Microsoft Suspends Win 7/8.1 Updates For Intel Kaby Lake, AMD Ryzen CPUs

[blazorthon]

It's funny that you're using that argument for Windows 10, instead of Linux. It can be perfectly applied to user-friendly Linux distros, too.

Ubuntu's GUI is simpler than both Windows 10 and macOS's. It's an OS much harder to break. And the average user needs to learn just two (optional) CLI commands:

sudo apt-get install NAME_OF_APPLICATION (to easily install a new application)
sudo apt-get update (to update applications that have been installed this way)

If an average user finds they need to learn another CLI command, then Linux is not for them.

Linux's greatest weakness is its lack of plug-and-play hardware support. If a given distro doesn't support all your hardware out of the box, it's not going to be a smooth experience.

Anyway, this is not a Linux-exclusive problem: it's present in every OS except for Windows. You can't expect OS X Mountain Lion to work on the latest MacBook Pro; you can't expect iOS 6 to work on an iPhone 7; you can't expect Android 4 to work on a Galaxy S7. Why would anyone expect Microsoft to make sure Windows 7 supports every new CPU arquitecture ever to be released?

We expect MS to support them because the x86 based CPUs don't need any new thins to be supported, at least on a mostly functional level. A little scheduling changes for a bit of optimization every now and then, sure, but even without those, it should still work with any CPU made in the last twenty years so long as there are drivers for the rest of the system's platform. The actual driver for a Sandy Bridge CPU is the same as for a nehalem, Pentium 4, or Kaby Lake CPU. It doesn't change!

The same is true for AMD's CPU driver. It covers basically all of their CPUs since Athlon 64 because that was the last time how the CPU interacted with the operating system actually changed. Again, scheduling optimizations have been made in the recent years for AMD's Bulldozer variants or Intel's Hyper-Threading, but those aren't done in the driver and with or without them, you can still use CPUs with either technology, just a little less optimally. Furthermore, even then, applications can be fixed themselves if desired or in you can manually control how the CPU acts with a given program.

 

[Dosflores]

Microsoft is just saying that if you use an older CPU, they don't want to let you update

Actually, they're saying that if you use a brand-new CPU, they don't want to let you update anything that isn't named Windows 10.

You're right about everything else. It's a strong contrast to the time when they wanted everyone to update to Windows 10, which could potentially cause lots of BSODs on many laptops.

 

[Dosflores]

We expect MS to support them because the x86 based CPUs don't need any new things to be supported, at least on a mostly functional level. A little scheduling changes for a bit of optimization every now and then, sure, but even without those, it should still work with any CPU made in the last twenty years so long as there are drivers for the rest of the system's platform.

The system's platform is the most important part. A CPU that runs perfectly is useless without a motherboard that runs perfectly. And motherboards feature chipsets, which require drivers too. And it's logical for Microsoft not to want to spend time making sure that old versions of Windows work perfectly with the latest chipsets. They already do that with Windows 10. And Windows 10 isn't cheaper than Windows 7, so it makes absolutely no sense from a commercial standpoint to spend time improving some software that you can't sell for more money than a new one, nor to make sure that people that aren't willing to pay you for new OS licenses are happy. Microsoft is a company. They want money. If you want an OS made by people that don't care so much about money, and pay more attention to user feedback, the solution has already been exposed on this thread: Linux.

 

[blazorthon]

Microsoft is just saying that if you use an older CPU, they don't want to let you update

Actually, they're saying that if you use a brand-new CPU, they don't want to let you update anything that isn't named Windows 10.

You're right about everything else. It's a strong contrast to the time when they wanted everyone to update to Windows 10, which could potentially cause lots of BSODs on many laptops.

My bad, I clearly wasn't paying enough attention when I was replying XD

Point is that it's still ridiculous. The CPU has nothing to do with most operating system updates and MS shouldn't make limitations related to it.

