I don’t think that the people still on windows 10 are in a hurry to upgrade. I suspect that either they don’t want to or are not aware of the risk of outdated security updates. So in the end it probably will come down to whether those people need an actual hardware upgrade or not.
Yeah this is captured by the "need" with a bunch of up votes in this thread... The average person just doesn't "get it."
local AI is cool and all, but neither the hardware nor the models are really ready for your average consumer
"Need"
These rich scumbags have artificially created a demand for themselves, but they hoped for more with pushing the AI scam. You know, sales must only go up etc.
Linux is the way.
Every person I know either already has a Windows 11 ready device, or doesn't know what an OS is. In the later case, I doubt they would trust themselves to buy a new laptop, rightfully tho. Luckily we have a bunch of old laptops from work, Win 11 compatible. Nobody will buy a new Laptop in my village!
Hi there. Nice to meet you. I am a person. My desktop computer's motherboard is from 2009ish and only has BIOS, no UEFI. I cannot upgrade it to Windows 11 because of this. I know what an OS is.
And for those tech-savvy, or with tech-savvy family members, you can put Win11 on basically any PC. It may run like this, but all the requirements can be disabled.
-> Exit here
You can't seriously be suggesting Arch for new Linux users.
I wasn’t really. Read the rest of the comments.
But on another note i went straight from windows to Arch as a complete linux noob and never looked back.
I did the same with Endeavour and ended up on fedora. I can monitor and merge pacnew files….. but why the hell should I when fedora runs like a champ with software almost as fresh off the presses as arch and basically zero maintenance.
An arch based system was an excellent learning tool but it isn’t viable for the majority of users.
This concludes my sectarian rant. Btw.
Do you use Fedora Workstation or Silverblue? Is the KDE version fine to use? I'm pretty tempted to switch, I just want a reasonably up to date system that doesn't get in my way.
I run workstation with Gnome. KDE is fine, and fedora implements it in vanilla fashion without any tweaks, which is good. I personally stopped using KDE because it doesn’t always work the way I want it to, and Gnome does. Games can easily be swapped between monitors if it opens on the wrong one initially. Gnome took some getting used to but it’s fantastic. Give it a shot.
Anyone who is just starting out with Linux and doesn't want to put in a lot of effort should definitely choose Mint over Arch. If you really want to learn the ins and outs, Arch is great. If you just want a usable computer, Mint is your daddy.
Anyone who suggests Arch as the starter Linux distro is absolutely delusional and has probably never spoken to or interacted with the average person.
They're the kind of people who write "Git gud, n00b!" in Linux forums.
I also won't recommend someone to use Arch as their first Distros. You will not have a great time. You need to learn how to use the terminal first.
Even Ubuntu is fine as a gateway drug. Or Pop Os! Don’t be afraid to recommend easy solutions to Linux beginners who otherwise might not be interested in learning the internals.
Thats fair, i also did it for the memes.
On Lemmy it does feel like preaching to the choir but thats no excuse to not have included both.
the expected increase in prices next year is hastening that timeline in the u.s.
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules: