Microsoft further cracks down on Kaby Lake and Ryzen usage on Windows 7 and 8.1

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Z270 was also released after the OS was replaced too. You're just going in circles now so nothing more for me to add other users can read the previous replies.

Yes, it was a decision by Microsoft to not support Kaby Lake. It more than likely would have been easy to support but they didn't want to. But they also have no obligation to either. That's all I'm saying. And yes, they could also have dropped support for the 200 series chipset, but that could also affect Skylake users and it doesn't help them push Kaby Lake users towards Windows 10. I still see nothing wrong with any of this. 

[malon]

i am wondering how the support of server 2012 is on ryzen.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, malon said:

i am wondering how the support of server 2012 is on ryzen.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4012982/the-processor-is-not-supported-together-with-the-windows-version-that-

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

In fairness, Microsoft said from day one that Kaby Lake wouldn't be supported by W7/8.1.

 

I don't see why Microsoft should be expected to support new hardware on an old OS (if they clearly stated before that new hardware launched that it wouldn't be supported).

No one likes my analogy apparently. 

 

The chips are X86 there is nothing that micros ft has to do. its up to the hardware vendors to make drives. So microsoft is just being a dick. I get them not wanting it on 7 because it is end of life and is on to extended life, but 8.1 is good till 2018 on main stream and 2023 on total end of life. 

[porina]

10 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

This isn't just Microsoft's decision, but also AMD and Intel's.

I'm sure Intel was "persuaded" by MS to play along, although there is little stopping you using Win7 chipset tools since they can also support Skylake. AMD have released Win7 chipset drivers for Ryzen. 

[H0R53]

You could just update on one PC and move the HDD...Not hard to do...Considering not many PCs use SLIC anymore

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

The chips are X86 there is nothing that micros ft has to do. its up to the hardware vendors to make drives. So microsoft is just being a dick. I get them not wanting it on 7 because it is end of life and is on to extended life, but 8.1 is good till 2018 on main stream and 2023 on total end of life. 

That's not true at all. And if Microsoft isn't going to validate updates on Kaby Lake hardware then they shouldn't be pushing updates to Kaby Lake hardware. 

 

Yes, W8.1 is still under mainstream support, but imo that support doesn't cover hardware that wasn't even available until the succeeding OS was already out and established. Again, had Microsoft not said anything before the Kaby Lake launch, then I would have a problem with this, but I don't see why you should buy an OS from 2012/2013 and expect Microsoft to support it with a CPU that launched in late 2016.

[GDRRiley]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

That's not true at all. And if Microsoft isn't going to validate updates on Kaby Lake hardware then they shouldn't be pushing updates to Kaby Lake hardware. 

 

Yes, W8.1 is still under mainstream support, but imo that support doesn't cover hardware that wasn't even available until the succeeding OS was already out and established. Again, had Microsoft not said anything before the Kaby Lake launch, then I would have a problem with this, but I don't see why you should buy an OS from 2012/2013 and expect Microsoft to support it with a CPU that launched in late 2016.

It doesn't mean that you bought the os new it could be you rebuilding your pc and and don't want to be on windows 10

[79wjd]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

It doesn't mean that you bought the os new it could be you rebuilding your pc and and don't want to be on windows 10

I understand that, but I don't see why you should expect hardware that wasn't out until years later to be supported. Try to install Jelly Bean on a Galaxy S8 or OS X Mavericks on a 2016 Mac, you're going to have a terrible time. 

[H0R53]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

That's not true at all. And if Microsoft isn't going to validate updates on Kaby Lake hardware then they shouldn't be pushing updates to Kaby Lake hardware. 

 

Yes, W8.1 is still under mainstream support, but imo that support doesn't cover hardware that wasn't even available until the succeeding OS was already out and established. Again, had Microsoft not said anything before the Kaby Lake launch, then I would have a problem with this, but I don't see why you should buy an OS from 2012/2013 and expect Microsoft to support it with a CPU that launched in late 2016.