The system's platform is the most important part. A CPU that runs perfectly is useless without a motherboard that runs perfectly. And motherboards feature chipsets, which require drivers too. And it's logical for Microsoft not to want to spend time making sure that old versions of Windows work perfectly with the latest chipsets. They already do that with Windows 10. And Windows 10 isn't cheaper than Windows 7, so it makes absolutely no sense from a commercial standpoint to spend time improving some software that you can't sell for more money than a new one, nor to make sure that people that aren't willing to pay you for new OS licenses are happy. Microsoft is a company. They want money. If you want an OS made by people that don't care so much about money, and pay more attention to user feedback, the solution has already been exposed on this thread: Linux.

I did mention the platform being the only issue. However, it should also be noted that Microsoft doesn't need to make drivers for the other hardware. That's the job of the hardware makers and generally speaking, those drivers are already there. MS doesn't need to issue any updates concerning them.

If I make a kaby lake system using a previous generation board which has a both a BIOS update for Kaby and already has windows 7 or Windows 8 drivers (which 9 times out of ten are inter-compatible even if the driver installers say otherwise), then MS doesn't need to make any changes in their updates. Heck, if the hardware companies just felt like making Windows 7 drivers for their new stuff, then MS still wouldn't need to do anything different than they would for systems running older platforms in regards to security updates. Realistically, even a lot of new motherboards on new platforms still use a lot of older hardware, especially audio codecs and network interfaces. Regardless, again, it's not like MS makes the drivers for any of this stuff. You don't go to microsoft.com to get your new graphics driver because they didn't make it!

So yeah, MS is saying that they will try to make limitations that are completely unnecessary on a technical standpoint. This could only be an attempt to force adoption of Windows 10 despite the myriad of problems a lot of people, even those whom are considerably tech savvy, are having with it. The only good thing going for it from most of our perspectives is DX12, which, while certainly good, is both not enough of a driving point to make up for the other pitfalls and not yet common enough to strong-arm those who do care about it, hence MS trying to force the issue themselves.

While it is true that there is an argument against using what is now very old software, MS isn't really being cooperative on the front of giving us a product that we want enough to upgrade. They're having trouble giving Windows 10 away for free. That should have given people a clue by now, but they clearly don't care about what their customers want, which doesn't make sense to me because the only way they can realistically profit from an operating system is, you know, selling it... Unless, of course, they found out they can make more money from things like selling the telemetry data and don't need to care about what their users want because the users aren't their customers, they're the product being sold. Of course, that's only speculation, but it does seem logical to me.

 

[ravewulf]

If I could get rid of OneDrive and all the other extra crap that comes built in to Win10 I'd be more tempted.

That and disable Windows' ability to check whether a program is "officially supported" or not. I use an older version of Daemon Tools Lite because it leaves the empty virtual optical drive in place when there isn't a disc image mounted instead of having it disappear like a removable flash drive would in the new version. I tried to install it and Win10 told me that version of the software wasn't supported. To work around it I just copied the program files from a Win7 install into my "Program Files (Admin)" folder and it works perfectly fine. The "Admin" Program Files folder is something I had to create for a different program because of how overly restricted MS made the usual Program Files folders even on "administrator" accounts.

I shouldn't have to work around "features" of an OS just to be able to use it. A good OS should be unobtrusive and let you follow your own way of getting things done without additional clutter.

I agree with you completely about not having to work around features. For me its been a recurring issue since Vista.

After my P4 self build(almost 10 years old) was really reaching the end of its usefulness I took a chance on a pre-built that lasted me a few years. It was a Gateway FX7026. For store bought it was rock solid out of box except for Vista 64. For those years I found myself doing the same with a number of softwares from XP. Ironically enough I updated it to 7 and then found myself looking for drivers for some of the MOBO components that didn't officially exist. Solved one problem only to create another. Shortly after I began the 2600k build. I went through similar issues after installing 10 in the MSI laptop but worked around them.

