Microsoft to "maybe" withhold driver and security updates from "unsupported" Windows 11 installs

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

How am I wrong about media watching Microsoft release presentation, them seeing the recommended hardware support then all running off and creating the articles they did. I'm very much not wrong about that situation.

 

Yes the media did go off all guns blazing shooting first without bothering to get clarification or fact check.

Couldnt care less about the media, i meant w11 vs old hw.

  

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

and nothing has been done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(display_server_protocol)

Edited August 30, 2021 by jagdtigger

[GDRRiley]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

I have been hearing people say this since the 90's... I see no change. Sorry, but everyone I see that goes Linux, returns to Windows.

I've already switched my laptop over to it for the last year. I've got 0 wants to go back

I've got a few games left I care about like battlefield that I want to see on linux then I'll move my desktop. I'll deal with not having a native photo editing app I like

[Arika]

13 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Um, first they try to cut off systems for made-up reasons, then they fall back and instead they cut off updates

you're literally ignoring what Microsoft has said, either because of the media's reporting, or intentionally. 

 

W11 installs on unsupported hardware MIGHT not get feature/security updates depending on the hardware. Much like with windows 10, if the telemetry data they collect on your hardware shows that an update is going to cause problems with your system, they don't push the update.

 

If you're happily working away on W11 and an update comes through that bricks your PC because it included something that your hardware cannot resolve, then you would be fuming at them breaking your computer. If you don't get it, you're still somehow annoyed that you didn't get it.

 

curious as to what resolution you're seeking, do you want your computer to work or not?

[GoodBytes]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_(display_server_protocol)

I am falling asleep. Still waiting for it to be matured and be released across distros. And they still haven't fix their craptastic font rendering engine under Wayland, they just reused the same crap. No one wants to tackle it. You want to do actual work under such OS? please.

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

If you're happily working away on W11 and an update comes through that bricks your PC because it included something that your hardware cannot resolve, then you would be fuming at them breaking your computer.

They did it on several accounts without incompatible HW present in the system.... (including wiping files and partitions)

  

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

I am falling asleep. Still waiting for it to be matured and be released across distros. And they still haven't fix their craptastic font rendering engine under Wayland, they just reused the same crap. No one wants to tackle it.

That is true, but at the same time it is certainly way more than nothing.

Edited August 30, 2021 by jagdtigger

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Couldnt care less about the media, i meant w11 vs old hw.

Yes and what you have been saying is based off what the media reported in regards to old hardware. You are literally claiming Microsoft tried to cut these people off yet this was not the case, only the media were reporting it as that. When Microsoft actually commented on the situation they clarified that yes their upgrade checker was rather crap but also gave this nice bit of information about being able to do clean installs.

 

So you made up reasons for Microsoft making up made up reasons is itself made up... 

 

Inception 2021: Made Up Edition

Who's Windows is it Anyway: Where the facts don't matter

[Arika]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

They did it on several accounts without incompatible HW present in the system.... (including wiping files and partitions)

and when those situations popped up, they used what data they had to block those updates on any other PCs running similar hardware to prevent it from continuing until they fixed it.

 

edit: as I've mentioned before, an OS that has to support an effectively infinite number of hardware configurations is going to have problems pop up that couldn't be tested for. This is why it's always better to allow updates to come through naturally instead of forcing them.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, Arika S said:

and when those situations popped up, they used what data they had to block those updates on any other PCs running similar hardware to prevent it from continuing until they fixed it.

It does not matter, the damage was already done to still supported systems. I dont even remember if there was a single month where they didnt release at least one faulty update.

[IkeaGnome]

Imagine being angry because you can't just do an upgrade but have to do a fresh install with a new OS, like you should anyways....

I don't understand why so many people have been whining about W11. It's BETA. Stuff will change between now and release. Wait until release to set out pitchforks. 

This would be like being angry because you heard RTX 4xxxs will be hard to get. Makes 0 sense.

[Arika]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

It does not matter, the damage was already done to still supported systems. I dont even remember if there was a single month where they didnt release at least one faulty update.

So now you're advocating for MS to put every user in a situation where things can break and just never do any checking at all to potentially prevent it?

 

that sure is an interesting take.

[jagdtigger]

39 minutes ago, Arika S said:

MS to put every user in a situation where things can break and just never do any checking at all to potentially prevent it?

Thats the funny part, they actually do it. They do a sorta limited release into the wild and take a wait and see approach if it breaks anything. Now the same company wants to justify their decision about limitations with reasons like not wanting to brick machines/functionality inside the OS.... Now  thats what is really interesting.

[Arika]

11 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Thats the funny part, they actually do it. They do a sorta limited release into the wild and take a wait and see approach if it breaks anything. 

