Anybody had this "can't install the update because it isn't supported by your CPU"

[Mem]

I had this on my old Win8 PC(no.3) which has Epox NF4 Ultra motherboard,AMD 3800+ X2 CPU,yes I know its old but that's why its no.3 ie my other two computers are much more modern ie Samsung gaming laptop only 12 months old and PC gaming desktop PC I built with Z68 board and 2500K i5 overclocked,those two updated fine to Win8.1(one was a clean install).

Anyway this is the first time I seen this message pop up before trying to install the update from 8 to 8.1,not bothered really being its in a triple boot system with two Linux distros,but was surprised they seem to have changed hardware requirements on Win8.1 from 8 if you read this thread

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sh...ecause-it-isn-t-supported-by-your-computers-C

Here's a little information on the 64-bit processor requirements - What are CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW and LAHF/SAHF, given as additional requirements?. They are also mentioned at Hypervisor Virtual Processor Execution as being part of the differences between Intel and AMD processors.

Why Microsoft or any other vendor chooses to be opaque instead of transparent is beyond me.

I was just wondering if anybody else got this issue or message?

 

[lxskllr]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2347912

 

[Jodell88]

The only options are, install the 32bit version of Windows 8.1 or get rid of it and keep Linux on your machine.

 

[Jodell88]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2347912

Not the same problem.

 

[Mem]

The only options are, install the 32bit version of Windows 8.1 or get rid of it and keep Linux on your machine.

I'll probably keep Win8 on it for awhile then remove it and just keep my two Linux distros(all 64 bit OS),its my old PC that I use for playing with stuff(Epox motherboard which has never let me down) so not bothered,as to the other link by lxskllr yes that's not valid for me.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Could you be a little more specific which 3800+ we're talking about?

I don't think first generation A64's support those instructions (I think the F2 stepping and higher are good). Microsoft had a page detailing affected CPUs, but after the general availability I can't find the page. You might try a little google-fu.

 

[Mem]

Could you be a little more specific which 3800+ we're talking about?

I don't think first generation A64's support those instructions (I think the F2 stepping and higher are good). Microsoft had a page detailing affected CPUs, but after the general availability I can't find the page. You might try a little google-fu.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 X2 3800+ - ADA3800DAA5BV (ADA3800BVBOX).html

 

[Insert_Nickname]

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 X2 3800+ - ADA3800DAA5BV (ADA3800BVBOX).html

That's what I thought, its an early E4 "Manchester". First dualcore they made. Still haven't found that page. You cloud check with Aida64/HWinfo to see if it'll support those instruction. If not, I guess you're out of luck and have to stick to plain 8.

Sorry for the question, but there was a bewildering variety of X2 3800+'s around. Even more if you count single core 3800+'s...

 

[Mem]

That's what I thought, its an early E4 "Manchester". First dualcore they made. Still haven't found that page. You cloud check with Aida64/HWinfo to see if it'll support those instruction. If not, I guess you're out of luck and have to stick to plain 8.

Sorry for the question, but there was a bewildering variety of X2 3800+'s around. Even more if you count single core 3800+'s...

Hehe well ask AMD why they had so many,anyway gives me a good excuse down the road to turn that PC into a Linux only PC :awe: ,always a bright side .

 

[escrow4]

That PC isn't old, its primitive. A modern tablet would be faster. So why are you bothering with a modern 2013 OS on a cavemen era 3800?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

That PC isn't old, its primitive. A modern tablet would be faster. So why are you bothering with a modern 2013 OS on a cavemen era 3800?

Is this where I say that I know of certain local municipal organizations, that use P3's (you read that right, Pentium III) with Win7?

:\

 

[Mem]

That PC isn't old, its primitive. A modern tablet would be faster. So why are you bothering with a modern 2013 OS on a cavemen era 3800?

Because I get a free upgrade to Win8.1 which I'm entitled too,I also use it for testing software and even beta software etc that I'm not sure will run on Win8/8.1 or I don't want to risk on my main PC,as I stated I do have more modern PCs.

I also have one year old tablet and smartphone if you must know.

 

[TeknoBug]

I don't see why a 64bit OS won't work on that CPU, I still have one of those laying around on an old AM2 motherboard and IIRC I've used 64bit Linux on it before.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't see why a 64bit OS won't work on that CPU, I still have one of those laying around on an old AM2 motherboard and IIRC I've used 64bit Linux on it before.

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-confirms-some-older-amd-processors-do-not-support-windows-81

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I don't see why a 64bit OS won't work on that CPU, I still have one of those laying around on an old AM2 motherboard and IIRC I've used 64bit Linux on it before.

Again there where a LOT of different X2 3800+'s around. If your CPU is for AM2, then it is F2 "Windsor" revision minimum, which should be supported.

 

[QuietDad]

Because I get a free upgrade to Win8.1 which I'm entitled too,I also use it for testing software and even beta software etc that I'm not sure will run on Win8/8.1 or I don't want to risk on my main PC,as I stated I do have more modern PCs.

I also have one year old tablet and smartphone if you must know.

First, your not "entitled" to anything. If your beta testing/testing on 8.1, testing software on a box that is not supported by 8.1 will result in a FAIL. Reading the system requirements would have saved you alot of hassle.

I agree, in a sense that if 8 works on a given set of hardware, 8.1 should also, but that's Microsoft's decision, not yours. Are you entitled to Windows 2.0 or DOS 6.2 drivers to run on your new hardware?

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is crap that MS's 64-bit OS won't run on a 64-bit capable machine. Did Intel pay MS money to use 64-bit opcodes that are in Intel CPUs, but not in older AMD ones? I mean, AMD invented x86-64, how can they not be compatible, unless there is some Wintel shenanigans going on.