I actually never had much trouble from Vista and it has been my favorite OS, but I know I'm in the minority there. All it took was disabling UAC and I was good to go. I didn't have trouble with drivers or stability, but SP1 and SP2 brought the performance up to where it should've been. Of course now neither NVIDIA nor AMD provide new graphics drivers and Firefox is dropping support too (FF removing support for Complete Themes and nearly all of their existing Add-ons in November is another issue).

I've actually had more trouble with Win7 (Windows Explorer's Favorite Links in the navigation pane scrolling up instead of always being visible, a file tree bug where folders jump out of view when expanded, attempting to get rid of Libraries and Homegroups, bringing back the look of Vista in full), but that's nothing to the pain that is Win10.

Attempting disable UAC in Win10 - and I mean truly disabling it, not just turning off notifications - cripples the system so you can't use Apps, just normal programs. You wouldn't think that would be much of a problem if you don't like Apps, but that happens to include the Calculator.

 

[Dosflores]

If I make a kaby lake system using a previous generation board which has a both a BIOS update for Kaby and already has windows 7 or Windows 8 drivers (which 9 times out of ten are inter-compatible even if the driver installers say otherwise), then MS doesn't need to make any changes in their updates. Heck, if the hardware companies just felt like making Windows 7 drivers for their new stuff, then MS still wouldn't need to do anything different than they would for systems running older platforms in regards to security updates

You're right. There isn't any technical consideration, it's just a commercial consideration. If you build a Kaby Lake system and find that your license of Windows 7 is unsupported, now you'll have to buy a Windows 10 license. And Microsoft makes money.

It's not only a matter of making money, but also of spending as little money as possible on software development and maintenance. And we're not only talking about Microsoft, but also about motherboard makers, who are responsible for providing drivers for their products.

For example, five years ago I bought a really good motherboard for Ivy Bridge CPUs. It supported Win XP and 7, but not Vista. Was there any technical consideration for not supporting Vista? Obviously not; it's simply that nobody wanted to use Vista, so there was no point spending money to support it. Nowadays, there are other reasons for companies not to want to spend money to support anything but Windows 10, and they're not technical considerations either.

 

[blazorthon]

You're right. There isn't any technical consideration, it's just a commercial consideration. If you build a Kaby Lake system and find that your license of Windows 7 is unsupported, now you'll have to buy a Windows 10 license. And Microsoft makes money.

It's not only a matter of making money, but also of spending as little money as possible on software development and maintenance. And we're not only talking about Microsoft, but also about motherboard makers, who are responsible for providing drivers for their products.

For example, five years ago I bought a really good motherboard for Ivy Bridge CPUs. It supported Win XP and 7, but not Vista. Was there any technical consideration for not supporting Vista? Obviously not; it's simply that nobody wanted to use Vista, so there was no point spending money to support it. Nowadays, there are other reasons for companies not to want to spend money to support anything but Windows 10, and they're not technical considerations either.

Whether MS officially supports the platform or not, motherboard companies are not obligated to support any particular operating system if they don't want to, nor or they obligated to not support a platform if they do want to, or at least they shouldn't be.

Also, I wouldn't buy a Kaby lake system and later find out that Windows 7 is unsupported. Anyone who buys without doing at least that much research or hitting the forums with a "is this compatible" question is making a mistake. If I was buying a Kaby Lake system and I wanted Windows 7, then I would make sure to buy hardware with the right drivers, plain and simple.

Again, Microsoft doesn't need to spend money on developing anything different for these platforms. The other manufacturers can pick and choose what they want to make drivers for without MS making that decision for them and the consumers.

Regardless, Windows 7 and Vista use the same driver foundation, so you could have used Vista if you wanted to. It just wasn't "officially" supported, which is irrelevant in the case of drivers. So long as they work, then you install them once and forget about them. You only make changes for drivers when something goes wrong, with the obvious exception of graphics drivers, which you should easily see often have compatibility even for systems a decade or more apart despite the fact that AMD and Nvidia can choose not to.

Furthermore, being forced to use Windows 10 when you have a key for 7 doesn't matter because the 7 key will still work most of the time anyway, so it's not even about making you pay for windows 10 because they've been giving it away for free.