...Because Microsoft is a giant cock? Why should Microsoft care about older software on newer hardware? They didn't do this with 7 or 8, hell you can run W7 on a P3 CPU with no problems given you have enough RAM.

 

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

It doesn't mean that you bought the os new it could be you rebuilding your pc and and don't want to be on windows 10

I'm still on Windows 7 because I hate Windows 10 so damn much. After Windows 7 reaches EoL I'm moving to Ubuntu. 

Windows 7 was the best release by Microsoft, period. That's another discussion for another forum, but my initial point stands.

 

Deciding to phase out newer hardware on software that's still being supported is just a lazy dick move. Microsoft has the capacity to support W7 on Kaby Lake at no additional cost, and yet they insist on not supporting it, for what good reason?

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I understand that, but I don't see why you should expect hardware that wasn't out until years later to be supported. Try to install Jelly Bean on a Galaxy S8 or OS X Mavericks on a 2016 Mac, you're going to have a terrible time. 

Cyanogenmod Source and custom ROMs. Cook your own kernel. Easier to do than write your own Windows updates.

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I understand that, but I don't see why you should expect hardware that wasn't out until years later to be supported. Try to install Jelly Bean on a Galaxy S8 or OS X Mavericks on a 2016 Mac, you're going to have a terrible time. 

osx mavericks has issues on all hardware. and jelly bean will sucks because no one made drivers. 

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, H0R53 said:

...Because Microsoft is a giant cock? Why should Microsoft care about older software on newer hardware? They didn't do this with 7 or 8, hell you can run W7 on a P3 CPU with no problems given you have enough RAM.

 

I'm still on Windows 7 because I hate Windows 10 so damn much. After Windows 7 reaches EoL I'm moving to Ubuntu. 

Windows 7 was the best release by Microsoft, period. That's another discussion for another forum, but my initial point stands.

 

Deciding to phase out newer hardware on software that's still being supported is just a lazy dick move. Microsoft has the capacity to support W7 on Kaby Lake at no additional cost, and yet they insist on not supporting it, for what good reason?

Cyanogenmod Source and custom ROMs. Cook your own kernel. Easier to do than write your own Windows updates.

Yes, we all know Microsoft is trying to push people to Windows 10 and you could argue that they could've easily supported KL on W7/8.1, but they don't want to and as far as I'm concerned, they don't have to either. 

 

W10 is better in almost every way than W7, but hey, it's good to be an an antiquated platform. 

 

There would be an additional cost, they would have to validate all the updates on KL hardware. That would incur an extra cost -- not a huge cost, but a cost nonetheless. 

 

Really....make your own kernel. Okay. 

 

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

osx mavericks has issues on all hardware. and jelly bean will sucks because no one made drivers. 

Mavericks ran great, what are you talking about? Yosemite was the shitshow and that was only on older hardware. Regardless, that's all besides the point, the point is it's not uncommon for new hardware to not be supported by old software.

[jagdtigger]

13 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, we all know Microsoft is trying to push people to Windows 10 and you could argue that they could've easily supported KL on W7/8.1, but they don't want to and as far as I'm concerned, they don't have to either. 

 

W10 is better in almost every way than W7, but hey, it's good to be an an antiquated platform. 

 

There would be an additional cost, they would have to validate all the updates on KL hardware. That would incur an extra cost -- not a huge cost, but a cost nonetheless. 

 

Really....make your own kernel. Okay. 

 

Mavericks ran great, what are you talking about? Yosemite was the shitshow and that was only on older hardware. Regardless, that's all besides the point, the point is it's not uncommon for new hardware to not be supported by old software.

Yeah, thats why win7 washed up the floor with 10 when both of them was running on ryzen... 10 was a junk at launch and that hasn't changed since then.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Yeah, thats why win7 washed up the floor with 10 when both of them was running on ryzen... 10 was a junk at launch and that hasn't changed since then.