 

[Mem]

First, your not "entitled" to anything. If your beta testing/testing on 8.1, testing software on a box that is not supported by 8.1 will result in a FAIL. Reading the system requirements would have saved you alot of hassle.

I agree, in a sense that if 8 works on a given set of hardware, 8.1 should also, but that's Microsoft's decision, not yours. Are you entitled to Windows 2.0 or DOS 6.2 drivers to run on your new hardware?

You clearly miss my point,I purchased a legit 8 so was entitled in that sense like everybody else here with legit 8 to upgrade to Win8.1,however they changed something so it does not run on older hardware,I can live with that and yes they can do that, just like they can remove the start button menu if they wish, but was surprised they did a hardware change from Win8 to Win8.1,obviously nobody knew they would do this when then had installed Win8 so system requirements then were presumed to be the same for 8.1,anyway its not a moan just a statement.

It seems some of you guys are trying to make something out of this,anyway as I stated I'm not really bothered since I've two Win8.1 PCs already(a lot newer) and a few Linux distro PCs as well.

 

[TerryMathews]

This is crap that MS's 64-bit OS won't run on a 64-bit capable machine. Did Intel pay MS money to use 64-bit opcodes that are in Intel CPUs, but not in older AMD ones? I mean, AMD invented x86-64, how can they not be compatible, unless there is some Wintel shenanigans going on.

The instruction needed is right in this thread. I have no idea how important it is, or why Microsoft depreciated the software workaround they were using.

Realistically, as old as that CPU is, 32 bit might be a better performance fit anyway.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

This is crap that MS's 64-bit OS won't run on a 64-bit capable machine. Did Intel pay MS money to use 64-bit opcodes that are in Intel CPUs, but not in older AMD ones? I mean, AMD invented x86-64, how can they not be compatible, unless there is some Wintel shenanigans going on.

Actually its more complex then that. Based on what microsoft wrote, I think it had something to do with how x86-64 was first implemented, because x64 capable Pentium4's are also affected. I think the only ones that can run 8.1 are the 6x2's. The ones that first implemented basic virtualization support. This also ties in with Athlon64 F2 stepping being able, they where the first to implement virtualization in the AMD camp. I don't have some around to test though...

 

[Mem]

The instruction needed is right in this thread. I have no idea how important it is, or why Microsoft depreciated the software workaround they were using.

Realistically, as old as that CPU is, 32 bit might be a better performance fit anyway.

The Win8 PC I'm talking about in this thread has 4GB which is not bad for a very old PC,it did have Vista x64 on it at one time many years ago (yes still got the Vista key)anyway I'm 99% sure I'll keep it as a Linux 64 bit distro only PC.

Btw I had a couple of even older ones AMD 1700+ CPU ,NF2 board,gave those away to charity for free(a church wanted it for basic book keeping for their XP OS).

 

[QuietDad]

You clearly miss my point,I purchased a legit 8 so was entitled in that sense like everybody else here with legit 8 to upgrade to Win8.1,however they changed something so it does not run on older hardware,I can live with that and yes they can do that, just like they can remove the start button menu if they wish, but was surprised they did a hardware change from Win8 to Win8.1,obviously nobody knew they would do this when then had installed Win8 so system requirements then were presumed to be the same for 8.1,anyway its not a moan just a statement.

It seems some of you guys are trying to make something out of this,anyway as I stated I'm not really bothered since I've two Win8.1 PCs already(a lot newer) and a few Linux distro PCs as well.

Your still "entitled" to the free 8.1 upgrade. Put a CPU in your machine or install 8.0 on a machine that supports 8.1 and you'll get your free 8.1 upgrade. Your in effect saying that Window 7 and above should run on your old x286 based AT because you spent the money for the license.

 

[Mem]

Your still "entitled" to the free 8.1 upgrade. Put a CPU in your machine or install 8.0 on a machine that supports 8.1 and you'll get your free 8.1 upgrade. Your in effect saying that Window 7 and above should run on your old x286 based AT because you spent the money for the license.

I'm saying or I did state I'm surprised they changed system requirements from Win8 to 8.1,simple as that and nothing more.


Now I've to decide which Linux OS to install ,might try a new one for my third Linux distro .

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Your in effect saying that Window 7 and above should run on your old x286 based AT because you spent the money for the license.

I know for a fact that XP can run on a Pentium 133MHz from 1995, having tried that once. Windows 7/8 x86 is almost as light, so ignoring CPU instruction set limitations, it could likely be done with enough RAM. Your point being...?

I have even seen XP run on a 100MHz Pentium:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,590.html

It'll take a little while to install though...

 

[QuietDad]

I know for a fact that XP can run on a Pentium 133MHz from 1995, having tried that once. Windows 7/8 x86 is almost as light, so ignoring CPU instruction set limitations, it could likely be done with enough RAM. Your point being...?

I have even seen XP run on a 100MHz Pentium:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,590.html

It'll take a little while to install though...

Not saying it can't be done technically. I run newer OS's on older machines all the time. When doing so, I understand that I'm on my own to make it work. I don't feel entitled to having Windows 3.1 still have drivers for my newer equipment the same way I'm not entitled to have Window 8.1 support my 5 1/4 floppy drives or CGA video cards.

Microsoft writes Operating systems to match the new machines out there. Not the old ones. I agree that a hardware platform switch between 8 and 8.1 is lame, but so would an 8.1 that tried to run on a platform it might have been shaky on. Who knows. The bug reports and real world experiences my have shown 8 being run on the older platform was a bug they could only fix with removing the support.

My original argument was against the OP being "ENTITLED" to having it work. He's not entitled to anything. Install the 8.0 CD on a supported machine and he will get his ENTITLEMENT to upgrade to 8.1.