These devices were largely sold as "Windows Computers". Soon, they will no longer be "Windows Computers". Instead they will be expensive paperweights. Microsoft is 100% responsible.

> But this article could be written at any time, with any version of Windows

Completely wrong. Previously you always could install the newer Windows. It might be slow, but it'd work. Microsoft has now gone out of their way to specifically forbid installing Windows 11 on old hardware so they can enforce DRM.

The only reason for any of this is because someone managed to convince microsoft that they should only support hardware with a modern TPM which the typical user will not benefit from. Instead it benefits those who wish to push DRM and "trusted computing", which is not the end user.

> Previously you always could install the newer Windows. It might be slow, but it'd work.

Windows has always had published minimum requirements and actual minimim requirements.

A 286 will run Windows 3, but not Windows 95 or NT.

A 486 will run Windows 2000 slowly, but I'm pretty sure you need a Pentium for XP (wikipedia says Pentium 233 Mhz).

There's plenty of examples of increased requirements over time. The TPM requirement may be different in character, as it's simple to bypass and Windows 11 then reportedly runs fine, but it's certainly prescendented that some equipment that ran the old version can't run the new version.

All your examples are from more than two decades ago when computer hardware was actually still evolving, and like you say, those changes actually had some basis in reality other than greed. The TPM debacle is 100% artificial. This is worsened by Microsoft marketing Windows 10 as "the last Windows you'll need" when they released it.

Those examples were just the easiest to lookup and communicate.

Windows 8 and later updates of Windows 7 require SSE2. Windows 8.1 can be ignored. Windows 10 requires SSE2, PAE, and NX for 32-bit or AMD64 with specific support.

Microsoft clearly didn't anticipate Apple switching away from version 10, which necesitates Microsoft switching from version 10 to combat the version number gap. There'a still potential for Microsoft to backpedal on TPM, or deploy something that justifies it. Alternatively, if Windows 10 is the last Windows I'll need, I guess I'll move to FreeBSD.

That happened naturally as early Windows developed alongside rapidly improving hardware. The situation today is due to an arbitrary policy decision by Microsoft. Microsoft could easily create a SKU of Windows 11 that runs as well on ten year old hardware as Windows 10 does.

Seems like the manufacturer who told you this was a forever computer should share some of the blame. I don't recall Microsoft saying that.

I don't recall anyone saying "This computer will stop working in X years". In fact I recall Microsoft saying that Windows 10 would be the last Windows version ever.

And even if they did say the computers would have an artifically limited lifespan: It's bullshit. It works fine. The greedy bigcorps just want more $$$ so they exploit you.

Not that this personally affects me, since I've been running Linux for years.

> Previously you always could install the newer Windows. It might be slow, but it'd work.

Not really. You can't run XP on a 386. It requires the Pentium instruction set.

Minimum requirements really do exist. It's not only about speed.