> How long should hardware be supported? Indefinitely? Should Microsoft still target 286's? Pentium III's?
One obvious cut-off point is support for 64-bit software (the AMD64 ISA). Another is a minimum speed and memory capacity.
People are complaining because, in many cases, these "no longer supported" CPU models are faster than the allowed CPU models, and they accept more than enough RAM.
> One obvious cut-off point is support for 64-bit software (the AMD64 ISA)
But there are still millions of 32-bit CPUs out there which could be used but are landfill fodder now. Think of all the e-waste!
> these "no longer supported" CPU models are faster than the allowed CPU models, and they accept more than enough RAM
There's far more to hardware requirements than clock rate and memory capacity. If the hardware doesn't support some feature deemed important adding another stick of RAM won't solve the problem.
32-bit CPU is not a good example because it's obsolete in a realistic sense, not by some artificial requirement. It doesn't support enough RAM not to choke when few browser tabs are opened. Perhaps sadly that modern web page requires that much RAM, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Windows supported more than 4GB of RAM for some editions of 32-bit Windows. Windows Server Enterprise 2003 supported 64GB of RAM on 32-bit processors supporting PAE.
One obvious cut-off point is support for 64-bit software (the AMD64 ISA). Another is a minimum speed and memory capacity.
People are complaining because, in many cases, these "no longer supported" CPU models are faster than the allowed CPU models, and they accept more than enough RAM.