7/8.1 - Windows Updates Locked on Newer CPUs

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,726
Reading that Windows 7 and 8.1 on Kaby Lake, Ryzen, and a few other newer CPU's can no longer receive updates. Upgrading to 10 is the only option to continue receiving updates.

Anyone see this on theirs?
 
Reading that Windows 7 and 8.1 on Kaby Lake, Ryzen, and a few other newer CPU's can no longer receive updates. Upgrading to 10 is the only option to continue receiving updates.

Anyone see this on theirs?

source?
 
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...ch-you-receive-a-your-pc-uses-a-processor-tha
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-suspends-updates-kaby-lake-ryzen,33920.html
http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...ke-users-out-of-updates-on-windows-7-and-8-1/

Many other links out there...news is starting to make the rounds, it seems.

Seems like this is only related to Windows Update/Microsoft Update scanning for updates, but not installing the updates manually, piecemeal. In that case, you should be able to use a tool like WSUSOffline to do your updating.
 
Seems like this is only related to Windows Update/Microsoft Update scanning for updates, but not installing the updates manually, piecemeal. In that case, you should be able to use a tool like WSUSOffline to do your updating.
Exactly. Was thinking the same thing. But for as much bashing as people are doing for the updates coming out for Windows, I bet many of the power users on newer hardware that want 7 probably would be happy without getting updates anyways.
 
I get that the new chips won't be supported driver wise. MS/Intel/AMD have been very up front about that. I believe the Kaby Lake boxes even say something like Win 10 only. But that is still really shitty of MS to flat out disable updates. We all know in the long run they're just flexing their muscle and trying to force people into Windows 10 another way.

If an update breaks Windows 7 on somebody who says fuck it i'm using Windows 7 on my new Ryzen build that's on them. MS should just point, laugh, and say "told you so."
 
I get that the new chips won't be supported driver wise. MS/Intel/AMD have been very up front about that. I believe the Kaby Lake boxes even say something like Win 10 only. But that is still really shitty of MS to flat out disable updates. We all know in the long run they're just flexing their muscle and trying to force people into Windows 10 another way.

If an update breaks Windows 7 on somebody who says fuck it i'm using Windows 7 on my new Ryzen build that's on them. MS should just point, laugh, and say "told you so."
Another way to look at it is moving forward Microsoft may not want to verify updates on those platforms to avoid "told you so" moments. They don't want to push out an update that bricks an OS because it's not compatible with your platform.
 
Another way to look at it is moving forward Microsoft may not want to verify updates on those platforms to avoid "told you so" moments. They don't want to push out an update that bricks an OS because it's not compatible with your platform.

I get that. But at the same time it's an incredibly small percentage of users who would even be doing this. If you build a Ryzen or Kaby Lake system and you choose to use Windows 7 you're a fool to begin with. So many things say WIN10 ONLY on the new hardware. If the user still wants to ignore that and their system gets borked because of it that sure as hell isn't MS's fault. At that point you can't fix stupid.

Earlier in the thread it was talked about installing stuff piecemeal. Is it still MS's fault then if a user goes that route and a patch borks the system?
 
I get that. But at the same time it's an incredibly small percentage of users who would even be doing this. If you build a Ryzen or Kaby Lake system and you choose to use Windows 7 you're a fool to begin with. So many things say WIN10 ONLY on the new hardware. If the user still wants to ignore that and their system gets borked because of it that sure as hell isn't MS's fault. At that point you can't fix stupid.

Earlier in the thread it was talked about installing stuff piecemeal. Is it still MS's fault then if a user goes that route and a patch borks the system?

Just happens that games on Ryzen run faster under Windows 7 than Windows 10. There are videos all over youtube on it. Win10 will bork system before Win7 does.
 
I will never install Windows 10. My 10/20 cpu runs better on Windows 7 and i have better gaming and every other experience on Windows 7 than on Windows 10 and i boot Windows 7 from Nvme M.2 drive. f. MS.
 
If you build a Ryzen or Kaby Lake system and you choose to use Windows 7 you're a fool to begin with.
Why? Maybe people don't want to concede a lack of control with Win10. Maybe they don't like the telemetry. Maybe they don't like the ads.
I'd rather use 8.1 than 10, because at least 8.1 still has control over updates, no telemetry (if you don't install those updates), and no ads.
If an update borks a 7 or 8.1 machine, then the update should have been pulled to begin with and has nothing to do with the underlying hardware. (This has happened so many times, I've lost count. [MS pulling busted updates.]) Place the blame where it belongs. Updates only install on certain OS's. It's not like you can install a Win7 update on a Win8.1 machine and cause disaster.

If you're being honest, Win7 should work with any system released up to and including the final day of extended support, which is 1/14/2020, and Win8.1 should work until 1/10/2023. People are asking for the support that MS guaranteed with the OS, nothing else. The whole idea here is a bunch of BS especially when you consider that a free OS (Linux) supports this hardware. They want everyone on the 10 platform; nothing more, nothing less. I get that (on their end) it makes things easier on them if they're not supporting the old OS's, but if they didn't want to do so, they shouldn't have promised the support and put out those dates and claimed they'd support until then.

