MicroSoft is actively blocking W7/8/8.1 Windows Updates on KabyLake and Ryzen systems

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am surprised that the EU or some other organization haven't told them to fuck off with their pure evil schemes yet.

I'm actively searching how to file a complaint with EU against MS for W8.1

[The Sloth]

here is a question, how many people are still using window 7 that has kabylake or ryzen cpu, hers is another one how many people do you think care? yelling at how bad Microsoft is in a forum won't change anything. 

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

here is a question, how many people are still using window 7 that has kabylake or ryzen cpu, hers is another one how many people do you think care? yelling at how bad Microsoft is in a forum won't change anything. 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean you should just stand there looking on.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

here is a question, how many people are still using window 7 that has kabylake or ryzen cpu, hers is another one how many people do you think care? yelling at how bad Microsoft is in a forum won't change anything. 

I know that one person was actually planning on putting 7 on a Ryzen build. Me, an abnormality, the exception to a handful of rules, and because I don't build systems to fit my use cases, I find use cases for my systems, just so that I may enjoy building more systems unnecessarily.

And that's it.

 

So far, no one here presents any reason why we should entertain the notion of them using Windows 7 on Kaby or Ryzen. Either they're on hardware too new to justify moving to Kaby or Ryzen, have no use case where either are beneficial to them, or on Windows 10 and not realistically considering the move back to 7.

 

They're arguing situations that won't happen, because they care only about their POV that only exists so long as this non-issue exists, and ignoring what it means to the company that actually has the right to do these things, that has set up their contracts so that they might do this should it be required. Another area where I'm the abnormality, if I only looked through the shit stained glass that everyone else is, I'd be pursuing this witch hunt as well.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean you should just stand there looking on.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

 

so Microsoft windows upgrade is compared to human atrocity? nice that's a nice analogy, comparing an OS upgrade to one of the most horrific acts human beings have ever done.   Microsoft forcing upgrade= crime agents human beings, no offence windows 10 is not the "worst os ever" as people label it to be. most people using kabylake or ryzen cpus will have windows 10, unless you have a business that doesn't upgarde or a die hard windows fan, you have the free upgrade. in the end its about majority of public, the average users. 

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I know that one person was actually planning on putting 7 on a Ryzen build. Me, an abnormality, the exception to a handful of rules, and because I don't build systems to fit my use cases, I find use cases for my systems, just so that I may enjoy building more systems unnecessarily.

And that's it.

 

So far, no one here presents any reason why we should entertain the notion of them using Windows 7 on Kaby or Ryzen. Either they're on hardware too new to justify moving to Kaby or Ryzen, have no use case where either are beneficial to them, or on Windows 10 and not realistically considering the move back to 7.

 

They're arguing situations that won't happen, because they care only about their POV that only exists so long as this non-issue exists, and ignoring what it means to the company that actually has the right to do these things, that has set up their contracts so that they might do this should it be required. Another area where I'm the abnormality, if I only looked through the shit stained glass that everyone else is, I'd be pursuing this witch hunt as well.

 

i agree with your statement, it's that the comments are really out of touch. people acting like windows is dying, average user will just leave a familiar OS for something like linux. 

[Sousuke]

I know why Microsoft are doing this (To get more data from Windows Machines).

 

However stopping ALL Updates for Windows 7 and 8.1 for certain CPU types is absurd! If they don't want to support the microcode for those CPUs then fine whatever, we'll figure out a way to allow it. But to stop ALL Updates Security, Defender Definitions, Driver Updates ect ect is just dumb and really makes Microsoft look like one of the worst anti-consumer companies out there.

 

Sure you can argue that Windows 7 is in its "Extended Support Phase" however its still supported till January 2020!! 3 More Years. However no one can argue about Windows 8.1 which is still under "Mainstream Support" until January 2018! I mean Come on Microsoft are you begging for a class action lawsuit? 

