Microsoft blocks Windows update on Windows 7/8.1 from working with Kabylake and Ryzen

[you2]

I much prefer linux; cept when playing windows only games. Hum. Maybe valvue will get some traction in moving games to linux in 2018 and 2019. Would like to stop using windows (I'm on 7) by 2020.

 

[iamgenius]

Purely unethical. I really wanted to install windows 8 on my new kaby lake build. Windows 8 is fairly new.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

My number 1 cure all for ALL such issues is to nuke the OS and install Linux mint instead. You should try it. I had been using solely linux mint for a year until my school forced me to reinstall winblows because they need me to submit in excel and word.

 

[Raduque]

My number 1 cure all for ALL such issues is to nuke the OS and install Linux mint instead. You should try it. I had been using solely linux mint for a year until my school forced me to reinstall winblows because they need me to submit in excel and word.

I have tried it. It works OK on my ancient laptop for basic tasks, but can't handle my entire workload.

 

[Dahak]

I could see win 7 not getting support as it is in Extended Support now, but Win 8.1 is still in mainstream support until 2018 and I would say that should qualify for any new platforms like KB/Ryzen

 

[Mem]

I'm not bothered or surprised by Microsoft, end of the day sooner Win7 dies the better, I don't blame Microsoft for not fully supporting and blocking Win7 , end of the day it's an old dinosaur OS, you want to use it fine, just don't bitch about changes Microsoft make like these, plenty of alternatives out there from both Microsoft and Linux.

You are free to change OS.

Side Note: sooner Win7 goes, better the resources/time can go towards their later modern Operating Systems. Having said that, Win8.1 should still be supported, it's not that old especially compared to Win7.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[corkyg]

I agree with Oubadah. I have 10 and 7 as separate boot drives. I run 10 once a week to keep it updated, but use 7 regularly because it does everything I need, and a few more things that 10 cannot do. They are minor, but meaningful to me.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'd completely agree with Mem's "better direct resources at the current version" if MS had just said, "these new architectures will work on Win7/81, but Win7/81 won't be optimised for them (e.g. no scheduler update)", but MS actually went out of their way to waste resources for blocking ALL Windows updates for Win7/81 simply because the machine in question has one of these newer architectures.

It's a worrying precedent for MS to have adopted this strategy, because it's not a great stretch of the imagination to consider that MS would also think of sabotaging Windows in other ways to drive users and/or sales. For example, if a user insists on using an ancient version of MS Office which technically works on a modern version of Windows, then just send out an update that bricks Windows Update completely (or maybe temporarily if MS are feeling particularly charitable, until the ancient version of MSO is uninstalled), citing "an unsupported configuration of this operating system". Targeting third party software might get them in legal bother though.

One would think that a software maker would convince its user base to adopt the latest version of its product based on the merit of the new product rather than sabotaging the older versions.

 

[you2]

If games were well supported in linux (pointing a finger to cdprojek); I'd drop windows for good. As it is i'm still hopeful steam-linux initial will catch on before Jan 2020 and windows 7 will be my last windows OS. Linux isn't perfect (been using unix for 25 years); but windows isn't even good.

 

[Mem]

This isn't going to make Windows 7 die any sooner. That OS is still supported on a ton of hardware, and they'll still have to expend the same amount of effort on maintaining it as they would if they didn't impose this arbitrary limitation.



Like I said, this action won't make Windows 7 "go" any sooner, and don't you think it's a bit absurd to talk about better time/resource distribution, and then suggest that Microsoft's time and resources would be better spent on an operating system with a <7% market share than on one with a 48% market share:

The fact is that both should be supported until the advertised deadlines of 01/2020 for 7 and 01/2023 for 8.1.

End of the day every OS comes and goes, Microsoft are well within their rights to move towards later Operating Systems, it's one way to shift owners to move on and accept Win7 is not going to be supported as well as their newer Operating Systems, yes resources do matter and you can't keep throwing resources and money into an old OS like Win7, it has had a good run and you know that is true.


