RyZen will get official Windows 7 support

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

While reading this and the previous page, that was the argument that came to my mind: If a driver is any medium of code that conveys information between parts, then, essentially, everything would be a driver.

 

I can see both sides of this, and I think that one expression is casual and convenient, while one is more technical and specific in what it indicates.

Except what he quoted me saying he took to the extreme to convey a point that I wasn't saying or meaning. What I said doesn't at all imply that a function is a driver. A driver can expose many functions for you, like say change power state. The OS tells the driver to do this along with the information on what way and the driver then does it, the OS doesn't care how.

 

Quote

It is challenging to give a single precise definition for the term driver. In the most fundamental sense, a driver is a software component that lets the operating system and a device communicate with each other. For example, suppose an application needs to read some data from a device. The application calls a function implemented by the operating system, and the operating system calls a function implemented by the driver. The driver, which was written by the same company that designed and manufactured the device, knows how to communicate with the device hardware to get the data. After the driver gets the data from the device, it returns the data to the operating system, which returns it to the application.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/drivers/gettingstarted/what-is-a-driver-

[patrickjp93]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Except what he quoted me saying he took to the extreme to convey I point that I wasn't saying or meaning. What I said doesn't at all imply that a function is a driver. A driver can expose many functions for you, like say change power state. The OS tells the driver to do this along with the information on what way and the driver then does it, the OS doesn't care how.

 

https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/drivers/gettingstarted/what-is-a-driver-

Small but important misstep in that definition: there is no communication. The devices cannot intelligently interact with the OS. A better wording would be that a driver allows an OS to issue commands to a device and receive data back. But that's far from the original debate.

 

I took what you said verbatim and used reductio ad absurdum to prove it was nonsense. You need to be more careful with how you phrase your responses.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

I took what you said verbatim and used reductio ad absurdum to prove it was nonsense. You need to be more careful with how you phrase your responses.

No you didn't read it again. You even started talking about DLLs for literally no reason... I phrased it exactly how I wanted to and so has Microsoft. As I said before I do not agree, will not agree, leave it at that.

 

I do however take exception to the quoted statement by you, what drivel. You need to be more careful how you read and interpret, your bias is influencing you and are reading what isn't there then trying to grand stand in an obnoxious way.

 

Literally showing you drivers, literally showing you Microsoft saying they are drivers, yet you say they aren't, highly entertaining stuff.

[Prysin]

@patrickjp93

You know what is worse then being wrong? Not admitting that you are in the wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

You learn from your mistakes, although, it seems you want to deny the mistake, and thus deny the lesson.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

But patrick has no holy book, or a pyramide raised in his name. He cannot be a god. Also, the spehs eiliens hasn't cut his face into Mt. Rushmore

Intel Errata list, and the IBM towers. Beat that, Egyptian Gods.

 

But seriously, how did we get to this driver argument? Pretty sure we can all agree that "official" OS support is pretty silly, as I already know people benching SuperPi on Windows 7 with Kaby Lake. 

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Intel Errata list, and the IBM towers. Beat that, Egyptian Gods.

 

But seriously, how did we get to this driver argument? Pretty sure we can all agree that "official" OS support is pretty silly, as I already know people benching SuperPi on Windows 7 with Kaby Lake. 

we got into the argument, as with every other argument involving Patrick. Blind fanboyism and stubborness versus overwhelming facts and reason.

[leadeater]

43 minutes ago, MageTank said:

But seriously, how did we get to this driver argument?

Blame @Drak3, he said something slightly incorrect and then someone got super triggered and countered with something also incorrect and then even asked for documentation showing otherwise. I kindly obliged, which then caused that person to double down on the stupid and then got triggered even more.

[leadeater]

@Prysin @XenosTech

That's enough of the spam/useless posts.

[vorticalbox]

On ‎01‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 11:06 PM, VerticalDiscussions said:

Ah come on, just get Windows 10 already. Its free .-.

