New Processors Are Now Blocked from Receiving Updates on Old Windows

heatlesssun said:
Porting code for something like Windows isn't trivial. Considering the reception that Windows 8.x got, doing this kind of work for an OS that never gained traction that's less than a year away from the end of mainstream support, probably not worth it.

I've said from the beginning blocking Windows Update was a bad PR move. But backporting kernel code to support the latest and greatest hardware for an 8 year old OS and one that was never popular? No one would even be talking about that if not for a stupid PR move here by Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Again don't defend this on technical grounds... it doesn't hold water.

This is a marketing decision intended to force sell copies of Windows 10. Nothing more.

The technical arguments all fall apart and you know it. Supporting a few minor code changes for a CPU are not hard things to do... if MS honestly can't do that they need to hire some actual engineers. The code that needs to be added or changed for the Linux kernel is less then the number of changes to support a new Wireless controller. Not to mention that ALL of that code was supplied by AMD. The major commercial Linux vendors that run older hardened kernels have had no issues back porting that code.

Supporting newer CPUS for MS is no different. Its 200-1000 lines to support a handful of new features... and another few hundred lines of code changes to existing modules. Again code that is supplied by the hardware manufacturer, MS doesn't have to code for Intel or AMD hardware... I doubt highly either would give MS the information to do so.

So by all means argue if you wish that MS should push everyone to 10 cause its best for them, and damn what a small handful of their customers want. If you believe that, cool by all means argue that. Don't however don't insult the average [H] readers intelligence by suggesting its not trivial to add support for a new CPU. It is trivial for MS... it would cost them exactly as much as it costs them when Nvidia releases a new GPU driver. AMD and Intel code drivers and supply any needed kernel changes for their hardware.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not exactly. Microsoft's mainstream support isn't a guarantee that all future hardware after the OSes development is automatically supported. And it's happened before, Windows 7 was officially supported on Intel new Intel Atoms released with Windows 8 for tablets for instance. Funny how I've pointed that out but no one around here was outraged. While they were railing against Windows 8. Which they are now saying should support the latest and greatest while they trashing Windows 8. And of course Windows 8 didn't go far.
Click to expand...

Because MS had a clear business case for the change with the ATOM.

1) No DIY builder anywhere was buying ATOM processors. Their one and ONLY entry into the market was OEM manufacturers.
2) OEMS where shipping new Atom based machines running Windows 7 instead of 8 to save money... and due to bad press people where buying them.

So their decision didn't effect ANYONE accept OEMs...

In this case I have yet to see anyone point out one OEM selling Ryzen or Brand New Intel based systems running Windows 7 or 8 or 8.1. From what I have seen they are all on board with windows 10.

So this change clearly only targets one group of users. That people are looking for things like Gaming benchmarks of new hardware on Windows 7... clearly doesn't sit well with them. The PC space is locked down enough, it seems MS is trying to lock it down even more... and people are going to be annoyed by that.
 
ChadD said:
Again don't defend this on technical grounds... it doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

If these new CPUs required a new Linux kernel to work properly, that's all the technical reasons needed. I never said these new CPUs wouldn't work with Windows 7 & 8.1, I'm simply saying that unless Microsoft is actively trying to support them, which they are not, then clearly there are technical reasons.
 
Madoc said:
So, now *we* don't determine what CPU/OS combination to use on our rigs, Microsoft does. If Microsoft doesn't approve of our choice, they will block us from even attempting it.

Nice.
Click to expand...

And by doing so, everyone on a PC today will be running solely on MS Project Scorpio+1 hardware in three years time at this rate!

ChoGGi said:
It was supposed to be a snarky question :) I'd think we all know why they're doing it (too many people on 7/8 for their taste).
Click to expand...

Isn't it a damn shame that a company could make operating systems people actually trust for their "stability" and even enjoy being on versus the crap that same company is now attempting to force people on to?
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
But you're always pointing out how DIYers are meaningless in the PC market.
Click to expand...

