AMD: Sorry, No Official Ryzen Drivers for Windows 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,176
Isn't this just for embedded and special long term licenses?

If it is available for home users, then that is great.

Personally I'd just rather use classic shell on Windows 10 though.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of things about Windows 10 I don't like, but I only use Windows for games at this point, so the drawbacks don't bother me much. I dual boot to it, launch a game, and then when I am done withthe game, boot back into my main OS again.

Officially, I guess Microsoft wants the extended security updates to be for corporate licenses only. But it seems the extended security updates can be enabled on any Windows 7 installation by bypassing the "eligibility" check.

Windows 10 with a replacement start menu and some other tweaks is a huge improvement over stock Windows 10. But ever after doing a bunch of tweaks, I think Windows 7 still feels like a more peaceful and rock-solid-stable OS. I'm not running a Windows 7 installation right now, but when I build a new PC, probably later this year, I think I'll dual-boot Win 7 and Win 10 again and see exactly how different it feels.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
14,403
What's AMD's excuse for skipping Windows 8.1 support?
cause it's a turd.

like everything after windows 7

It is about a business spending money on a non-supported OS that really is not a big part of the market anymore except for the odd end user who might want to hold onto it for dear life because they are [H], the same people who said Windows VISTA sucks and they will never let XP go..wonder where they are now?

Reality is, [H] are a small segment of AMD and MS's market and money makers, so they likely really don't care...

the way i remember it people on XP were clamoring to get on windows 7
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,456
the way i remember it people on XP were clamoring to get on windows 7

Not really. People that wanted newer features that 7 (and Vista) brought, were interested in going but even among tech enthusiasts there are A LOT of holdouts. People stuck with XP until MS finally killed it off and even then not everyone was willing to give it up. Humans are creatures of habit, we do not like change. No matter the change we often fight against it and create grand conspiracies or excuses as to why we don't want to change things.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,223
No one in the right mind stayed on Windows 8 or 8.1 :D

Well for me it was free, I didn’t mind Windows 8 because I hardly ever used the start menus other than to select log off. Even when MS brought it back with Win 10 I barely use it, even the log off feature.

storage spaces was a large upgrade for me, my only gripe is the ever changing network configs that happen with each patch.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,457
End of support == end of life. Software that is not patched should not be used by anyone for any reason.

Software needs to be actively maintained in order to remain viable. It's not like a physical item you can make once, and then use indefinitely.
Oh, yes it is. If you know the risks and act accordingly. The fear mongering over windows7 is out of control. It's almost like the crusades, or witchburnings.
I use an EOL CPU, on an EOL Motherboard, and run Windows7 enterprise at work. And the world hasn't imploded. In fact it works as it did before it was deemed EOL by intel and by MS. I'm detecting a scent of planned obsolescence here.
Windows7 does the job for most, arguably does it better for most. So let's throw in a bunch of FUD to make them stop using it.

There are multiple layers of defence, anyone who relies only on the OS and it's patches is doing it wrong anyway. In fact they are selling a false sense of security. Just because your OS is updated doesn't mean you're invulnerable to attacks and malware.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,196
Oh, yes it is. If you know the risks and act accordingly. The fear mongering over windows7 is out of control. It's almost like the crusades, or witchburnings.
I use an EOL CPU, on an EOL Motherboard, and run Windows7 enterprise at work. And the world hasn't imploded. In fact it works as it did before it was deemed EOL by intel and by MS. I'm detecting a scent of planned obsolescence here.
Windows7 does the job for most, arguably does it better for most. So let's throw in a bunch of FUD to make them stop using it.

There are multiple layers of defence, anyone who relies only on the OS and it's patches is doing it wrong anyway. In fact they are selling a false sense of security. Just because your OS is updated doesn't mean you're invulnerable to attacks and malware.

You are correct about there being multiple layers of defense. You need ALL of them.