[LAwLz]

51 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

so Microsoft windows upgrade is compared to human atrocity? nice that's a nice analogy, comparing an OS upgrade to one of the most horrific acts human beings have ever done.   Microsoft forcing upgrade= crime agents human beings, no offence windows 10 is not the "worst os ever" as people label it to be. most people using kabylake or ryzen cpus will have windows 10, unless you have a business that doesn't upgarde or a die hard windows fan, you have the free upgrade. in the end its about majority of public, the average users. 

Way to miss the point...

I was worried that someone would misinterpret my post so I added a second quote to further hammer on the point, but it seems like you missed that too. hell, I even spelt the point out in plain English and somehow you still missed it. That's rather impressive.

Or maybe you didn't miss it but decided to make a straw man argument instead.

 

 

Since you don't seem to understand analogies or rhetoric let me just ask you straight up then. Is it really your honest belief that if something doesn't affect you on a personal level, you should not pick a side nor should you get involved?

That's what the quote is about, and that was my point.

 

 

Also, I am hired as a consultant for a company with about 46,000 employees. They use Windows 7 on something like 95% of their computers. The remaining 5% are for testing Windows 10, or non-network attached computers that run like Windows 95 and control really old (but functioning) robots. I am sure they will be very pleased to know that they will no longer receive any updates for their newer machines...

In before "just upgrade to Windows 10 lol". It's not that simple for big businesses.

So yes, this might affect me greatly.

 

But it also affects me because Microsoft has once again broken a very serious bond of trust. They have shown that they do not give two flying fucks about upholding their support periods. If they say a product will receive security updates until 2023 then they might randomly decide that no, you will not get any updates after 2017. Stopping security updates 5 years earlier than what you originally said is a huge deal.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Also, I am hired as a consultant for a company with about 46,000 employees. They use Windows 7 on something like 95% of their computers. The remaining 5% are for testing Windows 10, or non-network attached computers that run like Windows 95 and control really old (but functioning) robots. I am sure they will be very pleased to know that they will no longer receive any updates for their newer machines...

In before "just upgrade to Windows 10 lol". It's not that simple for big businesses.

So yes, this might affect me greatly.

 

 

they all have kabylake or ryzen processors? so you are telling me a company will buy the newest greatest hardware for 46000 people and put window 7 on it? or is it that 46000 people are using older chipset? 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Way to miss the point...

I was worried that someone would misinterpret my post so I added a second quote to further hammer on the point, but it seems like you missed that too. hell, I even spelt the point out in plain English and somehow you still missed it. That's rather impressive.

Or maybe you didn't miss it but decided to make a straw man argument instead.

 

 

Since you don't seem to understand analogies or rhetoric let me just ask you straight up then. Is it really your honest belief that if something doesn't affect you on a personal level, you should not pick a side nor should you get involved?

That's what the quote is about, and that was my point.

 

i really want to add that you really are living up to your description, that's a nice touch. 

 

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

they all have kabylake or ryzen processors? so you are telling me a company will buy the newest greatest hardware for 46000 people and put window 7 on it? or is it that 46000 people are using older chipset? 

 

 

 

i really want to add that you really are living up to your description, that's a nice touch. 

 

Buying a new CPU product doesn't necessarily means you should buy a new windows licence: It should be perfectly ok for anyone to reuse their valid, paid for Windows 7 or Windows 8 licence. Your point again it's just more apologetics it doesn't addresses the concern and just aims to distract and try to make it a non-problem by means other than the main point because you know the main point is indefensible.

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

they all have kabylake or ryzen processors? so you are telling me a company will buy the newest greatest hardware for 46000 people and put window 7 on it? or is it that 46000 people are using older chipset?

In a corporate environment it isnt that simple  to change OS you seem to think. they have to do a wack ton of testing to ensure that the new OS is compatible with the software they using, stable enough to deploy, etc....

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

they all have kabylake or ryzen processors? so you are telling me a company will buy the newest greatest hardware for 46000 people and put window 7 on it? or is it that 46000 people are using older chipset? 

Not all of them have Kaby Lake or Ryzen. That's why I specified "for their newer machines".

Please try and read my posts a bit more thoroughly in the future. It's kind of annoying to have to repeat myself in every reply to you just because you are missing things.

And yes, they put Windows 7 on all their machines they buy, even Laby Lake ones. That's because it is very important to have consistency when dealing with such a large number of clients. They also use a lot of specialized programs, which is why they still have some computers running for example Windows 95. Those programs needs to be tested and in some cases maybe even rewritten in order to support Windows 10.

Those are huge tasks so while those things are being done, they need to keep everyone on Windows 7 in order to keep the operation running smoothly.

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i really want to add that you really are living up to your description, that's a nice touch. 

Comments like this adds nothing to the discussion. If you want to keep discussing then please answer my question or come with some counter arguments. Don't just throw around insults.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Even if you don't think Windows 7 should get updates it is a real scummy move to block Windows 8.1 which is still covered by the mainstream support.

It's definitely a huge fuck you, but I also don't think Microsoft should be legally obligated to support yet to be released hardware.

[The Sloth]

33 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Buying a new CPU product doesn't necessarily means you should buy a new windows licence: It should be perfectly ok for anyone to reuse their valid, paid for Windows 7 or Windows 8 licence. Your point again it's just more apologetics it doesn't addresses the concern and just aims to distract and try to make it a non-problem by means other than the main point because you know the main point is indefensible.

 

 

i was pointing out a fact that OS upgrade should not be comparable to crime again's human. 

 

32 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

In a corporate environment it isnt that simple  to change OS you seem to think. they have to do a wack ton of testing to ensure that the new OS is compatible with the software they using, stable enough to deploy, etc....

 

yup, when a company gets new hardware they usually upgrade windows to the newest version usually. i do get your point, microsoft should have given its users choices. 

[The Sloth]

26 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Comments like this adds nothing to the discussion. If you want to keep discussing then please answer my question or come with some counter arguments. Don't just throw around insults.

 

 

well, i just stated you are living up to self-given description, if your description is an insult to yourself i think its time for a change.  

[The Sloth]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Windows 7 on all their machines they buy, even Laby Lake ones. That's because it is very important to have consistency when dealing with such a large number of clients. They also use a lot of specialized programs, which is why they still have some computers running for example Windows 95. Those programs needs to be tested and in some cases maybe even rewritten in order to support Windows 10.

Those are huge tasks so while those things are being done, they need to keep everyone on Windows 7 in order to keep the operation running smoothly.

 

i agree that's a drawback Microsoft should think about before pulling the plug, more slowly and with more user-friendly way is the way to go. 

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It's definitely a huge fuck you, but I also don't think Microsoft should be legally obligated to support yet to be released hardware.

While that is true totally cutting updates isnt legal IMHO....

 

@nerdslayer1

They wont upgrade to the newest unless they have a very good reason to do so... Usually they upgrade just before the extended support ends. But seeing how many problems plaguing win10 i doubt companies will deploy it anytime soon.

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i was pointing out a fact that OS upgrade should not be comparable to crime again's human. 

 

yup, when a company gets new hardware they usually upgrade windows to the newest version usually. i do get your point, microsoft should have given its users choices. 

That was an analogy it wasn't a comparison. You made your point about your moral outrage. Noted. Still don't care, move on.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It's definitely a huge fuck you, but I also don't think Microsoft should be legally obligated to support yet to be released hardware.

Why not? The hardware is supported and they were the ones who said they would support it until 2020 and 2023 (for Windows 7 and 8.1 respectively).

Windows 8.1 isn't even out of mainstream support yet for crying out loud.

If they aren't prepared to actually support their products until year XXXX then don't say you will do it. You just can't say you will support a product until 2023 and then in 2017 go "actually, we are ending support for some customers right now".

 

There is also a big difference between not supporting it, and actively harm your users. If they just showed a banner saying "install future updates at your own risk. They have not been validated" then that's fair enough (although that would still be a dick move). You let users decide if they want to risk it. But this is Microsoft spending time and money actively programming it so that updates will be blocked. They are literally spending time and money to ensure that their users don't get security updates. How is that a good thing for anyone?

 

 

4 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

While that is true totally cutting updates isnt legal IMHO....

I am not sure if Microsoft are legally required to provide updates for as long as they promised. I don't know if it is specified in the contracts, or if it's just something they have said themselves with no contractual obligation to uphold their words. It might fall under false marketing regardless though. Or whatever classification a company refusing to honor a warranty would fall under.

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

While that is true totally cutting updates isnt legal IMHO....

 

@nerdslayer1

They wont upgrade to the newest unless they have a very good reason to do so... Usually they upgrade just before the extended support ends. But seeing how many problems plaguing win10 i doubt companies will deploy it anytime soon.

It depends on the EULA but I would be extremely surprised if they manage to find a justification to support Skylake and not Kabylake when both products are perfectly capable on running on the exact same motherboard products like Z170. Are they going to say "You won't get updates if you update your BIOS to support Kaby" As well? Because otherwise they are saying that the CPU itself is the problem yet a CPU upgrade alone, without upgrading the motherboard or bios, shouldn't be reason enough to consider it a different system. Their license terms should not entitled to determine what updates a user does to their system since you're not buying fucking hardware from them, so there's no possible way this would survive a court case imho (Other than MS trying to bully their way into a settlement or long drawn out court case but that shit won't fly with the EU comissions)

[79wjd]

@LAwLz 

I take "supported until xxxx" to mean we'll support any hardware that is out, I don't expect them to guarantee support for hardware that doesn't exist.

 

Again think of the average user, the average user is too stupid to see that banner and will just be upset when there's a problem.

[bcguru9384]

unfortunately those OS systems do not support features that are on the new chips.

thus the software team would have to write different version of each update to have less bugs or complaints when people update and their devices fail or os becomes corrupted.

go ahead try to download from win10 in virtual machine. it will fail or complete with errors.

they are reworking the installer engine. be great when completed. smaller update downloads less system reboots after installed update better driver response times.

just be patient and greatness will follow

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

@LAwLz 

I take "supported until xxxx" to mean we'll support any hardware that is out, I don't expect them to guarantee support for hardware that doesn't exist.

 

Again think of the average user, the average user is too stupid to see that banner and will just be upset when there's a problem.

What's the new hardware if you keep the same Z170 motherboard and the exact same bios that was released prior to the Kaby launch? Configuration issues might be a problem inherent to supporting new motherboard products but then again, if I buy a Z270 it's also brand new I would have no problems if I put a 6700k on it thus Microsoft supporting a much more difficult to support new product in the form of Z270?

 

The fact that this looks for the processor and not the motherboard throws any and all of those justifications out of the window.

[79wjd]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

What's the new hardware if you keep the same Z170 motherboard and the exact same bios that was released prior to the Kaby launch? Configuration issues might be a problem inherent to supporting new motherboard products but then again, if I buy a Z270 it's also brand new I would have no problems if I put a 6700k on it thus Microsoft supporting a much more difficult to support new product in the form of Z270?

 

The fact that this looks for the processor and not the motherboard throws any and all of those justifications out of the window.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been a lot of work because kaby lake is very similar, but the CPU itself does require extra work -- it's not all about the motherboard. 

 

Would this thread have been any different if kaby lake was significantly different? At the end of the day, Microsoft wanted to cut off support for new hardware on an aging and replaced OS. Regardless of whether or not kaby lake is a significant enough of a difference is irrelevant. It's a dick move, but one that I don't see as being legally wrong.

[Misanthrope]

32 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm sure it wouldn't have been a lot of work because kaby lake is very similar, but the CPU itself does require extra work -- it's not all about the motherboard. 

 

Would this thread have been any different if kaby lake was significantly different? At the end of the day, Microsoft wanted to cut off support for new hardware on an aging and replaced OS. Regardless of whether or not kaby lake is a significant enough of a difference is irrelevant. It's a dick move, but one that I don't see as being legally wrong.

That's for a court to decide not for you to assert. There's plenty of arguments for Microsoft violating the terms of the EULA by doing this however, we'll see if and when it eventually reaches a judge.