New Processors Are Now Blocked from Receiving Updates on Old Windows

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,956
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Do you ever stop towing the corporate line? :) Windows 8.1 is still in mainstream support and there's nothing special or unique in 10 for these processors that can't be released for at least 8.1.

    There are still millions of people who PAID for Windows 7 and 8.1 and want to continue to use it on their new hardware which actually does work.

    The solution is not to deny updates - including security updates - that MS is releasing anyway, making everyone less secure in the process. There is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to be doing this except out of spite.

    Maybe MS should instead look at why so many users find Windows 10 so repulsive to the point adoption is flatlined.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
    elation, HoffY, JokerCPoC and 3 others like this.
  2. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,963
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Oh come on even you know their is nothing that needs retrofitting.

    Ryzen already worked with 7... as for the small number of updates MS will dedicate to Ryzen or the newer intel chips. The only thing keeping them working on 7 and 8 is BLOCK code. Even if MS had to go over that code to ensure it worked with an older version of their kernel, its no more work then writing the stupid block code, and rewriting it when someone finds out exactly how to bypass.

    In the Linux world Companies like Red Hat will spend very little time and money... taking the newer Ryzen code for the newest Kernels, and back porting it to the (older) LTS Kernel in their Enterprise software.

    It is odd agreeing with you on at least part of something about MS for once though. Neither of us really can see the upside on this one, its just bad PR.
     
    WhoBeDaPlaya and MrGuvernment like this.
  3. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,963
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    I know I covered this in my last post.... Ryzen and newer intel chips have always gotten support in Commercial versions of Linux. The commercial guys like Red Hat and SUSE, take the newer code from the latest Kernels and compile it into an older version of the Kernel which they use for stability. Google also does this with Android... which is why I laugh when some people claim Google uses a heavily custom kernel so its not true or pure Linux. That is exactly what Linux is, all the commercial Linux companies run their stuff on LTS kernels, and back port in security and drivers so they can have the best of both worlds.
     
  4. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    You can't infinitely backport though. And there's no way this stuff got backported into an LTS kernel. That's the whole point in a stable branch, not introducing functional and feature changes.
     
  5. Rattle

    Rattle 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,708
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    I'm still trucking away on 8.1 with updates disabled. I don't game on it anymore since there's zero interest from me in PC gaming anymore. I'll be migrating to Linux this year slowly while keeping my 8.1 install until I'm versed enough to have everything how I like it and then I won't be using Windows anymore. In the future if there's something I really want to play in dx12 and I throw money into a video card I'll make sure I pirate w10 just to game.
     
    BulletDust likes this.
  6. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Then why did Linux need or new kernel to properly support these CPUs?
     
  7. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,963
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Accept of course that they can be.

    The newer Intel stuff was back ported into the 3.1 kernel running RHEL, in update 7.1 and 7.2. They are currently testing the AMD 17h code for backport that should be in 7.3.

    When it comes to CPU code yes it can be back ported pretty much forever. Yes by the time AMD is shipping Server versions of 17h(zen) Red Hat and SUSE will have things like multi-IOMMU back ported and running. Adding support is as simple as adding an extra 209 lines of code. http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1612.2/03911.html
     
    MrGuvernment likes this.
  8. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,963
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    To enable new features silly.... are people posting reviews of Ryzen chips running on Windows 7 ?

    Yet you are claiming the chips don't run... adding a few lines of code to turn on extra kernel level features is hardly impossible, in fact its sort of easy. I would wagger easier then writing patches to blacklist CPUs.
     
    WhoBeDaPlaya, Doward and ChoGGi like this.
  9. TechLarry

    TechLarry Can't find the G Spot

    Messages:
    30,118
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    This is seriously one epic pant-load of shit.
     
    Travolta, HoffY, Doward and 5 others like this.
  10. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Nope, never said that.
     
  11. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Since the updates can be installed manually and considering who many Windows 10 bashers are crazy over forced updates, well, let's get real. Sure I get the problem but really, getting huffy about old OSes not getting support for the latest hardware when they are getting long in the tooth, especially Windows 7, bad move on Microsoft part but hardly epic.
     
  12. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,427
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Yet another example of a company telling us that we really don't own stuff anymore.
     
    Doward likes this.
  13. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    And blocking automatic updates that can still be installed on OSes that were never going to support these new CPUs because the OSes in question are getting old, 7 is 8 thing year, is an example of that how?
     
  14. ChoGGi

    ChoGGi [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,445
    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    This isn't about getting support, it's Microsoft intentionally going out of their way to block updates from certain processors.
     
    ZodaEX, heatlesssun and ChadD like this.
  15. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,963
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Fair enough... and oddly I think you sort of agree that this is a stupid decision. You just have a hard time not defending MS all the time no matter what. :)

    Ryzen runs on WIndows 7 (without installing any blacklist updates at least). As for the most part the code to run it is no different then to code to run any other x86 CPU. Same applies to the newer Intel chips.

    All the updates with support do is turn on newer features, or provide small tweaks to how the system handles the CPU.