I see this whole thing as nothing more than a) a way to dissuade people from buying new hardware (which directly hurts Intel and AMD's bottom line), b) yet another strong point/reason as to avoiding Windows 10, and c) yet another reason to dump Windows altogether and switch to a free OS, if/when possible.
 
Last edited:
Why? Maybe people don't want to concede a lack of control with Win10. Maybe they don't like the telemetry. Maybe they don't like the ads.
I'd rather use 8.1 than 10, because at least 8.1 still has control over updates, no telemetry (if you don't install those updates), and no ads.
If an update borks a 7 or 8.1 machine, then the update should have been pulled to begin with and has nothing to do with the underlying hardware. (This has happened so many times, I've lost count. [MS pulling busted updates.]) Place the blame where it belongs. Updates only install on certain OS's. It's not like you can install a Win7 update on a Win8.1 machine and cause disaster.

If you're being honest, Win7 should work with any system released up to and including the final day of extended support, which is 1/14/2020, and Win8.1 should work until 1/10/2023. People are asking for the support that MS guaranteed with the OS, nothing else. The whole idea here is a bunch of BS especially when you consider that a free OS (Linux) supports this hardware. They want everyone on the 10 platform; nothing more, nothing less. I get that (on their end) it makes things easier on them if they're not supporting the old OS's, but if they didn't want to do so, they shouldn't have promised the support and put out those dates and claimed they'd support until then.

I see this whole thing as nothing more than a) a way to dissuade people from buying new hardware (which directly hurts Intel and AMD's bottom line), b) yet another strong point/reason as to avoiding Windows 10, and c) yet another reason to dump Windows altogether and switch to a free OS, if/when possible.

I never said they didn't have good reasons to not use 10. I said they were foolish to get a Kaby or Ryzen when everything about that hardware says Win10 only. We've known for a long time that new CPU's would not get support with Windows 7 or Windows 8. At that point they should have gotten a Skylake and been happy with being Windows 10 free.

And with updates it's not up to MS to make sure patches work on unsupported hardware. Just because an update to Windows 7 breaks a Ryzen system doesn't mean it'll break a Skylake system. That's why I said they should just let people be. The people even doing this typically will know what they're doing and are willing to risk it.

I also disagree with you on extended support and hardware. Extended support is security patches only. So Windows 7 support for Kaby and Ryzen should not necessarily happen (in a perfect world it would happen regardless). Windows 8.1 however should be getting FULL hardware support for Kaby and Ryzen as it's mainstream support doesn't end till next year.

Bottom line is MS should not be disabling updates just because of the hardware. They should make it painfully obvious to the user though that Windows 7 is not supported on Kaby/Ryzen and that the user proceeds at their own risk.
 
Understood, however, recently AMD came out and said they'd support Ryzen on Win7 & 8.1...now the finger pointing is going on between them and MS with issues, and now (today) this comes out. Who knows who's more to blame though I still feel the onus is on MS since they're the ones who have anything to gain from this - which I'm sure you (and most others) would agree with.

I disagree with you on 7 being extended support and that meaning no new HW support. Hardware just needs drivers. As long as Intel or AMD release chipset drivers which supports a product for an OS that is still being supported in any capacity, I see no reason to think that the OS manufacturer is not under any obligation to support that hardware. I can understand from an OEM perspective, if there's a hard line and they say "our prepackaged system does not work on anything but 10 which is why it comes with that", as many netbooks now do (including 1 I own, a Lenovo 100S, which uses Win10's fancy schmancy compression system to work). But in this case we're talking about DIY, and with DIY, all the 'key players' here (CPU and motherboard manufacturers) are still supporting 7 & 8.1, which gives me MORE reason to think the hardware should be supported.

Oh well, doesn't matter how you slice it up - the whole thing stinks. Thanks MS though! You pushed me to Ubuntu MATE, which is a better place anyway. (y):love:
 
Another way to look at it is moving forward Microsoft may not want to verify updates on those platforms to avoid "told you so" moments. They don't want to push out an update that bricks an OS because it's not compatible with your platform.

This is the excuse Apple use with their locked down ecosystem, we've known for years that it's a load of rubbish though. The whole point of using Windows is that it supports the magnitude of PC variations out there, take away that advantage and MS has just become Apple and people will jump ship - Having said that, it's undesputable that at the end of the day it's Microsoft's intention to become Apple.
 
