Depends on a lot of factors. Sure they could support Vista on up, but . . . Are we talking people buying servers or workplace desktops? I would think AMD would be quickest to offer "legacy" OS support for firms with numerous old Windows Server licenses. For large buyers with major Win7 desktop installations, they might do custom jobs the same way MS offers support for XP on a demand basis. For everyday schmucks trying to hold on to Win7 just a little bit longer . . . frankly I don't know what incentive AMD has to cater to that audience. MS is probably going to pay them under the table to move primary support to Win10 anyway. Something is pushing Intel in that direction. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a quid pro quo of some kind. That's exactly what I was thinking. Intel's going that route now, and AMD will probably follow suit. Well, the other thing is . . . if you don't want to undercut Broadwell-C with Skylake-C (or whatever it would be called), why release a new chip that's actually slower than the old one? The only reason I could see had to do with margins. Intel knew they could get away with it due to supply constraints (that you cited in your post), and they probably figured they could reap greater profits selling a non-eDRAM part as their flagship consumer CPU. Broadwell-C sort of let the cat out of the bag on what Intel could be doing to keep pushing performance. They're deliberately not doing it because they see no reason to outdo themselves by more than %5 per generation. What they don't seem to understand is that their penny-wise, pound-foolish approach has made the desktop profoundly uninteresting to many buyers who just see no need to participate in the desktop market, period. One could argue that Intel's decisions wrt Skylake etc. are driving down industry sales. AMD isn't helping matters either, really. Maybe with Zen, they can change that. Maybe.