    The MS kernel is closed source so I would be guessing of course... however the Linux kernel source for the newer Intel chips and Ryzen can be looked at. Neither require entire rewrites or something. The newer features on both the newer Intel and AMD chips require less then a 1000 lines of linux kernel code to support. I can only assume the code to do the same in windows shouldn't be a whole lot more. So this isn't a decision based on difficulty, or cost to implement... you can't argue cost as both Intel and AMD provide the code for their chips. (MS doesn't invent it)

    Its a marketing decision. So by all means feel free to defend it as such. (I know you won't cause you agree its bad PR). Don't defend it on the grounds that its a technical decision, or a cost of support situation.... as those arguments can easily be shot down. (I already linked the 209 lines of code to add a major Ryzen server feature, submitted by the AMD server chip team... don't make me go dig out the other 800 or so lines ;) )
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
    WhoBeDaPlaya, ZodaEX and JokerCPoC like this.
  16. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    I agree, that's the problem here. That said, anyone that's combining these OSes with this hardware because this a total DIY scenario would be able install the updates manually and my guess considering how much people complain about Windows Update, even on 7, many would like to do it manually anyway.

    If Microsoft prevented updates from being installed even manually that's completely justifiable outrage. Again, bad move by Microsoft on at most a trifling matter.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
    ChoGGi likes this.
  17. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,039
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Well at least they're at the end of their rope now.

    The next step would be intentionally pushing shit that brakes systems if they detect new cpu combined with older windows.

    One thing is still unclear to me however. Does this mean you can't install new security updates at all, or you just can't do them trough windows update?
     
  18. ChadD

    ChadD 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,963
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Well we all know MS fairly well at this point. If they don't want you doing something, they almost always go out of their way to enforce their policy. At some point they are likely to sneak the blacklist back in with another unrelated update.

    Once the MS has spoken... it becomes a game of cat and mouse. Everyone is tiered of having to do that with MS all the time.
     
  19. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,427
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    My point is it should be MY choice, not Microsoft's. If I chose to run Win 7 on the latest hardware knowing that I won't get all the new chip features, so be it. Why does Microsoft get a say? It's my crap. If my OS is a legal copy, Microsoft shouldn't care or have a say.
     
  20. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    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.
     
  21. amddragonpc

    amddragonpc [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,996
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    It's getting to the point where I would rather play outside.
     
    Doward likes this.
  22. azuza001

    azuza001 Gawd

    Messages:
    692
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Guys, it's simple. Microsoft tried to use the carrot to get everything to Windows 10. That didn't work. So now they are using a big stick.

    Personally I think it's silly. If I build a new ryzen system and want windows 8 on it that's my choice. Microsoft is not and should not even try to be our "parents" on this choice. They put out the system, they support it on fx and 6 gen I systems, no reason to not let it work on 7 gen and ryzen. No legal leg to stand on as far as I can see. But until we have a real alternative for gaming what other os company can you pick?
     
  23. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,956
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    Actually, installing the updates manually with the .msu files (or using unofficial thirdparty tools like WSUS Offline Update) will also give an error. https://i.imgur.com/1wGT8mt.png

    But nice attempt at trying to conflate third party hacks and tools as if they're the same as manual control options within the OS and supported out of the box - obviously the backlash is about the absence of the latter.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
    Doward likes this.
  24. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    That image doesn't prove anything. Anyone here with these CPUs can confirm the issue.
     
  25. DPI

    DPI Nitpick Police

    Messages:
    10,956
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2013
    And water isn't wet.

    Are you a bot?

    Seriously.
     
  26. Makaveli@BETA

    Makaveli@BETA 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,303
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    well now looks like all of you guys thinking you will be running windows 7 for the next 10 years are in for a nice surprise.

    MS just pull a no soup for you moment!
     
  27. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    You're the guy that just told me earlier that Windows 10 Enterprise can't be configured to send no data to Microsoft, even when I showed you the documentation and even when I pointed out that it was a requirement for us using it at work, you still deciced to make up whatever you wanted. I'm not always correct but I do convey the facts as I know them.
     
  28. gordon152

    gordon152 [H]Lite

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2016
    You have to wonder if that really is their motto. My goodness, you would have thought Apple engineers had a stealth takeover at Microsoft.
     
  29. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Good way to hold back hardware sales, Microsoft! Intel and AMD should be pissed about this.
     
    ChadD likes this.
  30. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    They aren't truly compatible because Microsoft wants it that way and not because they just are. Man, you are one badass boot licker.
     
  31. MavericK

    MavericK Zero Cool

    Messages:
    28,701
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Less than a year, actually. January 8, 2018 is end of mainstream support for 8 and 8.1.

    But I agree it should have been supported for new processors.
     
  32. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    They aren't truly compatible because these CPUs are new and Windows 8.1 is going on 4 years old 8 months away from mainstream support and Windows 7 is going 8 years old, out of mainstream support and about 2 and half years away from no support. It took Microsoft months just to get Skylake power states working properly even on their own Surface hardware.
     
  33. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Bullshit! Someone is providing the code for Win10 so it can be ported to Win8.1 too. Or you going say the code is different for 8.1 and 10? This is a dirty trick and yet you still defend your beloved overlord.
     
  34. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    No problem, I can easily pull a purchasing freeze for the next decade. I have way more than I need already.
     
  35. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,046
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    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.
     
    elation, klank, HoffY and 5 others like this.
  36. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    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.
     
  37. rezerekted

    rezerekted 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Yea, a year away. That means they falsely advertised Win8 because it obviously didn't get proper support until EOL as they said it would. I smell a class action lawsuit in the making.
     
  38. MavericK

    MavericK Zero Cool

    Messages:
    28,701
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    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.
     
    heatlesssun likes this.
  39. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    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.
     
  40. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    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.