 

[Dosflores]

Furthermore, being forced to use Windows 10 when you have a key for 7 doesn't matter because the 7 key will still work most of the time anyway, so it's not even about making you pay for windows 10 because they've been giving it away for free.

Yeah, but Windows 10 features advertising and the Windows Store, which help Microsoft make more money than Windows 7. We can argue for as long as you wish, but my point will always be the same: it's all about the money 😀

 

[CaptCalamity]

Use Windows Updates Downloader and then slipstream the updates in to the installer. You can even easily stop the telemetry updates from being installed.


Sorry, but MS's current position that they can do what they want with my hardware will keep me from ever using any of their more "modern" releases. I don't want office 365 and I certainly don't want MY computer to keep recommending it to me. My hardware, my choice, since Windows 10 does not agree with that it will not be installed in my house.

 

[firefoxx04]

I use Windows 7 for games, Mac for productivity. The Mac was provided by work, and I must say it is much nicer than expected. Sure there are downfalls but none of which are worse than the typical windows crap. Windows 10 is junk and so is Server 2016. I used to use Windows for everything because it was convenient but ill soon be installing Linux on my desktop and virtualization Windows with a 290x passed to the VM for gaming. Linux runs windows as a vm just fine and does everything but gaming just fine. Mac for my laptop. Works for me. Bye Microsoft.

 

[blazorthon]

Yeah, but Windows 10 features advertising and the Windows Store, which help Microsoft make more money than Windows 7. We can argue for as long as you wish, but my point will always be the same: it's all about the money 😀

I realize that it's all about the money. I'm just saying that if MS really wants us to upgrade, then they'd do a much better job of getting us to upgrade by making the product actually better overall, without any major deficiencies, instead of trying in vain to strong-arm us into accepting what is in many ways an inferior product.

MS wants to put in an app store? Fine. MS wants to put in advertising? Less fine, but it can be done without being too obtrusive if they want to, so acceptable. Just make the operating system modular enough that we can remove the gigabytes of stuff we don't use so it can be slim enough to not manage being considerably slower than its predecessor. Better stability would also be nice. Make the product be something worth wanting and people will buy it, let alone just use it since its free.

MS is a company. I expect them to be in the business for the money. However, when they make decisions like this rather than just making the product good enough to actually sell, they're clearly taking advantage of their near monopoly in order to get away with inferior products.

 

[ahnilated]

Lots of dinosaurs. If you are unable to install and set up a Windows 10 OS don't blame it on MS. I recommend going back to Windows XP or Windows 3.1, as it was much easier to understand for you dinosaurs.

Go back to Microsoft's nipple then and keep sucking up what they give you. This is about the doing what the customer wants not making the customer do what you want, period. The customers made it very obvious that they didn't want a tiled OS, they don't want telemetry, they don't want forced updates. Microsoft will do what the customers want or will go bye bye just like every other company that gives bad customer service or doesn't listen to their market. Don't think for a second that they are to big to fail, no company is to big to fail.

 

[cupholder]

ITT: People who are bad at building computers. W10 is fine. PEBKAC.

 

[Rhinofart]

This " kid " played with things like amiga commodore a600, spectrum, 386, and many more u probable never heard off or even had any experience with.. Your comment assumes that you acctually know my age..... Its not going to be you for sure that teaches me how set up a machine with a ridiculous comment like that...
I have friends running z97 and z197 with similar issues like mine on windows 10..
Enjoy your skynet faulty windows 10 experience.. And leave the commenting for ppl that acctually care about it

LOL Nice. Apple 2e, Vic 20, Trash80, and then upgraded the stuffing out of my 8086 with an 8087, 1.6 MEG of RAM, and bleeding edge VGA pumping out 256 onscreen colours at 320 x 280 That's how I cut my teeth.