Or because the scheduler in W10 is different than the one used in W7.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Or because the scheduler in W10 is different than the one used in W7.

That still means that win10 in fact is inferior in this case compared to a so called "antiquated" OS.

[79wjd]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

That still means that win10 in fact is inferior in this case compared to a so called "antiquated" OS.

By that logic Windows XP is even more superior since it's lighter weight than both. 

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

By that logic Windows XP is even more superior since it's lighter weight than both. 

The point is how MS bragging about how superior 10 is. Then ryzen comes out and turns out that win10 isnt that good and better as MS hoped it would be. These are facts and it wont change no matter what analogy you cook up...

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

The point is how MS bragging about how superior 10 is. Then ryzen comes out and turns out that win10 isnt that good and better as MS hoped it would be. These are facts and it wont change no matter what analogy you cook up...

Just like it's a fact that Windows XP is superior. 

[jagdtigger]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Just like it's a fact that Windows XP is superior. 

Im done here...

[Guest Darth Revan]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

In fairness, Microsoft said from day one that Kaby Lake wouldn't be supported by W7/8.1.

In fairness, Microsoft is full of shit.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Darth Revan said:

In fairness, Microsoft is full of shit.

I don't see how they're full of shit. You can say that they're lazy or are desparate to push people to W10, but full of shit I don't see. 

[79wjd]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Lacking newer API support and having security flaws doesn't make an OS better.

My point is that Windows 7 isn't better just because the scheduler handlers Ryzen better. 

[ARikozuM]

http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-confirms-there-will-be-no-ryzen-drivers-for-windows-7/

 

AMD Ryzen is validated, but will not be supported on an OS pre-10.

[H0R53]

48 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

W10 is better in almost every way than W7

Wrong on more levels than you know

 

48 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

..make your own kernel. Okay.

I have a custom kernel on my S4 geared towards battery and undervolting, it's not hard, go on XDA forums and you'll see. Android is open sauce, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it

 

33 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Yeah, thats why win7 washed up the floor with 10 when both of them was running on ryzen... 10 was a junk at launch and that hasn't changed since then.

Windows 10 has so many useless built in apps and services that are randomly running they affect performance. On a fresh install of 7, on 4gb of RAM idle at maybe 15% usage, and 0% CPU. W10, random ass spikes in disk and CPU, fans spin up unnecesarily, etc. 50% CPU, 25% ram at any given time on same system

 

30 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Or because the scheduler in W10 is different WORSE than the one used in W7.

FTFY

 

16 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The point is how MS bragging about how superior 10 is. Then ryzen comes out and turns out that win10 isnt that good and better as MS hoped it would be. These are facts and it wont change no matter what analogy you cook up...

Again, every iteration of the Windows kernel performs slower than the last, not better. Windows XP x64 will be 50x faster than W10, hands down. Now Xp only supports DX9 max, so that's a bummer

 

14 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Just like it's a fact that Windows XP is superior.

In many ways it is, except for DX10 and DX11 support is nil. Other than that...

 

6 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

In fairness, Microsoft is full of shit.

The point I made from the beginning

 

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

 If Linux wasn't too dependent on the terminal

Devs are too lazy to make GUIs and then use CURL anyway

 

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Lacking newer API support and having security flaws doesn't make an OS better.

Not the point.

 

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Blame Intel too, it was more on them than on MS.

Doubt that

 

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

t Windows 7 isn't better just because the scheduler handlers Ryzen better. 

Not just Ryzen. It handles my Xeon better and dual CPUs in either AMD or Intel better

[H0R53]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Intel was the one who created it and also allowed MS to do this.  They're profiting off it.  Intel had no plans to update chipset and other drivers for older platforms, and AMD is also jumping on that too.  So, it's the fault of Intel then MS then AMD's[jumped on the bandwagon].

MS should have been the bigger person, then.