They are which is exactly why wasting resources removing the ability to run a processor that would otherwise work from an old product is pretty darn stupid. Seeing as the only people that care are a subset of a market that is already pretty small in the grand scheme.

As you have already agreed the negative PR seems to out weigh a small handful of windows 10 sales. Not to mention the real fact that it may simply push a few of those customers away for good. You know where I stand for a lot of people even gamers... once they drop widows as their daily driver, it starts getting really tempting to ditch it for good.

I have admitted that as much as I push and advocate for Linux I still keep a Windows drive for games. I refuse to make it a windows 10 drive, went there hated it killed it with fire (ok I used fdisk not actual fire). When I build the new machine I was already inclined to drop windows completely, now I have no doubt. At this point I only ever reboot for one stupid MMO anyway... and I will be better off with out that stupid game. lol
 
"Unbelievable. I've had it. This time they've gone too far. Ridiculous. Are they insane?"

Me: So you're going to give up Windows?

"No."

Me: :)
 
cjcox said:
"Unbelievable. I've had it. This time they've gone too far. Ridiculous. Are they insane?"

Me: So you're going to give up Windows?

"No."

Me: :)
Click to expand...

At this rate Windows 10 might hit 30% marketshare sometime in the 2020s. The Windows ecosystem turning into a fragmented mess isnt a good sign.

I switched from Windows 7 to Linux Mint back in October. We've reached the point that its actually viable to switch, even if you play a lot of games. Somewhere in the last couple years Linux on the desktop stopped being a hobby side project and got pretty slick.
 
ChadD said:
Another MS decision that effects a stupid small subset of users. Its not like they have an issue with OEMs shipping win 7 or 8 systems. So the only group this effects is a chunk of the DIY crowd who is already at least partially MS hostile.

A group who just happen to have a sizably disproportionate influence over a number of average users.

I mean a lot of us have been telling out older relatives to just buy a chrome book, or apple product for a long while. No this decision won't effect those relative types of course. Still I am really struggling to understand MS's logic. Take a small group of users who is already prone to bad mouth you and be listened to... poke them in the eye to earn just a little bit more profit, perhaps more profit anyway cause now you have to assume they had to write the block code, and are going to have to write new block code to keep for workarounds people find. MS's choices are sometimes really hard to understand never mind justify.

Well for myself... I have always kept a windows drive for games. After win 10 annoyed me I went back to 7 and intended to stay their forever. Its now clear if I build a new Ryzen later this year which I will be, it will be my first 100% Linux system and I guess if I really run into any games I just must have I will be buying a PS4. lol
Click to expand...


Client of ours due to older software has been ordering all new Dell' with Windows 7 installed......guess they are screwed then since the previous I.T company did not implement WSUS / SCCM for updates...? (something we are working to rectifiy) but still goes back to MS forcing the hand when they do not need to in order to implement some power saving crap most people don't care about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
heatlesssun said:
The updates can still be installed manually. The ironic thing about this particular controversy is the outrage that people have over the loss of control of the Windows 10 update model. Yet in this situation one has COMPLETE manual control over the process. It was a dumb PR move by Microsoft yet it's actually the thing many Windows 10 critics claim they want, complete manual control over updates.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!

You're always going on about how Windows is so much more user friendly than Linux. How Windows is so much easier to use. Now you're telling everyone who is running 7 or 8 instead of 10 that they need to do an annoying end run around MS just to get updates for their MS OS. People have been complaining for years about "how difficult it is to setup and maintain a Linux system" and that includes you. Now you're defending MS on this absolutely braindead decision and telling people to basically suck it up. Don't even try to tell me you're not defending this decision because you've been doing that the whole thread. I don't care if you've said "it's a bad decision" when you spend the rest of your time trying to rationalize and explain away how it could even be bad.

Really, I'd love to know what's wrong with you.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!

