 2 today. This model was released on October 16, 2014
> and discontinued on March 21, 2017.  There is an update for it. iPadOS 15.8.5.
>  158.2MB.
> 
> Here is an Actual Fact (not an Arlen Claim):   Apple support is outstanding.
> 
> Do let us know what 11 YEAR OLD ANDROID DEVICE is still getting updates.

Yep, that update was released six daya ago for both iPadOS and iOS, so 
iPhones way back to the iPhone 6 from 2014 got it too.  :-)

    About the security content of iOS 15.8.5 and iPadOS 15.8.5
    <https://support.apple.com/en-us/125142>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150642 — Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit...

On Sep 21, 2025 at 1:40:02 AM EDT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> On 2025-09-21 05:28:14 +0000, Tyrone said:
> 
>> I fired up my iPad Air 2 today. This model was released on October 16, 2014
>> and discontinued on March 21, 2017.  There is an update for it. iPadOS 15.8.5.
>>  158.2MB.
>> 
>> Here is an Actual Fact (not an Arlen Claim):   Apple support is outstanding.
>> 
>> Do let us know what 11 YEAR OLD ANDROID DEVICE is still getting updates.
> 
> Yep, that update was released six daya ago for both iPadOS and iOS, so
> iPhones way back to the iPhone 6 from 2014 got it too.  :-)
> 
>     About the security content of iOS 15.8.5 and iPadOS 15.8.5
>     <https://support.apple.com/en-us/125142>

Prediction: Arlen will reply (if he replies at all, since he normally runs
from facts) that "The defect fixed was so outrageously bad that Apple HAD to
fix it". 

Or something along those lines. His ego and his warped sense of reality will
never let him admit that Apple has the best support of consumer devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150643 — Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit...

On Sep 21, 2025 at 1:28:14 AM EDT, "Tyrone" <none@none.none> wrote:

> I fired up my iPad Air 2 today. This model was released on October 16, 2014
> and discontinued on March 21, 2017.  There is an update for it. iPadOS 15.8.5.
>  158.2MB.
> 
> Here is an Actual Fact (not an Arlen Claim):   Apple support is outstanding.
> 
> Do let us know what 11 YEAR OLD ANDROID DEVICE is still getting updates.

Just today saw that my 8 year old iPhone 8 plus also has an update.  16.7.12.
 

Life must suck for Apple Haters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150644 — Re: Hey Troll Boy Arlen you lying piece of shit...

Tyrone wrote:
> Just today saw that my 8 year old iPhone 8 plus also has an update.  16.7.12.

Heh heh heh... The Apple Trolls are so ignorant that they think Apple lied
when Apple clearly stated it has never fixed all the known bugs in any
release in its entire history that wasn't the one and only latest release.

 *About software updates for Apple devices*
<https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>
 "not all known security issues are addressed in previous versions"

Security researchers forced Apple to come clean to admit that Apple
marketing has been lying to Apple owners for years about what is fixed.
 <https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/> 
 <https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
 <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

The fact is every common consumer OS vendor *fully supports* more than one
release *except Apple* as iOS' full support is the *worst in the industry*.

Don't these Apple trolls ever wonder why iOS has 1-1/2 times the exploits?
 <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog> 

Here are s'more facts for these Apple Troll religious zealots who actually
feel that when Microsoft or Google from time to time fixes "a bug" in an
older unsupported release that *every bug* is fixed in that unsupported
release.
 *Samsung Extends Android and Security Updates to 7 Years*
 <https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and-security-updates-to-7-years/>
 "Samsung phones now come backed with seven years' worth of 
  security updates and seven generations of OS upgrades."

 *Google put Apple & Samsung on notice with 7 years of software updates*
 <https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/google-pixel-8-software-updates>
 "That support covers everything, including full Android updates, 
  the regular Pixel feature drops and security updates."

 *Apple finally confirms how long it will support iPhones* 
 *(five years, 5 years) and it's less than Samsung and Google*
 <https://www.androidauthority.com/iphone-software-support-commitment-3449135/>

Those are well-documented facts which the Apple trolls are completely
ignorant of because they only believe in their MAGA marketing spiel. 
 *Make Apple Great Again*

Meanwhile, intelligent people make their assessments based on known facts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150740

Unfortunately, Windows takes the cake (by far) by being even worse than
Apple when it comes to the one metric of the most zero-day exploits. :(
 <https://blog.ostorlab.co/static/img/2024_01_10_Known_exploitable_vulnerabilities/distribution_of_RE_NRE_CVES.png>

REFERENCE:
 *Ostorlab Known Exploitable Vulnerabilities: Catching them all*
 <https://blog.ostorlab.co/known_exploitable_vulnerabilities_catching_them_all.html>

See also:
 *Cybersecurity Insiders Vulnerability Comparison: Android vs iOS*
 <https://www.cybersecurity-insiders.com/vulnerability-comparison-android-vs-ios-in-the-face-of-cyber-attacks/>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web