You can bet if Microsoft dropped Win7 tomorrow, sales of Win10 would increase ten fold over the year or two.

Look at it this way, all their direction with resources etc could be put towards improvements/compatibility/fixes etc in Win10 only, rather then Win7,Win8/8.1 and 10.

It would make having one Windows OS simpler in the long term.
Last point: Some of the blame has to go with third party software companies ( with regards to compatibility and even sales to a point), they are just lazy to update for Win10. Yes it does cost money but don't we all upgrade hardware without thinking twice about it. Software is the same to me but normally a lot cheaper.

Linux has a similar issue with regards to gaming, very few games are designed for Linux so it will never be a game OS like Windows, unless a lot of the software games companies decide to support Linux in their games.

 

[nevbie]

I don't understand why some bash win7 so much here, it is under support and it is not an experimental OS like w10 seems to be. The OS is a cornerstone of the stability of your system and it is the last thing you want to play with if you are actually using your computer.

The note that not supporting what they should frees their resources so that they can focus on w10 is ridiculous. They will obviously fire those people and gain more profit for their shareholders - why should they do any more work on w10 if they can direct the flow of lemmings there and then do whatever experiments they want with the users with $$ in their eyes? That seems to be the big idea with this OS and that is why people avoid it. In earlier iterations of hating the new OS it was always about the OS being bloated and slow (which was indeed the general direction of things), and that was a different reason.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

End of the day every OS comes and goes, .

I'm not sure i would classify Windows 10 as an operating system. It is more of a pair of handcuffs than anything before it.

 

[Mem]

I'm not sure i would classify Windows 10 as an operating system. It is more of a pair of handcuffs than anything before it.

It's made by same people then did previous Windows, end of the day if I'm honest I've had no issues with 10, just works for me with zero crashes so I can't find anything really to complain about. So is that not what an OS should be, just works with excellent stability?

 

[Raduque]

So is that not what an OS should be, just works with excellent stability?

Don't pay him any mind, some are more prone to hyperbole than others.

 

[you2]

Not bashing windows 7; bashing microsoft. Windows 7; prior to window 10 release was ok; but microsoft is doing their best to destroy window 7 (and i'm not talking about slow to provide update; but rather deliberate attempts to cripple windows 7). Worse trump's admin new rules will encourage companies like ms to run wild (at least until an admin change).

I don't understand why some bash win7 so much here, it is under support and it is not an experimental OS like w10 seems to be. The OS is a cornerstone of the stability of your system and it is the last thing you want to play with if you are actually using your computer.

The note that not supporting what they should frees their resources so that they can focus on w10 is ridiculous. They will obviously fire those people and gain more profit for their shareholders - why should they do any more work on w10 if they can direct the flow of lemmings there and then do whatever experiments they want with the users with $$ in their eyes? That seems to be the big idea with this OS and that is why people avoid it. In earlier iterations of hating the new OS it was always about the OS being bloated and slow (which was indeed the general direction of things), and that was a different reason.

 

[bbhaag]

Not bashing windows 7; bashing microsoft. Windows 7; prior to window 10 release was ok; but microsoft is doing their best to destroy window 7 (and i'm not talking about slow to provide update; but rather deliberate attempts to cripple windows 7). Worse trump's admin new rules will encourage companies like ms to run wild (at least until an admin change).

Well ya...they don't want another XP fiasco on their hands. Do you remember the nerd rage that ensued when they cut support for XP? Didn't they extend support because the rage was literally off world.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Shamrock]

I think everyone should watch this. A former employee explains why they blocked Win7/8. He coded from WinXP up to Win 8.1. And no, he isn't holding a grudge. In fact, he is still using Windows products. He is SPOT ON! It's 13m12s.

https://youtu.be/u5mFI9spp10

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Mem]

I don't know whether you're missing the point or deliberately ignoring it, but as I said in the last post, they're going to have to support Windows 7 until 2020 no matter what. Those resources are already allocated/reserved. Making the totally arbitrary decision to block support for some new hardware (that the OS already runs on) will not conserve resources, even if it forces some people to use Windows 10. All they're really achieving here is another unnecessary PR crap-storm.