 

#WasFree

windows 7 makes up around 45% of the market and is by far the most used desktop operating system.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Blame @Drak3, he said something slightly incorrect and then someone got super triggered and countered with something also incorrect and then even asked for documentation showing otherwise. I kindly obliged, which then caused that person to double down on the stupid and then got triggered even more.

It wasn't even me saying something slightly incorrect, it was me using JayzTwoCents' video demonstrating what happens, and me offering the explanation of why it happens (because, let's face it, a good deal of YouTubers get the explanation a bit wrong on certain issues), because Jay got an error code that sometimes serves as a catch all for unexpected issues in Win8.

[VerticalDiscussions]

4 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

-snip-

But why o-o!?

[vorticalbox]

4 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

But why o-o!?

Mostly the lack of spying and having actual control over updates.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

It wasn't even me saying something slightly incorrect, it was me using JayzTwoCents' video demonstrating what happens, and me offering the explanation of why it happens (because, let's face it, a good deal of YouTubers get the explanation a bit wrong on certain issues), because Jay got an error code that sometimes serves as a catch all for unexpected issues in Win8.

Yea sorry that was a little harsh on you, was more trying to say that it started with your post and not to blame you or say you did anything wrong.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yea sorry that was a little harsh on you, was more trying to say that it started with your post and not to blame you or say you did anything wrong.

I wouldn't say it was harsh.

Arguably, I did use a resource in my comment that wasn't 100% on point, and that could confuse my point for others.

[Stefan1024]

One should think a CPU can handle any OS. It just gets x86 Instructions to carry out.

 

The instruction set is standardized and that's all a programm should require to run. But I'm sure there is a catch somewhere.....

[Drak3]

18 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

One should think a CPU can handle any OS. It just gets x86 Instructions to carry out.

 

The instruction set is standardized and that's all a programm should require to run. But I'm sure there is a catch somewhere.....

There is. While x86 instruction sets are mostly forward, backward, and cross compatible, there are still variances and advanced features on many CPUs that require drivers to use correctly (or at all), due to architectural differences.

Operating systems have progressed to the point that dedicated drivers for CPUs are largely unnecessary. The generic drivers an OS has bundled often take full advantage of the CPUs that it supports. CPUs also have come along way in that most of them have firmware that will make up for any short comings of the generic driver in operating systems that are supported.

The issue is that Kaby is enough of a variance from Sky that Win7 and 8 generic drivers cannot make full, correct use of Kaby, and since Kaby only supports 10 (and only 10 supports Kaby), the firmware isn't designed to make up for those short comings. This is probably an artificial road block, but it's still there for the time being. Either benevolent hackers, Microsoft, or Intel can get the unsupported OS's running as if it were Sky, whilst still taking advantage of new features. It's entirely possible that Kaby proves to not be worth the effort though, as Haswell users and up don't feel any pressure to upgrade due to the minor IPC increases and newer features of Kaby.

 

As JayzTwoCents already demonstrated, Windows 8.1 will boot on a Kaby system, it's just a bit temperamental when it wouldn't be if it were on Sky, Broadwell, or Haswell

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Stefan1024 said:

One should think a CPU can handle any OS. It just gets x86 Instructions to carry out.

 

The instruction set is standardized and that's all a programm should require to run. But I'm sure there is a catch somewhere.....

Yea that's correct, it's only the extra things like power states and reading information from the CPU microcode like what it actually is which isn't required just nice to know. There's probably more in those drivers that I don't know about but essentially they are for optimal cohesion, nothing to do with actual code execution.

[Delicieuxz]

7 hours ago, Drak3 said:

As JayzTwoCents already demonstrated, Windows 8.1 will boot on a Kaby system, it's just a bit temperamental when it wouldn't be if it were on Sky, Broadwell, or Haswell

Jayz didn't mention the specific BSOD by name, nor did he talk about what it's generally associated with, and Jayz did nothing to demonstrate that the BSOD which they received was related to the Kaby CPU. I think it's obvious that he didn't even look it up, and only assumed that it was related to the CPU - a case of confirmation bias.