You're always going on about how Windows is so much more user friendly than Linux. How Windows is so much easier to use. Now you're telling everyone who is running 7 or 8 instead of 10 that they need to do an annoying end run around MS just to get updates for their MS OS. People have been complaining for years about "how difficult it is to setup and maintain a Linux system" and that includes you. Now you're defending MS on this absolutely braindead decision and telling people to basically suck it up. Don't even try to tell me you're not defending this decision because you've been doing that the whole thread. I don't care if you've said "it's a bad decision" when you spend the rest of your time trying to rationalize and explain away how it could even be bad.

Really, I'd love to know what's wrong with you.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with much he says, but I do agree on the Linux thing. I would love to run a Linux machine as a daily driver, I've used them extensively for low-powered laptops and folding machines with custom kernel when CPU folding was still a thing. But on my main rig?

I spent two weeks one time just trying to get my sound card working, let alone the numerous other issues I had. Linux forums are the LEAST user friendly places on the internet. Seriously, I'd rather browse 4chan while participating in a rock fight than go into a Linux forum and *gasp* ask how to do something. The pure, undisguised disgust the regulars show to people who don't know every command ever invented off the top of their head is astounding, and the major reason why it never catches on with the mainstream. They've tried to make strides with the GUI but it still fails to do whatever it is you're trying to do more than half the time in my experience. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, who knows? I certainly won't be finding out from the people that do, because I avoid exposure to them like I would herpes after the last few times I needed help.
 
I can understand no official support for hardware features and drivers. But blocking updates entirely? That's fucked.
 
heatlesssun said:
Of course not. How in the hell does anyone guarantee support for future products that didn't exist when they were developing their product? Be clear what I've saying here, bad PR move on Microsoft. Little real world impact and considering that there's a new Linux kernel out there that includes specific support for these CPUs, well rational and Windows don't mix well these days.
Click to expand...

So, Linux has already provided FREE support for these CPUs and yet you claim it is a lot of hard work for Microsoft to do.

LOL, and you still claim you are not a Microsoft shill. Ain't buying your story.
 
MavericK said:
Devil's advocate here, but nothing in their support agreement says they have to support specific processors. That is just for Microsoft pushing updates and supporting the product on their end.
Click to expand...

Well, if they want people to keep supporting the industry then they should just suck it up and do what we want and not what they want. Too much pushing from Microsoft lately that does not sit well with me.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Client of ours due to older software has been ordering all new Dell' with Windows 7 installed......guess they are screwed then since the previous I.T company did not implement WSUS / SCCM for updates...? (something we are working to rectifiy) but still goes back to MS forcing the hand when they do not need to in order to implement some power saving crap most people don't care about.
Click to expand...

Ouch... ya I can imagine a few people with already running machines are in for some fun. I always forget Dell will still install win 7. Guess I wasn't 100% correct about the no oems selling 7 on new hardware thing. :) Still seems like MS issue is with OEMs and punishing people after they have already purchased something very recently is not going to go over well I imagine. Would have been better to offer companies like Dell the proper In$entive to remove the Win 7 option awhile back. For that matter no one is telling MS they have to keep selling new licences for 7 or 8. Could they not just stop selling OEM copies... but what do I know.
 
Last edited:
Did such a thing happen when the i-series came out superceeding core2?.
Did this occur when P4 was replaced by core2.
As a Gentoo user i can easily use march and make my build not run on certain CPUs but equally it is forward compatible.

If i generically compiled for x86_64 (like Ubuntu and co) and thus the common opcode i can move the HDD around machines

A march of core2 and iris locked to Intel machines as long as the CPU is core2 core....


The fact windows will run on amd or Intel shows they are not using CPU family specific opcodes otherwise it would crash dueto unsupported features

What about addition SoC stuff? It's not needed for the CPU to be a universal state machine and is just a driver that may or may not be made


So why the fuck did MS state older os's won't get updates
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
The updates can still be installed manually. The ironic thing about this particular controversy is the outrage that people have over the loss of control of the Windows 10 update model. Yet in this situation one has COMPLETE manual control over the process. It was a dumb PR move by Microsoft yet it's actually the thing many Windows 10 critics claim they want, complete manual control over updates.
Click to expand...
LOL, except you have the manual control either way. Microsoft is not giving you manual control with this. They are taking away something. In 7 and 8.1 you had manual control even when using windows update. This is some master level shilling. Wording the taking away of something to sound like they're giving you something. Amazing.
 
