• Nollij
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’m only addressing that last line, but really think it through. Should you really expect, or even want, an OS that runs on a 386? It wasn’t that long ago that most Linux distros could. But they all moved away from it because that limited performance on anything more modern.

    The newer instruction sets are created for a reason, and that reason is typically higher performance. If the OS (or any code, really) can use them, it will work better. But if you can’t or don’t, the code will be more compatible.

    There also isn’t “any” computer; it’s simply not a thing. The question becomes how old (more technically, what minimum specs) do you want to support, and performance you want to be limited by?

    While I agree that Microsoft has leaned too heavily into newer hardware as an expectation, there’s definitely a line to be drawn.

    • BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not sure if you are overthinking, by trying to equate a 386 with a top of the line only a few years old.

      Or if you under-thought, buy not going back to a 286, or an XT, or a mainframe.

      Or that you are in lala land by not including Macs on a Power PC chip.

      • Nollij
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        My point was, where do you draw the line? Any answer is equally arbitrary. MS drew it at 8th Gen Intel Core. Would 6th Gen have been the right answer? 3rd? Core 2 Duo? All of them can run Win 10 just fine, and can (at least technically, and for today) run Win11.