there will be no Windows 7 ZEN drivers - AMD confirmed it

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

depends who from AMD open their mouths

most people in PR are full of shit, especially AMD's 

well i have yet to see an intel igpu beat a GTX 750 like they so proudly claimed   

 

EVERYONE talks shit in business , its part of it 

[Dabombinable]

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Please bear in mind that:

1) Those are publicly known vulnerabilities. So Windows 7 could be full of holes that are being exploited all the time, but because they aren't publicly known they aren't counted. Likewise, something like Linux which is very open with development has its vulnerabilities pretty much always publicly known.

 

2) That list does not take into account how serious vulnerabilities are. Something that just makes something freeze for a while counts as 1. Something which completely takes over your computer also counts as 1.

 

3) That list does not take into consideration how many were fixed, or how quickly.

Consider how long Windows 7 has been around for, then look at how many bugs have been found over its lifespan so far, then look at how many have been found for Windows 10 so far-the chart starts at 1999 remember, and is still being updated:https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=0

[zMeul]

27 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Consider how long Windows 7 has been around for, then look at how many bugs have been found over its lifespan so far, then look at how many have been found for Windows 10 so far-the chart starts at 1999 remember, and is still being updated:https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=0

well ... the Linux kernel alone should scare the crap out of you, if you only consider the lifetime vulnerabilities found

 

on the other hand, Chrome and Firefox has each twice as many known vulnerabilities than W7 

[dalekphalm]

41 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Consider how long Windows 7 has been around for, then look at how many bugs have been found over its lifespan so far, then look at how many have been found for Windows 10 so far-the chart starts at 1999 remember, and is still being updated:https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=0

Also consider that in 2014, there were 36 vulnerabilities in Windows 7. In 2015 there were 147.

 

Just because it's a more "mature" product doesn't mean it's more secure.

 

We have to take these figures with context in mind, and a lot of these lists, while very useful, do not paint the full picture.

[suicidalfranco]

boooooo boooooooo

fuck you amd

boooooooooooooooo

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Also consider that in 2014, there were 36 vulnerabilities in Windows 7. In 2015 there were 147.

 

Just because it's a more "mature" product doesn't mean it's more secure.

 

We have to take these figures with context in mind, and a lot of these lists, while very useful, do not paint the full picture.

it doesn't say how many of the issue were patched, it's more important than how many they were found

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, zMeul said:

it doesn't say how many of the issue were patched, it's more important than how many they were found

Indeed, if there were 147 vulnerabilities and 146 of them were fixed, that's a pretty good track record.

 

But if another OS had 59 vulnerabilities and only 3 of them were fixed? Not so good. Which OS is more secure? Obviously there's more to it then that, as the severity of each vulnerability is not directly stated.

[Delicieuxz]

On 2/9/2017 at 9:00 AM, Drak3 said:

Windows 7 is still a fairly secure OS, in regards to its competition. It receives the same security updates as Win 10, and most vulnerabilities are shared. The key differences, regarding security, are the fact that Win 10 can supplement aftermarket antivirus with Windows Defender and that it has a few more vulnerabilities.

 

Really, the whole "outdated" argument is not a sound reason to cut support for Win 7 on Ryzen and Kaby.

Windows Defender is available for Windows 7, and uses the same threat-detection list as Defender on Windows 10.

 

 

 

In general regards to the subject:

 

Really, Windows 7 is the more secure, out of Windows 7 and 10.

 

 

Windows 7 is also more stable and reliable than Windows 10:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...something-isnt-right-with-windows-10-testing/
http://www.infoworld.com/article/31...inting-bugs-in-kb-3177725-and-kb-3176493.html
https://redmondmag.com/articles/2016/06/16/june-patch-breaks-group-policy-settings.aspx
http://windowsreport.com/partition-disappears-windows-10-anniversary-update/
http://superuser.com/questions/1022063/windows-10-default-programs-keep-changing
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/16-windows-10-anniversary-update-issues-fix/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2016/08/15/microsoft-warns-windows-10-anniversary-update-crashes-problems/
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style...s-10-Anniversary-Update-Install-Problems-Fail
https://www.thurrott.com/windows/wi...illions-webcams-windows-10-anniversary-update

 

 

Windows 7 is more configurable than Windows 10 (Windows Updates, system restarting, Group Policy editor, removing default apps, background data-collection, account permissions, changing default apps, visual customization...).

 

 

Windows 7 is lighter on system resources than Windows 10 (On my dual-boot machine, 13% RAM at idle in Win 7, 15% RAM at idle in Win 10).

 

The only evidence that I've seen for Windows 10 being comparably or more lean as Windows 7 comes from the pre-release preview builds of Windows 10, and not the post-release / AU builds that everyone is now running on their machines. It only makes sense that Windows 10 is more resource-hungry than Windows 7, since:
- Windows 10 has background data-collection constantly running, which takes up some level of processing capability beyond Windows 7, which doesn't have that spying and data-theft constantly running in the background.
- Windows 10 is a bloatware OS, with lots of native Microsoft apps that Windows 7 doesn't have (thankfully).
- Since its release, Windows 10 has received numerous large updates, which have increased the resource footprint of Windows 10. As it stands, Windows 7 is a leaner OS than Windows 10.