LigTasm said:
I spent two weeks one time just trying to get my sound card working, let alone the numerous other issues I had. Linux forums are the LEAST user friendly places on the internet. Seriously, I'd rather browse 4chan while participating in a rock fight than go into a Linux forum and *gasp* ask how to do something. The pure, undisguised disgust the regulars show to people who don't know every command ever invented off the top of their head is astounding, and the major reason why it never catches on with the mainstream. They've tried to make strides with the GUI but it still fails to do whatever it is you're trying to do more than half the time in my experience. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, who knows? I certainly won't be finding out from the people that do, because I avoid exposure to them like I would herpes after the last few times I needed help.
Click to expand...

This sounds like Linux from about 2006. I've dealt with many Linux forums in every corner of the internet, they're PC enthusiasts, making their attitudes no different to Windows users - What pisses them off is when Windows users approach Linux expecting it to be a Windows clone and start mouthing off about how difficult everything is compared to Windows. The fact of the matter is, things aren't harder, they're different, there's no prerequisite for every OS to behave exactly like Windows and there was a time when you had no idea how to navigate Windows either.

If I said I've experienced the issues you're describing under Linux using a modern 2017 distro and a fairly late kernel - I'd quite simply be lying, there's just no other way to put it. I'm currently running an X-Fi, I've most defiantly never had an issue with a soundcard of all things.
 
heatlesssun said:
A small population trying to run or caring about running an obsolete OS on the latest and greatest hardware.
Click to expand...
yeah because MS was doing this with older versions of windows... NOT.... People can and still run XP on the latest hardware no issues with getting Windows updates..

just another giant F U C K O F F by MS to it's user base because as we all know Windows 10 runs everything perfectly...NOT.
 
Well now.

This is horse manure of the highest caliber.

So when I upgrade my SteamBox, Windows will be replaced with Linux.

Maybe it's time I roll an easy to use DesktopOS Linux...
 
LigTasm said:
I spent two weeks one time just trying to get my sound card working, let alone the numerous other issues I had. Linux forums are the LEAST user friendly places on the internet. Seriously, I'd rather browse 4chan while participating in a rock fight than go into a Linux forum and *gasp* ask how to do something. The pure, undisguised disgust the regulars show to people who don't know every command ever invented off the top of their head is astounding, and the major reason why it never catches on with the mainstream. They've tried to make strides with the GUI but it still fails to do whatever it is you're trying to do more than half the time in my experience. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, who knows? I certainly won't be finding out from the people that do, because I avoid exposure to them like I would herpes after the last few times I needed help.
Click to expand...

BulletDust said:
If I said I've experienced the issues you're describing under Linux using a modern 2017 distro and a fairly late kernel - I'd quite simply be lying, there's just no other way to put it. I'm currently running an X-Fi, I've most defiantly never had an issue with a soundcard of all things.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with Bullet. I have used a lot of very odd sound cards and hardware... cards that cause windows 10 issues, and even Win 7 now and then.

On the machine I'm on right now I have a rather crappy on board running that I never use but never bothered to disable its nice to use for Vent when I'm gaming in Win7. Its not new or anything Linux has always found it no issues.... the HDMI sound on my Nvidia card works just fine. On this machine though the card I mainly use is an external Line 6 UX2, which causes windows 10 to kill the entire sound system after around 5-10 min no matter what I did... I messed with USB power saver settings multiple drivers you name it. (even though Line 6 ships win 10 drivers for it they suck). Yet Linux finds it no issues.... when I first got it, I could get sound on it no problems, but that version of the Line6 driver in the kernel didn't allow me access the incoming streams from the XLR inputs. A few kernels later and that was solved, everything worked just fine although the UV meters didn't work... next kernel someone added a line of code I guess cause there they went. (100% feature parity with the Line6 driver with nothing to download and nothing to install or mess with) Everything works 100% and the quality and latency I get in 24bit mode is much better then the windows 7 drivers.

I have seen interfaces from Focusrite and Native Insterments gear running in Linux fine. Steinbergs has good unofficial support (as in plug it in and it will just work), PreSonus units also just work. M-audio, Motu, Roland, Yamaha, Tascam, Cakewalk Branded Gear (roland).
A friend of mine has a nice portable Alesis iO2 he uses with an Ubuntu Laptop that works very well.
My point is considering all the high end Audio gear I know of that works flawlessly on first boot without ever having to worry about hunting drivers ect I am surprised to hear you have had issues with a sound card.

Your 4chan joke did make me laugh... but I don't know perhaps I have a think skin, but I haven't found all the apparent Hostile Linux groups people keep talking about. I mean sure you see the odd troll style answer but that is true of every tech related forum anywhere. Mostly I have seen people give honest and good advice, although sometimes the advice people give isn't the easiest way to do something. Long time Linux people have gotten used to the command line, and even though these days there is likely a GUI tool or menu to accomplish just about everything... for a lot of us we just type the command.

Anyway if your serious about ever trying out Linux again. I love Manjaro... you can install using non-free drivers which removes the hassle of finding and installing closed source GPU drivers. (install with that option and you will NEVER have to install a GPU driver ever again, when you update your software any new drivers will auto update as well). If you try manjaro try out their Gnome Distro which is now one of their official desktops, that distro ships with the 4.9 LTS kernel which is still only a few weeks old, but being a rolling release if you want to install the newest 4.10 or anything newer at some point its a one click install in Manjaro. IMO its the best new user distro right now by a good margin, and funny enough its a great advanced user distro as well. So its a win win.
https://manjaro.org/get-manjaro/
 
This will do more to stop people from upgrading their CPUs then it will to force them to upgrade their OS. My next CPU will DEFINITELY be a used Broadwell-E.
 
Blocking security updates on systems that don't actually need to be upgraded. How much is Intel paying Microsoft for this crap? My Dad in his 70's doesn't need to upgrade from his i7 920 at 4.5GHZ. He can still play his golf and need for speed and do his taxes. Of course, his video card and newer drives had an impact but he will not upgrade over Microsoft arbitrarily making this decision. I can't imagine how many older people will suddenly be without security updates that won't go out and spend money to fix this. Whatever plan they have is going to backfire on Microsoft hard.
 
heatlesssun said:
I agree with Mega, it's reasonable to block 7 updates as it's well past it's mainstream support period. But 8.1 has a few years left there. In any case, Microsoft should just warn people, "Hey not supported" and whatever issues arise from it are totally on the user to deal with. As others have pointed out, this is probably such a small population it's not work the negative PR.
Click to expand...

You are quite right. And I think the owners of those new classes of CPU's GPUs should be allowed to write driver patches. But then they are delivered, they are marked with a "Warning Will Robinson" when they are applied that they aren't guaranteed for compatibility.

To ban hardware manufacturers from making patches could raise their ire. Windows 7 is a huge market share and to lock them out of that market share could really piss them off. I know Microsoft has a lot of clout, but locking out both Intel and AMD from that market share is especially ballsy given how Android and iOS are eating at their market share.
 
Perhaps they want the death of the PC, they are pushing hard to get it.
Its a shame for them they are struggling with mobile, it would make sense otherwise.
Its like they are stuck in a rut from before Windows phone died and dont know how to stop.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!

You're always going on about how Windows is so much more user friendly than Linux. How Windows is so much easier to use. Now you're telling everyone who is running 7 or 8 instead of 10 that they need to do an annoying end run around MS just to get updates for their MS OS. People have been complaining for years about "how difficult it is to setup and maintain a Linux system" and that includes you. Now you're defending MS on this absolutely braindead decision and telling people to basically suck it up. Don't even try to tell me you're not defending this decision because you've been doing that the whole thread. I don't care if you've said "it's a bad decision" when you spend the rest of your time trying to rationalize and explain away how it could even be bad.

Really, I'd love to know what's wrong with you.
Click to expand...