This is the excuse Apple use with their locked down ecosystem, we've known for years that it's a load of rubbish though. The whole point of using Windows is that it supports the magnitude of PC variations out there, take away that advantage and MS has just become Apple and people will jump ship - Having said that, it's undesputable that at the end of the day it's Microsoft's intention to become Apple.
I'm not sure what you mean regarding Apple. On the Mac side, OS X's compatibility list is hardly choking; The previous OS X 10.11 could install on a 2007 MacBook Pro just fine. Sierra is the first version to actually change the compatibility list in some time. If you mean installing an older OS on newer hardware, well, Apple doesn't feel like supporting that, and they have no reason to. When you buy a Mac you buy an Experience(tm) and part of that experience is the OS it comes with and the evolving experience of newer versions. If you need an old OS, use an old Mac. iPhones are another beast and topic and forum but I don't think they are relevant to this anyway.

If you need Windows 7, use an old PC. Simple.
 
Not sure why you want to run your new CPUs on an ancient OS anyway.

Because the new one fucking sucks, perhaps? :D

Personal opinion? Absolutely but I'm far from alone in it and since it's my own hardware then of course my opinion about the OS that I choose to run (or not to in the case of Windows 10) is all that truly matters in that respect.

That means while other people might like or find Windows 10 useful to any degree whatsoever, I don't, and not even being free of monetary cost can alter that position. And as noted by some folks that have purchased new hardware Windows 7 runs just fine. Just because there's no official support for such hardware running Windows 7 that doesn't mean it actually won't work without a single issue whatsoever.

Artificially handicapping the OS and updates for people is a shitty crappy thing to do but sooner or later Microsoft just had to take a cue from Apple with forced obsolescence. I'm really surprised it took 'em this long but Microsoft only recently got into direct competition with Apple a few years ago with the introduction of the original Surface tablet.
 
This is the excuse Apple use with their locked down ecosystem, we've known for years that it's a load of rubbish though. The whole point of using Windows is that it supports the magnitude of PC variations out there, take away that advantage and MS has just become Apple and people will jump ship - Having said that, it's undesputable that at the end of the day it's Microsoft's intention to become Apple.
But then you are expecting/demanding that Microsoft go back and add the code to 7/8.1 to make the compatible with newer chips. If they do it for Kaby Lake/Ryzen, where does it end?

I will say that Windows 8.1 is still in mainstream support. Microsoft should honor that agreement and add support for the newer chips.
 
It's Microsofts fault for making bad design decisions after Win7. Win8 was the next Vista and they skipped the 9 that was supposed to fix 8 :D

Now they're back at the 'bad' cycle of classic 'every other MS os is a bad os' with 10.
 
Psssttttt... they already are compatible...
Maybe "compatible" isn't quite the right word but "supported" may work better. Microsoft has no desire to revisit Windows 7 because [some new CPU thing] isn't supported in it.

Did they pick a strange place to draw the line? Probably. The 7700K doesn't seem to have anything special (vs. the 6700K) that would warrant doing this now. I don't know enough about Ryzen to know how different that platform is. This might just be MS telling Intel etc. "ok, we've cut the rope on the old OSs, feel free to implement that 75-step power save strategy or whatever."
 
I also disagree with you on extended support and hardware. Extended support is security patches only. So Windows 7 support for Kaby and Ryzen should not necessarily happen (in a perfect world it would happen regardless). Windows 8.1 however should be getting FULL hardware support for Kaby and Ryzen as it's mainstream support doesn't end till next year.

Bottom line is MS should not be disabling updates just because of the hardware. They should make it painfully obvious to the user though that Windows 7 is not supported on Kaby/Ryzen and that the user proceeds at their own risk.

There's really no excuse for them even blocking security updates. Completely idiotic. But all that these user-hostile maneuvers are really accomplishing is accelerating Windows' demise, not forcing people to 10.

And I agree, Windows 8.1 should get hardware support for Kaby/Ryzen -- if I paid $200 for a Windows 8/8.1 Pro license I expect it to be supported since those were the terms when they sold the license.

Otherwise why bother installing 10 if "supported until" dates are meaningless, and they can just pull support early every time the marketing department feels like re-branding again?
 
And I agree, Windows 8.1 should get hardware support for Kaby/Ryzen -- if I paid $200 for a Windows 8/8.1 Pro license I expect it to be supported since those were the terms when they sold the license.

Windows tends to be extremely forwards and backwards compatible by design but there's never been a contractual promise of specific forwards hardware compatibility made by Microsoft regarding a specific version on Windows. That's an utterly impossible claim to make with something you don't even know may exist in the future.
 
Windows tends to be extremely forwards and backwards compatible by design but there's never been a contractual promise of specific forwards hardware compatibility made by Microsoft regarding a specific version on Windows. That's an utterly impossible claim to make with something you don't even know may exist in the future.

Thank you for the legalese but it misses the point by a mile. It's the fact they're even blocking SECURITY UPDATES for people running Ryzen or Kaby CPU's on Windows 7 and 8.1 that's on trial here.

Maybe if they'd actually built a proper and worthy successor to Windows 7 rather than the tiled privacy nightmare of advertisements and phone bloatware as 10 exists today, they wouldn't be in this position and more people would be willingly upgrading than fleeing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top