 

Like I said, many people have received that same BSOD in Windows 7, 8, and 10, with all types of CPUs. The solution for it can be different things, but there's nothing to go on here to indicate that the CPU was responsible for Jayz' BSOD. Jayz also said the CPU in his test-system was OC'd, and he didn't bother removing the OC to see if it was the cause of the instability.

 

On 2/3/2017 at 11:14 AM, Delicieuxz said:

The BSOD Jayz got there has happened to lots of people who aren't running Kaby CPUs, and the cause of it doesn't appear to be CPU-related. It's too bad that Jayz didn't look up the BSOD, find out what it's associated with, and talk about it in his video. Instead, he, unintentionally, is giving a false impression that that instability is related to running a Kaby CPU with an older Windows version, when, in all likeliness, it had nothing to do with the CPU being Kaby Lake.

 

DPC_Watchdog_Violation has occurred on Windows 7, 8, and 10, with all types of CPUs:

 

Microsoft Confirms Windows 10 DPC_WATCHDOG_VIOLATION BSOD, Promises Fix

 

 

 

AnandTech did their Kaby Lake benchmarking on Windows 7, without mention of issues, and Hardware Unboxed did a stability test for Kaby on Windows 7, and found no problems with it.

[alextulu]

On 2/4/2017 at 1:41 AM, Ryan_Vickers said:

Oh yeah, then what is this?

This driver enables advanced power saving features in the CPU.

 

Without the driver you won't have the power saving feature, but Windows will run just fine without it.

 

CPU drivers are only for powers saving features, or Intel's TurboBoost 3.0.

 

Windows can run without these features.

[alextulu]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:15 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

so I bothered to take 2 minutes out of my day to lookup how to uninstall the little Windows 10 upgrade icon offer in the system tray.  After that, I just made sure to carefully check the list of proposed updates, (since it would come back if you weren't careful)

 

You don't have to uninstall the update, that brings the upgrade icon.   I discovered another way.

 

First I tried to kill the program, that brings the upgrade icon, but it would reappear after reboot.

 

I searched for that program in the startup tab in msconfig, then in services.msc, and then I finally found it in Task Scheduler

 

Then I removed the file associated with the task in Task Scheduler. The only problem was, that the admin account didn't have write permission, so I opened the permissions tab and gave myself permission.

 

Then a new update came, that brought it back, but this time it also removed ownership by the admin account for that file. I gave myself ownership, than write permission, and deleted it again.

 

And that was it. Other updates didn't bring it back.

[PCGuy_5960]

On 2/2/2017 at 1:06 AM, VerticalDiscussions said:

Ah come on, just get Windows 10 already. Its free .-.

 

#WasFree

Actually. It is still free

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

-snip-

xD, why were they warning they would cut off the free upgrade period then aha?

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

xD, why were they warning they would cut off the free upgrade period then aha?

Because they did  Now to upgrade you need to say that you "use" assistive technologies:

http://www.howtogeek.com/272201/all-the-ways-you-can-still-get-windows-10-for-free/

[vanished]

4 hours ago, alextulu said:

You don't have to uninstall the update, that brings the upgrade icon.   I discovered another way.

 

First I tried to kill the program, that brings the upgrade icon, but it would reappear after reboot.

 

I searched for that program in the startup tab in msconfig, then in services.msc, and then I finally found it in Task Scheduler

 

Then I removed the file associated with the task in Task Scheduler. The only problem was, that the admin account didn't have write permission, so I opened the permissions tab and gave myself permission.

 

Then a new update came, that brought it back, but this time it also removed ownership by the admin account for that file. I gave myself ownership, than write permission, and deleted it again.

 

And that was it. Other updates didn't bring it back.

IMO that sounds more complicated than what I did, and (again, imo) you should be checking through the list anyway so that wasn't really any extra work for me.

[alextulu]

11 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

IMO that sounds more complicated than what I did

The most difficult part was finding out how it works the first time.  The second time I already knew what to do.

 

If this was a available as a tutorial on the Internet, it wouldn't be that difficult.