That's literally what I said, but you WANT them to now do this even more but omit the second part about waiting to see if it breaks and just roll everything out regardless of what happens?

 

I truly have lost track of what you want MS to do. You say things are shit as they are but you want them to just go full ham and push everything to everything, compatible or not?

 

"lol they do it already" is not an argument, do you want Windows updates to get better or not? 

or maybe you want them to get worse?

 

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

"lol they do it already" is not an argument, do you want Windows updates to get better or not? 

Who wouldnt want that. Id like to believe its going to be whats happening, but i never heard MS hiring more QC (because automated tools aint enough as practice shown) so i have to assume they will stick to their usual MO.

[GoodBytes]

37 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Who wouldnt want that. Id like to believe its going to be whats happening, but i never heard MS hiring more QC (because automated tools aint enough as practice shown) so i have to assume they will stick to their usual MO.

Microsoft has QC staff, and hires third party for contacted work to handle a lot of the testing.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

"lol they do it already" is not an argument, do you want Windows updates to get better or not? 

or maybe you want them to get worse?

I want windows update to get better, and them not cutting off system from updates for no reason, besides MS and hardware companies pushing planned obsolescence while an Intel 7th gen or AMD Ryzen 1st gen system would run W11 just fine. Yet MS breaks updates all the time, and going by the article they might withhold updates, which is bad enough because knowing how bad updates are at times I would expect MS to actually stop updating system they deem not supported.

32 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Microsoft has QC staff, and hires third party for contacted work to handle a lot of the testing.

The third party QC seems to be the problem, before MS got rid of most of their QC staff, updates were fine for the most part.

[Vishera]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't think that is true at all,  MS no longer have to put any effort into windows 7, so regardless of who uses it still, it does not consume more resources like tailoring future OS's for minority user base hardware would.   

Microsoft still has to provide ESU updates to Windows 7.

[mr moose]

42 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Microsoft still has to provide ESU updates to Windows 7.

Yes, but not to the general consumer and they are charging specifically for it,  It's the same with XP.  Here we are specifically talking about domestic users.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yet MS breaks updates all the time, and going by the article they might withhold updates, which is bad enough because knowing how bad updates are at times I would expect MS to actually stop updating system they deem not supported.

No more than any other OS maker,  in fact when you factor in market share and scaling they are probably better than average.

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

The third party QC seems to be the problem, before MS got rid of most of their QC staff, updates were fine for the most part.

This is an internet myth that won't die.  MS never got rid of QC,  they shifted part of the feature development to the Insider program (because why wouldn't you when you have so many people tripping over themselves to be beta testers), but essential and security updates have always undergone the same QC. 

 

I blame the media who make more money from making shit up than from proper journalism.  Because every time I search for windows and updates, All I see are the same tried old articles based on disgruntled ex employees or a handful of update issues.  I never see any qualified data showing updates to be getting worse nor do I see any evidence that MS sacked a whole lot of qc instead of moving to the Agile program (or whatever it was called when they streamlined development to include QC).

[Arika]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I want windows update to get better, and them not cutting off system from updates for no reason

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I would expect MS to actually stop updating system they deem not supported.

????

 

that's literally what they are saying. unsupported systems aren't going to get the updates that they cannot run and might get ones they can. That's not "no reason".

 

Given that W11 isn't even out, how can you say that "well it will run on x"? Future updates can't be guaranteed on certain hardware, hence they wont push an update to a PC containing hardware that cannot resolve the new features or security crap.

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yet MS breaks updates all the time

 

so i'll ask you too,

what SHOULD MS be doing with PCs that aren't officially supported by windows 11?

 

forcibly update them and potentially brick them or cause them to be massively unstable?

or

not update them and let people continue using them?

 

there is no third option you get updates or you don't.

 

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

an Intel 7th gen or AMD Ryzen 1st gen system would run W11 just fine.

and guess what, you CAN run windows 11 on this hardware, how are people still glossing over that? Do a clean install and bam, you're running Windows 11. however it's in an UNSUPPORTED configuration, therefore you MIGHT get certain updates and wont get others, that's the risk YOU take when you do.

 

Otherwise you've got another 4 years of use out of Windows 10, that's surely enough time to save up for a new computer or switch to Linux.

 

EDIT: also 10 years of support is not "planned obsolescence"...

[hishnash]

5 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

None of which is needed for the OS to functions, they could say that those wont work on older CPU's. Thats a different topic. Here we have an OS which is perfectly capable of running on older HW and a <insert profanity> company imposing artificial limitations....