 

[Felds]

Hahaha VGA WITH 256 colors !! I remember playing warcraft 2 and red alert 1 on a pentium 100 mhz vga with 8 megs of ram...
Then Super vga out and who had that was king

 

[wirefire]

The problem here is very haphazard support cycles. For example with a MAC you can install an OS 10.12 for example. you will get ALL the updates for 10.12 while it is in its lifecycle.

Are you saying Apple support cycles cannot be considered haphazard?

There isn't any statement about how long 10.12's lifecycle will be. Apple's support policy for both hardware and software is simple: "each product is supported for as long as Apple wants".

Apple expects you to always install the latest version of their OSs, because they're better than older versions (which is mostly true). Microsoft expects the same. Well, if you've got a Windows 10 PC, Microsoft actually forces you to always install the latest version of Windows 10, via automatic updates.

Apple supports installing 10.12 on an old Mac, but they don't support installing 10.11 on a brand-new MacBook Pro. Microsoft is now doing the exact same thing.

This is in effect part of my point. Microsoft saw Apple's model and said "yes want some of that"... Microsoft - I want to dictate user software because if I can dictate that then I have more control, and more control is essential for leveraging profit. Apple is excellent at it. Microsoft is mediocre at it at best. Their attempt to make Windows a ubiquitous OS has failed (no phones, or ARM devices really survived the attempt). And Microsoft does not have the ability or luxury of dictating hardware. The argument about drivers is moot, there are reviews of computers installed with windows 7 on Ryzen and Kaby Lake. There is no reason for Microsoft to cut off updates for these users. I can understand not supporting these scenarios, but I again go back to Microsoft's past history. It has supported hardware platforms during the support cycle (even extended) for an OS. Ivy Bridge was released in 2013 and had XP drivers and support from Intel and Microsoft through the "XP end date". Windows 7 is in extended support for more than 2 1/2 years yet... I have no problem with AMD or Intel not supporting windows 7, if they choose not to then that is their prerogative. My problem is with Microsoft not just not supporting it, but actively creating barriers to prevent people from even attempting to use it.

 

[sephirotic]

This is quite confusing. I don't care about "support" if that means only security updates. However, does this also mean there won't be Windows 7 drivers for ryzen's motherboards at all? Not even generic ones? That may actually sucks pretty hard and actually make me give up upgrading my 2500k to ryzren. I may get a 6700k instead.

 

[DerekA_C]

they have unstable issues because then went with the lazy update route install of backing up important things and downloading latest and proper drivers for new os and hardware and installing fresh because that will solve 99% of any weird issues or instability.

 

[alidan]

I work in a computer shop, and we have had no trouble at all with Windows 10. One of the main things we have found is that hardware and software manufacturers failed to make the required updated drivers or software updates to suite Windows 10. We run 7 computers here at our shop and never have an issue, none of our customers have any issues. Yes some things run differently and take a bit of getting used to, but generally it's very good. I have read all the comments on here and I sit back and laugh at all the whingers about how bad Windows 10 is and remember how when Windows 7 came out and guess what ??? they were all whinging and bitching about how bad Windows 7 was, why didn't they stay with Windows XP????? why change it??? it works perfectly. Bloody hell they even whinged and bitched about the change from Windows 95 to XP. the problem is that no one is ever happy about change, it wouldn't make an iota of difference what Microsoft brought out you'd all be like a pack of never be happy, whinging fracking Nerf Herders. So long as your arseholes point to the ground you lot will never be happy.

Take out telemetry, forced updates, and the ads and I would buy windows 10 just because I am getting a 1700 and if they do something to make it work better on 10, I would gladly use it.

I moved from xp to 7 because I got an ssd and 8gb of ram, xp didn't work well with ssds, and xp64 had far less support for 64bit then 7 did, not to mention no dx10 and 11.

But thats not the case for 7 to 10, all that hardware I am going to use works on win7, and 10 adds nothing currently that is worthwhile to look at and is only a big mass of I don't want.

I wonder if AMD will do something about this. I can't see Intel going against Microsoft's wishes to push Windows 10, but AMD might. They don't have much to lose.