Anyone who thinks they are fine running shit unlatched because they are smart enough to not fall for exploits, or have a firewall set up right, or use antivirus, etc. etc. are going to suffer from their own overconfidence.

Turns out to can still get patches for Win7 though, so apparently this does not yet apply to Windows 7, as long as you take the necessary steps to get those patches.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,709
I'm detecting a scent of planned obsolescence here.
That is really the bottom-line for the lack of driver support for CPUs from 2016 onward - artificial "incompatibility", even thought everything still works if you know how to do it.
The main issue with software (and to a lesser extent with hardware) going EOL, is that once it is EOL, there are no more security patches.

In general, this may not be a huge issue, but if a zero-day exploit is ever released, or SSL/TLS exploit, just having that system with that OS connected to the Internet becomes a massive gamble, and can be a showstopper.
There have been quite a few world-wide Microsoft-related exploits over the last few years that could have been showstoppers, and devastating, if even one workstation on a network was hit with it; fortunately these all occurred before Windows 7 went EOL.

Now though, without patches (legally), Windows 7 is in unknown territory, much like what happened with Windows XP back in 2014.
Sure, you can continue to use it, but the moment that event happens, it's going to be game over.

Mind you, this is all for personal use.
I wouldn't even think of using any EOL OS in a professional or enterprise environment, and if your IT team is allowing that without an official extended support license, heads need to roll...
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,360
Not sure if you are trolling or really have no clue. It totally changed. That is why Startisback, openshell, classicshell, etc all started. It made 8/10 a better OS that is more like 7.
I haven't really noticed any difference. I went 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10. With 8 I installed Stardock's Start8 start menu replacement, that was really the only difference I can recall that actually has mattered.
Having a start menu is a big one. Windows 8 and even 8.1 don't have a start menu to speak of. 10 does, but it's very different than the Windows 7 version is.
Well yeah, but who actually uses the start menu on a regular basis? Between the Taskbar and Desktop shortcuts I only use the Start Menu as a search.

Honestly, I feel the complaints are very overblown and the changes, even if they aren't necessarily "better", are easy enough to adapt to.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,205
I haven't really noticed any difference. I went 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10. With 8 I installed Stardock's Start8 start menu replacement, that was really the only difference I can recall that actually has mattered.
Well yeah, but who actually uses the start menu on a regular basis? Between the Taskbar and Desktop shortcuts I only use the Start Menu as a search.

Honestly, I feel the complaints are very overblown and the changes, even if they aren't necessarily "better", are easy enough to adapt to.

I do. I don't like a desktop littered with icons.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,456
I do. I don't like a desktop littered with icons.

I don't like a cluttered desktop either, though I still only use the Start Menu maybe once every 4-5 months. All my most used programs are pinned to the task bar (though I don't have a ton of those, might be an issue for people that use a lot of programs routinely) and for others I just use the Search Box.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,176
I use pinned items in the start menu all the time. That's why the Windows 10 default start menu is unusable for me and I have to replace it in order to be able to work with Windows 10.

And I use Windows 10 LTSC so I know that updates won't break my start menu replacement. Otherwise, I'd still be using Windows 7 (I intend to reinstall Windows 7 for my next PC build anyway, as a 2nd boot).
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,068
I use pinned items in the start menu all the time. That's why the Windows 10 default start menu is unusable for me and I have to replace it in order to be able to work with Windows 10.

And I use Windows 10 LTSC so I know that updates won't break my start menu replacement. Otherwise, I'd still be using Windows 7 (I intend to reinstall Windows 7 for my next PC build anyway, as a 2nd boot).

Really? You just pin the items as tiles as move on. Now, that is your personal choice but do not make it sound like you cannot pin things to the Windows 10 start menu.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,176
Really? You just pin the items as tiles as move on. Now, that is your personal choice but do not make it sound like you cannot pin things to the Windows 10 start menu.