Oh I can tell you what's wrong with him, all that EM radiation from his sig rig and vr goggles stuck to his face.
 
Hopefully their business customers, who move much more slowly on OS updates than consumers, give them an earful. Wasn't it businesses screeching at them over wasted retraining time one of the big reasons MS put the Start Menu back?
 
I found if you just don't install the March rollup, updates continue working just fine at least on 8.1. /shrug

Unless they include the block in every rollup in the future I'll just stay here.
 
heatlesssun said:
If these new CPUs required a new Linux kernel to work properly, that's all the technical reasons needed. I never said these new CPUs wouldn't work with Windows 7 & 8.1, I'm simply saying that unless Microsoft is actively trying to support them, which they are not, then clearly there are technical reasons.
Click to expand...
Linux kernel 4.4 booted up just fine with my Ryzen 1700. It didn't specifically support some stuff about it, but it worked okay. And as Chad has been trying to explain, backporting a few specific bits of the kernel to older versions is not only possible, has been done, makes sense, but needs to be done in so many cases that it's ridiculous not to. MS is attempting to coerce people into using win10 over 7 and 8 here, nothing else. FYI, I have a win8 install for some games that also works fine with Ryzen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
SmokeRngs said:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!

You're always going on about how Windows is so much more user friendly than Linux. How Windows is so much easier to use.
Click to expand...

Nope. The singular reason I use Windows personally is because it has by far the best desktop ecosystem.

SmokeRngs said:
Now you're telling everyone who is running 7 or 8 instead of 10 that they need to do an annoying end run around MS just to get updates for their MS OS.
Click to expand...

Huh? No existing Windows 7 or 8.1 was using Windows 7 or 8.1 on hardware that just came out. This would only effect DIYers trying to put these older OSes on brand new hardware. Which is from the beginning why I thought this was a dumb move. It effects the tiniest of crowds yet gets a lot of attention.

SmokeRngs said:
People have been complaining for years about "how difficult it is to setup and maintain a Linux system" and that includes you.
Click to expand...

That doesn't include me because I've never said it. Installing Linux isn't a big deal. Again, the deal breaker for me is the ecosystem. Period. Ease of setup is of no value when I can't use the hardware and software I want to.

SmokeRngs said:
Now you're defending MS on this absolutely braindead decision and telling people to basically suck it up. Don't even try to tell me you're not defending this decision because you've been doing that the whole thread. I don't care if you've said "it's a bad decision" when you spend the rest of your time trying to rationalize and explain away how it could even be bad.

Really, I'd love to know what's wrong with you.
Click to expand...

Again, nope. I get the issues with Windows 10 and I understand why some people want to stick with older versions. And again I don't think that Microsoft should be doing this. But these OSes were never going to be officially supported and while 8.1 should have been technically because it's still in it's mainstream support time frame, Windows 7 is two years out of mainstream support. Again, it people want to run these OSes on new hardware, let them. But that doesn't mean Microsoft has to support it. That's typically how it's worked.
 
DPI said:
There's absolutely zero excuse for artificially blocking even security updates from Windows 8.1 which is still in mainstream support for years to come. I guess "support" now means whatever the marketing department feels like it means. But then I'd expect nothing less from the brain surgeon that brought us Upgradegate and the Red-X fiasco that tricked people into "flocking to Windows 10".

this-man-will-now-control-microsofts-billion-dollar-ad-budget.jpg
Click to expand...
GJKZJqp.gif
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I disagree about "blocking".

If the new CPU's required adding some additional code in order to support them, and Microsoft declined to do so on an operating system no longer under active support, I would understand.

They shouldn't block any hardware on any OS no matter how old. When an operating system is no longer under active support, all this means is it doesn't get new features, it shouldn't mean that they actively stop it from working.