AMD wants people to use Windows 10. DirectX 12 enables you to get high frame rates when properly using CPUs which feature lots of cores, whereas DirectX 11 favors fast cores. Take a look at the "Ryzen Versus Core i7 In 11 Popular Games" article. A Kaby Lake i5 is able to beat every Ryzen in GTA5 (DX11).

amd is likely going to push vulcan, as 50% still use win7, and vulcan kicks the crap out of dx12.

 

[Dosflores]

This is quite confusing. I don't care about "support" if that means only security updates. However, does this also mean there won't be Windows 7 drivers for ryzen's motherboards at all? Not even generic ones? That may actually sucks pretty hard and actually make me give up upgrading my 2500k to ryzren. I may get a 6700k instead.

The lack of support is only for security updates. I've already built a Ryzen-based PC, featuring an Asus Prime B350-Plus motherboard, and you can go to Asus's website to download drivers for both 7 and 10 (but not 8). It's up to motherboard manufacturers to support 7 or not. They're only required by Microsoft to support 10.

 

[Dosflores]

amd is likely going to push vulcan, as 50% still use win7, and vulcan kicks the crap out of dx12.

Sure, but they're not neglecting DX12. Actually, it's the first API they mention in their marketing stuff:

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming

 

[Chris_361]

This is outrageous and as others said "illegal" , i hope MS loses their shirt . Fact is most think Win 7 is superior to Win 10 and it will remain the most used and preferred operating system for a long time to come , sorry MS .


Win 10 is actually getting worse not better , it's ridiculously bloated , users have much less control with Win 10 then they have with 7 also.

When Win 7 is done in 2020 on to Linux .

 

[popatim]

This is also funny to me as well because here at work we just upgraded most systems to 7 from XP. Hahahaha.

I can see MS not providing win7 drivers for their newer stuff but how can they block AMD from not providing drivers for their new stuff? Hmmm...

As for Security updates, IMO those should still come thru. To not provide them would possibly be illegal but I'm no lawyer.

 

[BlasterMaster555]

I see a lot of people who say Windows 10 is the worst. I have several machines upgraded to 10, and have had no problems that can't be traced back to unsupported or defective hardware.

Windows 7 was good back in the day, but 10 is unquestionably faster when you set it up right.

Linux is an alternative if you don't have the money, but unless you are an expert on linux it is actually more troublesome to deal with than Windows.

MacOS is good, but Windows is still better. I have used all of these Operating Systems, but I stick with Windows 10 because it performs the best out of all of them.

I have tried:
Every desktop Windows from 3.1 to 10
Slackware, Redhat, Fedora, CentOS, Mageia, Mint, and Ubuntu Linux, including the derivatives Lubuntu and Xubuntu.
MacOSX from Leopard to El Capitan.

MacOS lacks performance in some areas but it otherwise just okay.
Linux can be lightning fast or a gigantic beast that grinds your hardware to death, and updates can be as easy as clicking Update or require spending hours in the console recompiling random crap and editing etc configs. However, Linux is a battery eater for laptops in general.
Windows performs fast, starts fast, and provides good battery life, sometimes even better than MacOS on the same hardware.
I found having the right 3rd party Antivirus fixes a lot of slowdowns coming from Windows Defender. Some reason WD is just too grindy when it is real time protection.

As for security, don't assume you will be virus free on the other two OS. A lot of Android vulnerabilities come from linux, and MacOS has very limited recovery options if you manage to get infected on a mac. Also mac infections often require a nuke and pave approach.

To each their own. Pick your poison.

 

[Geef]

A big reason companies use windows 7 is because their main software is setup specifically for it and it would cost a ton of cash to upgrade but this isn't an issue for them since their probably using same old hardware also. For people wining about "Oh my, I'll never upgrade!" stop that crap. Windows 10 runs fine for most people, and a lot of the time its the wonderful "User Error" that causes people's problems. You WILL upgrade sooner or later and its totally your choice when.