You can pin things, but the Windows 10 start menu is a clear downgrade in organization, space-efficiency, and speediness. And the tiles are ugly. Since I use pinned start menu shortcuts as a primary way to navigate programs, why would I want to, or why should I accept a clear downgrade in something that is important for my usage? I don't need to, and so I don't.

Startisback keeps my 30 pinned shortcuts tidy, space-efficient, and quick to access. And in addition, Startisback enables a lot of other useful customization to the start menu. Windows 10's default start menu is so feature-barren that it is ultimately not very usable, and is a clear downgrade from Windows 7's (and I assume Windows 8's, but I never used Win 8 to be able to say so from experience). It really is mostly worthless and brings-down the usability and quality of experience of Windows 10 until it is replaced.

start menu.jpg
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,068
You can pin things, but the Windows 10 start menu is a clear downgrade in organization, space-efficiency, and speediness. And the tiles are ugly. Since I use pinned start menu shortcuts as a primary way to navigate programs, why would I want to, or why should I accept a clear downgrade in something that is important for my usage? I don't need to, and so I don't.

Startisback keeps my 30 pinned shortcuts tidy, space-efficient, and quick to access. And in addition, Startisback enables a lot of other useful customization to the start menu. Windows 10's default start menu is so feature-barren that it is ultimately not very usable, and is a clear downgrade from Windows 7's (and I assume Windows 8's, but I never used Win 8 to be able to say so from experience). It really is mostly worthless and brings-down the usability and quality of experience of Windows 10 until it is replaced.

View attachment 235925

In your opinion and for your purposes, absolutely. I personally do not agree, however. If we had to bring up a start menu that is useful, the last one that was useful, in being like what the Windows 95 one looked like, was the Windows Vista Start Menu. After that, none of the other "Start Menus" were all that useful. For me, in fact, the start menu replacements are just things that ride on top and slow things down.
 

Ranma_Sao

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
2,603
Note some might call me biased:
I guarantee every nation state and every ransomware group is reversing every fix that comes out for windows 10, and see if it applies to Windows 7.As I work in incident response, CFG and some of the other security features in Windows 10 have raised the game in defense. If I were you all, I'd get windows 10, if you really want too, skin it too look like 7, but use 10 to help prevent attacks against you.

Controlled Folder Access as well can help you protect your files...

This post is made "AS IS" without warranties, and confers no rights.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,997
In your opinion and for your purposes, absolutely. I personally do not agree, however. If we had to bring up a start menu that is useful, the last one that was useful, in being like what the Windows 95 one looked like, was the Windows Vista Start Menu. After that, none of the other "Start Menus" were all that useful. For me, in fact, the start menu replacements are just things that ride on top and slow things down.
Agreed, the start menu is 90% filler and only a few things on there are things you use daily. It’s better to pin those to the start or the task bar he’ll even the desktop.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,176
Agreed, the start menu is 90% filler and only a few things on there are things you use daily. It’s better to pin those to the start or the task bar he’ll even the desktop.
Maybe your start menu is mostly filler. But pinning programs and other access to it makes it highly functional for me, and a central part of my regular PC usage.

Pinning something to start is the same thing as pinning it to the start menu, only worse due to aforementioned downgrades in organization, space-efficiency, and access-speed.

My task bar and desktop are already loaded with shortcuts. Not going to throw another 30 on them. Plus, to access the desktop a person has to minimize all the windows they have open, and it further entails more time needed to locate an item, as with tiles. So, that's not a convenient alternative to pinned start menu shortcuts. It might be a step back even from tiles.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,085
In your opinion and for your purposes, absolutely. I personally do not agree, however. If we had to bring up a start menu that is useful, the last one that was useful, in being like what the Windows 95 one looked like, was the Windows Vista Start Menu. After that, none of the other "Start Menus" were all that useful. For me, in fact, the start menu replacements are just things that ride on top and slow things down.
In your opinion they slow things down. I think you would like windows even if it broke every hour on the hour.
 