The heavy handed shit Microsoft is doing with Windows 10 is completely unforgivable.
Click to expand...
I think we can agree that Microsoft is specifically targeting enthusiast that are "downgrading" back to Windows 7. In a business environment, with Windows 7 we're still getting upgrades even on newer hardware because of WSUS. Therefor, Microsoft really seems to only be targeting the hardcore PC crowd.
 
andrewaggb said:
Sure.. but 8.1 updates aren't blocked on the millions of pc's, they are blocked for the guy who decided to build a ryzen or kaby lake system with windows 8.1. Probably a statistically insignificant number. But as 8.1 is supposed to be in mainstream support that's still not acceptable. At a minimum they should give all these people windows 10 keys.

It's understandable to not support the processors for windows 7 though. I don't think they should block updates, simply putting a warning on the desktop saying your processor is unsupported and microsoft will not offer any support/warranty is probably sufficient.
Click to expand...

They are able to get Windows 10 without issue. All you have to do is run the upgrade with the Media Creation tool, that is all. No, you do not have to do an accessibility trick, the Windows 10 upgrade has never gone off line. :)
 
Meeho said:
...
Click to expand...

WTF? How does complaining about the management responsible for this crap in any way equate with antisemitism?

I had to drive out of state to fix a disabled, elderly family member's computer because of this forced update nonsense. I'd love to see all the people responsible for that get named and shamed.
 
Their next move for the holdouts is the United Airlines treatment...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
DeathFromBelow said:
This is completely arbitrary forced obsolescence to push people to an inferior product.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is, the stupid w10 has some good things, but MS insist in doing these stupid moves to piss the customers off, like removing options, forcing crap like this and i don't care that others chose to ignored the built in keylogger, that is the worse offender.
 
Sad part is that Win 7, 8.1, and 10 all run just fine and pretty much the same on the latest and greatest. DX12 is pretty non existent so no big deal.
 
heatlesssun said:
Nope. The singular reason I use Windows personally is because it has by far the best desktop ecosystem.

Huh? No existing Windows 7 or 8.1 was using Windows 7 or 8.1 on hardware that just came out. This would only effect DIYers trying to put these older OSes on brand new hardware. Which is from the beginning why I thought this was a dumb move. It effects the tiniest of crowds yet gets a lot of attention.

That doesn't include me because I've never said it. Installing Linux isn't a big deal. Again, the deal breaker for me is the ecosystem. Period. Ease of setup is of no value when I can't use the hardware and software I want to.

Again, nope. I get the issues with Windows 10 and I understand why some people want to stick with older versions. And again I don't think that Microsoft should be doing this. But these OSes were never going to be officially supported and while 8.1 should have been technically because it's still in it's mainstream support time frame, Windows 7 is two years out of mainstream support. Again, it people want to run these OSes on new hardware, let them. But that doesn't mean Microsoft has to support it. That's typically how it's worked.
Click to expand...

1. That's a NO. OEM builders still sell a lot of computers with Windows 7 on latest hardware for corporate needs. What's more MS even agreed to provide updates for select OEM builders just so they can continue doing it. So MS will have to either do the work and optimize Win 7 for Skylake or the updates are agnostic to processors. In light of MS promise for OEMs what possible reason can there be for them not providing updates to all wanting except the blind need to force all of us to use Windows 10
From Arstechnica source of the post: "Awkwardly straddling the two policies are Intel's 6th Generation Core processors, aka Skylake. Some Skylake systems will continue to be supported in Windows 7 and 8.1. Others will not. Certain Skylake models shipped by 16 specific OEMs will continue to receive update support. " No word on Kaby Lake or Ryzen
2. Why would Microsoft care, they should say: From this moment on Kaby Lake and Ryzen are not supported on Windows 7 and Windows 8 due to end of mainstream support clause. Use at your own risk.
 
Hagrid said:
Sad part is that Win 7, 8.1, and 10 all run just fine and pretty much the same on the latest and greatest. DX12 is pretty non existent so no big deal.
Click to expand...

It will depend on the hardware though how well each runs. Skylake added some new power states that weren't even supported in the initial Windows 10 RTM. In theory, though I've never seen any battery tests to confirm this, Skylake and Kaby Lake mobile devices should get better battery life overall than Windows 7 & 8.1.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top