 

 

Windows 10 is simply Windows 7, re-re-released with a load of monetization features built into it (and some other largely-superficial changes), so that Microsoft doesn't have to keep re-re-releasing the same OS over, and over, each time Microsoft wants a revenue boost. If someone thinks that by running Windows 10, they're running a more secure, stable, and leaner OS than Windows 7, then they've believed the propaganda that Microsoft wanted them to.

 

Plebeians have been whipped into getting hyped about software with a newer number on it, without understanding what it actually means for them, and Microsoft has played that to their advantage. It's even gotten to the sorry state where the plebeians feel smart by telling and intimidating other people into thinking that Windows 10 is something newer and better, when it's just a bloated retro OS, with a retro UI, and which has less security and stability than Windows 7, and whose code changes and additions are being made in a greatly-inferior quality-assurance environment than Windows 7's was.

[michaelocarroll007]

All the same people who would still be running XP right now if they could are going to do the same with windows 7 They Hate change or something.  Windows 10 is Stable and has many features 7 doesn't. Get over it your stuck on the past with a 9 year old OS you can keep your old Processor too AMD specficially is low on money and is trying to spend it productiveley they save money from not investing in a dying OS thats again 9 years old about its only a few from being a tiny Niche.  

[Delicieuxz]

7 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

All the same people who would still be running XP right now if they could are going to do the same with windows 7 They Hate change or something.  Windows 10 is Stable and has many features 7 doesn't. Get over it your stuck on the past with a 9 year old OS you can keep your old Processor too AMD specficially is low on money and is trying to spend it productiveley they save money from not investing in a dying OS thats again 9 years old about its only a few from being a tiny Niche.  

That people are still running Windows XP without issues, despite Windows XP being a very different OS to modern OSes, shows how overblown any claimed need to use Windows 10 is. And who are you to tell someone they need a different OS? That's like me telling you what groceries you need to be buying, or what colour car you have to buy. Do you not have a conception of personal boundaries? That's really not any different than racism, telling people that their skin-colour represents some abstract deficiency, that doesn't substantiate as being real when looked at without prejudice. Same goes for Windows 10, which doesn't particularly offer anything over Windows 7.

 

Also, the difference between running Windows XP instead of Windows 10, versus running Windows 7 instead of Windows 10, is that Windows 10 is still Windows 7 at its core, and not Windows XP at its core. So, if you think that Windows 7 is too old for your futuristic senses, then stop using Windows 10, because its functional core is just as old as Windows 7 is, being one-and-the-same. So, stop using Windows 10, and travel into the future to use whatever isn't old, because the most modern Windows OS today is, at its centre, as old as Windows 7.

 

Stop riding baseless propaganda sentiments, and pushing them on other people.

[Drak3]

@Delicieuxz What I said regarding Windows Defender in Windows 10 is that it can now run side by side with other Antivirus software. Windows 7 can't do that without molding the OS.

 

Also, I said that Windows 10 had more vulnerabilities. 

[michaelocarroll007]

35 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Snip

 

1  This was mainly targeted at those who are whining that Zen wont support an OS that is 9 years old.

2. i never said you NEED a different OS i gave a reason AMD shouldnt support it as a business decision & a theory of who will stay on 7 as long as possible. 

49 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

And who are you to tell someone they need a different OS?         telling people that their skin-colour represents some abstract deficiency

 

But Overall Dayumm.... Feelings Hurt much? You okay need a hug? F*** people have some sensitive *ss feelings.

 

If i Did Straight out say You should be using windows 10 and not 7 ( Which ill admit i did to a degree.) It would be no where near telling someone because there skin color they cant get paid $20 an hour or  they cant get hired for a job due to the skin color. Skin Color makes no actual difference here. Windows 10 & 7 have legit differences Like the ability to use DX12 API or the Privacy problems of windows 10. There are positives and negatives where you can have a legitimate discussion about the differences. You cant discuss well you know because of his skin color i just don't think he would do as good of a job so lets not hire him. THIS IS DIFFERENT

 

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's really not any different than racism, telling people that their skin-colour represents some abstract deficiency, that doesn't substantiate as being real when looked at without prejudice. Same goes for Windows 10, which doesn't particularly offer anything over Windows 7.

That is a little strong of an argument. Also be mindful when equating something to racism as that is something we take quite seriously.

[bimmerman]

I'm running Win7 still because I have yet to see any compelling reason to upgrade to Win 10. I have 8.1 on one laptop, and it's fine, but the UI (even with classic shell) bothers me. Win 7 works, is stable, is secure, so for as long as it's still supported by Microsoft I intend to use it. The telemetry and monetization also annoy me, but since I have the option to not use Win10, I'll do that.

 

Then again, I still have a laptop from 2005 with XP on it that I use from time to time in the shop, cause it works and I'm not worried about damaging it.

 

Show me a compelling reason to upgrade unrelated to the 3 years of remaining support or DX12 (don't care, whatsoever) support.

 

and no, Linux is not a realistic option for most people. Deal breaker #1: can't use the MS Office suite.

[Markus]

I wonder how much M$ paid AMD to make this decision

[Nicnac]

Well that's a bummer...