Furious_Styles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
1,948
Not really. People that wanted newer features that 7 (and Vista) brought, were interested in going but even among tech enthusiasts there are A LOT of holdouts. People stuck with XP until MS finally killed it off and even then not everyone was willing to give it up. Humans are creatures of habit, we do not like change. No matter the change we often fight against it and create grand conspiracies or excuses as to why we don't want to change things.

Honestly I had a XP 32bit install for a long time. I skipped Vista and eventually dual booted with 7. The two things that made me go to 7 full time were the 4gb memory limit (became an issue with GPUs that were 1-2gig mem) and just x64 program support in general. XP x64 was never regarded as particularly stable or good so I never bothered with it.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,997
what does that mean? internet and time killed it?

OS's expire? the internet was out to get it?
Windows 7 is a security sieve, it has fundamental flaws at a core level in its design that make it unable to meet modern security requirements. Much of its design and programming also make it fundamentally bad for modern hardware could these flaws be fixed probably but by the time all the fixes were done they would have replaced so much of the code it wouldn’t be windows 7 any more and it would probably be a buggy stability nightmare. Windows 7 was great, it had its day, its day is done.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
14,403
Windows 7 is a security sieve, it has fundamental flaws at a core level in its design that make it unable to meet modern security requirements. Much of its design and programming also make it fundamentally bad for modern hardware could these flaws be fixed probably but by the time all the fixes were done they would have replaced so much of the code it wouldn’t be windows 7 any more and it would probably be a buggy stability nightmare. Windows 7 was great, it had its day, its day is done.
any proof to these baseless claims?
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,068
In your opinion they slow things down. I think you would like windows even if it broke every hour on the hour.

LOL! My experience with start menu replacements are that they slow things down, since they do not replace but ride on top. I would think you would be able to figure that one out for yourself. :)
 

Ranma_Sao

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
2,603
Again, some might call me biased. :p
From one who would know, Windows 7 was a great OS for the time, attack's change. Windows 7 didn't ship with built in Antimalware protection for example. It didn't ship with Control Flow Guard, CredGuard to protect creds from stealing, let alone the Trusted Boot features. I am very proud of my work on Windows 7, however, it was designed for attacks back then. We also didn't have the hypervisor features that modern processors include now.

But it's always cyclical, there were peeps who wouldn't get of 9x, peeps who wouldn't get off XP, peeps who won't get off 7. (The 98 peeps I never understood, finally having an O/S with protected memory, I switched in a heartbeat)

Control Flow guard really is a life changer in attack surface reduction. Cred Guard is fantastic at preventing mass harvesting of credentials.

This post is made "AS IS" without warranties, and confers no rights.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,085
LOL! My experience with start menu replacements are that they slow things down, since they do not replace but ride on top. I would think you would be able to figure that one out for yourself. :)
I did. They work just fine. What makes windows slower is the bloatware, malware, and viruses built into it.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,437
Its not that I dont want to get off Windows 7, its that Windows 10 is so bad I dont want it in my life.
I was looking forward to something that would revert the mess of Windows 8 and give us something we want to use.
Instead of making it better they jumped even further down the rabbit hole.

I like Windows 7.
My next OS needs to be better not worse.
 

BB Gun

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,537
Where the hell is the "I can't pin things to the start menu" coming from? While I don't have any, it supports subfolders, too, as long as you drag one icon on top of another to create the "folder" and tiered menu structure. I can understand not liking the "look" of it, but the functionality is not very different from what I remember of 7.

1586205535772.png
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,458
I use pinned items in the start menu all the time. That's why the Windows 10 default start menu is unusable for me and I have to replace it in order to be able to work with Windows 10.