MS did not say they would not ship any updates they just said that they are not committing to all sec updates being shipped. Hyervisor, secure boot etc are examples of sec updates that they might not ship to users on un-supported platforms. Also remember MS have no requirmeet whatsoever to provide updates for hardware they tell you in advance is not supported. QA testing does not just cost a lot it takes long time to do, adding 1000 more system configurations to that list of items to QA will delay updates from shipping (goth security and non security)  and possibly reduce the focus on QA that they put on the supported platforms (leading to more bugs for the supported users). 

Just remember if your upset about the amount to time MS are supporting your hardware, just buy a mac in the future apple will likely continue providing macOS software feature updates for hardware purchased today for 7 to 10 years with sec updates for a following 3 to 7 years if history is anything to go on.  But that is bundled in the cost of the hardware, you pay for that long term support in the price up front.   

[Maticks]

Really wish Microsoft would split drivers from the OS, updating drivers is usually what breaks peoples systems.

If you update your own Nvidia Driver for example and something breaks you know its that.

if Microsoft updates your Nvidia Drivers you probably just have blue screens and have no idea why.

 

Should be split or at least in a different menu to update Drivers from the main OS updates.

Classic example Microsoft updates Intel Raid Drivers, system didn't like the update now bluescreens on boot, only option is reinstall.

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Maticks said:

Really wish Microsoft would split drivers from the OS, updating drivers is usually what breaks peoples systems.

If you update your own Nvidia Driver for example and something breaks you know its that.

if Microsoft updates your Nvidia Drivers you probably just have blue screens and have no idea why.

 

Should be split or at least in a different menu to update Drivers from the main OS updates.

Classic example Microsoft updates Intel Raid Drivers, system didn't like the update now bluescreens on boot, only option is reinstall.

 

 

I read an article a few years back regarding this.  It might not apply to windows 10 and later and for the life of me I can't find it again (should have made a copy). Anyway it basically stated the biggest reason for windows updates to cause an issue was due to 3rd party hardware drivers not being kept up to date or inadequate support by the manufacturer.   Which made sense to me at the time and makes even more sense now if MS themselves are taking control of drivers as part of their update process.

 

 

[RejZoR]

6 hours ago, gamagama69 said:

The thing is that new low end hardware is supported. OEMs don't really use old hardware that isn't being produced anymore.

Who cares? I'm not going to buy new low end or high end system just to use latest Windows. It's stupid.

[Mark Kaine]

9 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Went from xp directly to 7 on a athlon 64x2, no probs at all.....  (/edit CPU was AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+)

Had the same cpu and been running Vista from 2007 - 2018... it was a very stable and dare I say frustration free experience... you really kinda missed out by doing that "upgrade"...

 

Last 2 years or so it became slower and less stable,  turns out the ASUS motherboard gave up (capacitors) so no fault of Vista at all, and I fully intend to replace it, because I really love the OS and I have software that doesn't run on 10 and I miss using it (for music  "production" mostly) also the media player was the best.

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

No more than any other OS maker,  in fact when you factor in market share and scaling they are probably better than average.

eh, idk about that, compared to windows 7, even windows 8, I see a lot more complaints with driver issues or thing related to forced updates, which wouldn't even be a problem if MS didn't force updates. Or as mentioned get driver updates separated from OS updates,  and MS sort of does that with a few updates sometimes does under their "optional updates" so it couldn't be that difficult to allow people to add drivers to the optional list.

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is an internet myth that won't die.  MS never got rid of QC,  they shifted part of the feature development to the Insider program (because why wouldn't you when you have so many people tripping over themselves to be beta testers), but essential and security updates have always undergone the same QC. 

 

I blame the media who make more money from making shit up than from proper journalism.  Because every time I search for windows and updates, All I see are the same tried old articles based on disgruntled ex employees or a handful of update issues.  I never see any qualified data showing updates to be getting worse nor do I see any evidence that MS sacked a whole lot of qc instead of moving to the Agile program (or whatever it was called when they streamlined development to include QC).

Well if MS listened to their insider team aka free beta testers, I doubt there would be so many issues with windows update, and at the least MS should have more than enough telemetry to deliver updates that aren't breaking things as Windows 10 has been out since 2015. For example I shouldn't have to go into the installed updates and uninstall something because an update causes a slowdown or might randomly break something.

And I understand media likes to report on stuff that gets the most clicks, but microsoft even considering that they would prevent updates from "unsupported" hardware is bad, and they've done a really crap job on making clear on what hardware is supported for Windows 11, also ridiculous that their own Surface Studio won't be officially compatible with Windows 11. Sure MS can double down on not wanting to support hardware that should be perfectly capable of running W11, but that isn't going to get people to upgrade from W10, seems like MS doesn't even care though lol.