Those two attributes apply just as much to Windows 7 as they do to 10, but no, there are other factors that people might value in an OS. If you honestly don't see reasons why people might still prefer 7 over 10, then it's because you can't be bothered to look outside the narrow confines of your own usage scenario and personal preferences. I might prefer Windows 7 (for the many reasons I've already listed on this forum), but I can still appreciate the fact that my priorities aren't everyone else's priorities, and I can acknowledge the reality that Windows 7 isn't the best OS for everyone.

I do know 7 has EOL for 2020 but that does not mean Microsoft can't change some deciding factors, just like when they extended XP support, they can also do the opposite or reduce full support, as to those that prefer 7 to 10 that is not my point, to me 10 is just another Windows OS, just the latest one, Microsoft will always make changes and do things they think is in their interest for whatever reason, as to the best OS, that is unimportant, since that is relative to the user in question. Microsoft however may feel they want to move away from Win7 for whatever reason, it's eight years old now and Microsoft may feel they what to reduce full support for it from now to 2020, which is less then three years away. Again if you want to use Win7 fine, but don't expect Microsoft to put 7 at the top of their priority with regards to full support etc.

End of the day "full life cycle with full support" can mean what Microsoft want it to be, it is their OS.

Btw this explains difference between mainstream and extended support,

Ending mainstream support for a product means Microsoft will no longer be enhancing that product. What it does NOT mean is there will no longer be fixes for security and reliability issues. Microsoft will continue to issue bug fixes and patches for security and reliability issues for Windows 7 and Windows 2008/2008 R2 after January 13, 2015.

When mainstream support ends, this is what occurs:

• Microsoft no longer supplies non-security hotfixes unless you have an extended support agreement
• All warranty claims end
• Microsoft no long accepts requests for new features and design changes

When extended support ends, you can no longer count on any security patches or reliability patches

http://www.networkworld.com/article...ream-support-and-end-of-extended-support.html

 

[PingSpike]

Windows 8.1 is still in mainstream support. Microsoft's definition of support levels are fluid terms that in practice mean next to nothing.

 

[Mike64]

Do you remember the nerd rage that ensued when they cut support for XP? Didn't they extend support because the rage was literally off world.

The problem wasn't nerd rage - MS couldn't give half a dead rat's ass about that - it was the far more significant corporate rage, from the owners/users of the massive installed base of XP in the business world...

 

[mikeymikec]

Well ya...they don't want another XP fiasco on their hands. Do you remember the nerd rage that ensued when they cut support for XP? Didn't they extend support because the rage was literally off world.

No, they extended support for XP because Vista clearly wasn't suitable for netbook-class hardware.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'd completely agree with Mem's "better direct resources at the current version" if MS had just said, "these new architectures will work on Win7/81, but Win7/81 won't be optimised for them (e.g. no scheduler update)", but MS actually went out of their way to waste resources for blocking ALL Windows updates for Win7/81 simply because the machine in question has one of these newer architectures.

It's a worrying precedent for MS to have adopted this strategy, because it's not a great stretch of the imagination to consider that MS would also think of sabotaging Windows in other ways to drive users and/or sales. For example, if a user insists on using an ancient version of MS Office which technically works on a modern version of Windows, then just send out an update that bricks Windows Update completely (or maybe temporarily if MS are feeling particularly charitable, until the ancient version of MSO is uninstalled), citing "an unsupported configuration of this operating system". Targeting third party software might get them in legal bother though.

One would think that a software maker would convince its user base to adopt the latest version of its product based on the merit of the new product rather than sabotaging the older versions.

But there really isn't a "product" anymore. Microsoft is promoting/selling a "service". Well, now it's actually a set of services I guess.