How is it pinning an icon on the right doesn't work for you? Serious question.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,997
any proof to these baseless claims?
Well, let's start with the IPC processes they are open with 0 methods for security or encryption, changing this would require a rework of much of the core and uses much of the same code from 1991 which was never designed to be interfaced with a network let alone the internet. These processes get direct kernel access and can be triggered from the user level in a variety of ways from just about any program, made worse by the fact that Microsoft's programs can self contain code snippets that can then trigger these, Word macro's for example, which is why Microsoft put so much effort into their sandboxing attempts, each being bypassed shortly after implementation because it was at best a band-aid. The core of the IPC's fault is that it is designed to let programs seamlessly share data amongst the rest of the system this a un patchable hole in the security of the system.
Let's move onto the user permissions, unless you have gone through and set up a secondary user on the machine that isn't an Administrator you are running, working, browsing and doing everything with full Administrator privileges in place, the UAC interface was at best an annoyance that didn’t do a good job of being a security layer and more than not is turned off almost immediately. Those machines that do leave it on aren’t any better protected because due to the previously mentioned IPC flaws it can easily be bypassed.

Now, what about the Modes, the Run in XP mode or Win 98 mode, those modes work by specifically bypassing what meager security attempts were put in later as layers to provide compatibility to even poorer security configs for legacy reasons. These are also an easy and heavily targeted exploit point as telling the OS to run something in XP mode, for instance, doesn’t sandbox it or provide any measurable layer of abstraction but instead gives it deeper access.

Then there is how Drivers interact with the Kernel, which opens up the fax services, and message handling to attack, which is where most of your privilege escalation attacks come from. There are also the UI faults with window creation and destruction that allow for memory attacks. The GDI doesn’t do any validation on user inputs which allows a remote user to take advantage of the graphics interface to run code at the admin level. And lastly of the stuff I can remember right now, there are the problems with how Windows 7 interacts with file systems that let attackers run code they have placed onto your machine in a temp folder or something like that using the number of faults in Terminal Services.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,176
Where the hell is the "I can't pin things to the start menu" coming from? While I don't have any, it supports subfolders, too, as long as you drag one icon on top of another to create the "folder" and tiered menu structure. I can understand not liking the "look" of it, but the functionality is not very different from what I remember of 7.

View attachment 236032

There's a difference between pinning stuff to the start menu and pinning stuff to the live tiles. Unless something's changed, the default Windows 10 start menu lets items be pinned to live tiles, but not to the start menu. In your screenshot, there are no customized entries in the start menu section.

How is it pinning an icon on the right doesn't work for you? Serious question.

It's less organized, less clear (I can't remember what program each icon represents when having dozens of icons), takes up a lot more space, slower to navigate, and ugly. It's a clear devolution from the Windows Vista / 7 / 8 start menu as is basically pointlessly and misguidedly changing something for the sake of change and not for the sake of progress.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,068
There's a difference between pinning stuff to the start menu and pinning stuff to the live tiles. Unless something's changed, the default Windows 10 start menu lets items be pinned to live tiles, but not to the start menu. In your screenshot, there are no customized entries in the start menu section.



It's less organized, less clear (I can't remember what program each icon represents when having dozens of icons), takes up a lot more space, slower to navigate, and ugly. It's a clear devolution from the Windows Vista / 7 / 8 start menu as is basically pointlessly and misguidedly changing something for the sake of change and not for the sake of progress.

That image he posted is the start menu, all of it.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,176
That image he posted is the start menu, all of it.

That menu consists of the classic "start menu" section and the "live tiles" section. Live tiles are a part of the start menu, but when pinning to them, the term "live tiles" identifies more precisely what's being done. With Startisback installed, there are separate context-menu options for pinning something to the start menu versus live tiles: "Pin to Start Menu" for the former, "Pin to Start" for the latter.
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,408
End of support == end of life. Software that is not patched should not be used by anyone for any reason.

Software needs to be actively maintained in order to remain viable. It's not like a physical item you can make once, and then use indefinitely.
Was gonna comment on this but I had the feeling of deja vu. ;)
https://hardforum.com/threads/win7-eol-jan-2020-really.1981356/page-2#post-1044190095
At least you aren't suggesting a dead-mans trigger on networking like last time. Companies are still using those old machines with old OSes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top