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

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

There not their.

 

Don't look at my posts they are riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes.

 

#Hypiocrate_grammer_natzi lol I should get some sleep I'm getting loopy again. Good night all!

Spelling and grammar isn't exactly my strong point lol, computers make it so much worse with spell correction etc you get lazy.

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Other than me showing you the provision for it and you saying no it means something else and trying to state it is talking about Microsoft consumer hardware products it manufactures which has it's own support page with that information and the page we are looking at is specifically and only about Microsoft desktop operating systems.

 

Here is the support page for their hardware products:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-nz/help/17453/lifecycle-faq-hardware

https://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-us/support/warranty-service-and-recovery/surface-warranty

 

Sandy Bridge is old and came out during the mainstream support of Windows 7 (January 13, 2015). Did you actually mean Skylake (August 5, 2015)? And yes technically that is correct, it's up to Microsoft to decide on what to do about it which could be nothing.

The policy you cited says "Extended Support is not available for consumer, consumer hardware, or multimedia products". I meant Sandy Bridge, making the point that all the normal user desktops that are currently receiving Windows 7 extended support, are consumer hardware, and the policy you cited is not referring to a restriction on receiving Windows extended support updates on consumer hardware, otherwise (amongst other reasons) Sandy Bridge PCs would not be able to receive Windows 7 extended support security updates.

 

Quote

Notice how Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Business & Enterprise, Windows 7 Enterprise is not listed as unsupported?

They're not unsupported for extended support non-security hotfixes - which are only available to businesses who pay Microsoft a fee to receive them. That's not relevant to discussing Microsoft blocking extended support security updates for Windows 7 consumer desktops.

 

Quote

That is just a silly statement, why even jump to that?

I would say the silliness was jumped to when you said "I'm not sure why you would ever think any company would support anything new when a product is in extended support", when that statement precludes the understanding for what extended support means, which is what is being debated, and when your efforts to define it as naturally omitting access from newer hardware have so far not been substantiated.

 

Quote

Also this is exactly the subject matter, acting like equivalent support should be given under extended support all inclusive no conditions even though extended support is exactly that, conditional.

The conditions of extended support are defined, and include:

 

- no new features (except spyware, hardware restrictions, and rolled-up updates, apparently)

- no non-security updates for non-businesses, and those who don't pay for them

- no telephone support (according to an earlier version of Microsoft's life-cycle support page)

 

They don't include anything about access to security updates being based on what hardware is in a person's system.

[Nowak]

I honestly can't believe people are defending this. I've said this before and I'll say it again: this is purely a business decision. You, the end user, do not benefit from this, nor do AMD and Intel.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Daring said:

I honestly can't believe people are defending this. I've said this before and I'll say it again: this is purely a business decision. You, the end user, do not benefit from this, nor do AMD and Intel.

Don't get me wrong I don't agree with what they did, blocking the updates that were once being delivered to unsupported systems, but there is a difference between pointing out that a company is actually entitled to doing it and agreeing that they should have.

 

There is also a lot more fine print to the support terms than the ones shown on the easy to find web page being referenced and also on the hardware support requirements for Microsoft operating systems. No body including me reads all that shit, it's massive.

 

Microsoft also does check with their legal team before doing things like this to make sure they have the legal standing to do so, or a good enough case to argue that they think would win if challenged. Thinking they don't do this is naive.

[Delicieuxz]

On 09/05/2017 at 10:48 PM, leadeater said:

Don't get me wrong I don't agree with what they did, blocking the updates that were once being delivered to unsupported systems, but there is a difference between pointing out that a company is actually entitled to doing it and agreeing that they should have.

But there is nothing entitling Microsoft to do this, and no policy or argument you've brought up suggests otherwise.

 

Quote

There is also a lot more fine print to the support terms than the ones shown on the easy to find web page being referenced and also on the hardware support requirements for Microsoft operating systems. No body including me reads all that shit, it's massive.

I think I've read all of it.

 

Quote

Microsoft also does check with their legal team before doing things like this to make sure they have the legal standing to do so, or a good enough case to argue that they think would win if challenged. Thinking they don't do this is naive.

Corporate legal teams are more about finding how to push boundaries in favour of the company, how to use semantics to fit business interests in some way that is technically within the law, and how to get away with something, and not so much about ensuring that the company abides by convention and good faith interpretation of law. Legal teams don't make the calls: Execs do, and then the legal team is tasked with justifying it.

 

 

 

So, going back to shortly after Windows 7's launch, we can see what extended support was advertised as being.

 

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/psssql/2010/02/17/mainstream-vs-extended-support-and-sql-server-2005-sp4-can-someone-explain-all-of-this/

Quote

 

Q: So what is the difference between Mainstream and Extended Support?

 

Think of Mainstream support as “normal”. In other words, mainstream support means Microsoft supports a product with its full offerings including paid incident support, hotfix support, security updates, etc.

 

When a product enters the Extended Support “phase”, the game changes:

1) We still provide security updates at no charge to all customers

2) You can still call CSS or create a case online per the normal support offerings (pay per incident, Premier, etc)

 

But…you cannot obtain a non-security hotfix from Microsoft for no charge. In order to obtain a non-security hotfix, you must purchase an Extended Hotfix Support Agreement. Extended Hotfix Support Agreements are available for Premier customers. Contact your Technical Account Manager for more information.

 

The diagram on the home life-cycle page shows a very nice summary of this:

 

 

 

And here: https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-extends-consumer-support-for-windows-7-vista/

Quote

A Microsoft spokeswoman sent the following statement CNET clarifying that the Extended support now applies to all editions of Windows.

"Microsoft has updated the Support Lifecycle Policy description to clarify that all consumer editions of our desktop operating systems are eligible to receive five years of Mainstream Support and five years of Extended Support. This clarification formalizes that all editions of our operating systems will receive security updates as long as they are using the most current Service Pack."

 

 

And from the newest (2017) version of the life-cycle description:

Quote

The Extended Support phase follows Mainstream Support for business, developer, and desktop operating system products.

 

 

There is still another (and probably others) Microsoft support life-cycle definition page version which is older than the above first two definitions, but which is still earlier than the latest (2017) version, which we have been referencing in this thread. It is a version which describes extended support as meaning there are no new features, and no more free telephone support, and I believe includes no mention of any "Extended Support is not available for consumer, consumer hardware, or multimedia products" - which still doesn't mean what you've proposed it to, leadeater.

 

And I see nothing in the newest, revised version of Microsoft's life-cycle page that offers a reduction in what extended support means for Windows owners. And it wouldn't matter, because the obliged conditions are those which were advertised while Windows 7 was being sold, which are those that I've quoted in this post.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I have to disagree with you  While I get the argument you're trying to make, the fact that the shortcut is quite obvious to the user - given that it's planted right on the desktop - and that the link only has any affect if you actually click on the shortcut; and also given that the software MS installs actually is downloaded and installed behind your back (unless you bothered to read up on it, there's no pronouncement of it from within Windows), which could chew up data against your wishes if you're on a metered plan; I'd say that the argument is definitely not in favor of MS, when comparing the two.  Both are ethically incorrect, but what AMD did is far less morally repugnant than what MS does.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less about the shortcut from AMD.  If it had happened to me, I might have been a bit irked, but would have just deleted it and moved on.  Nevertheless, I still recognize the ethical implications of what they did, regardless of my personal feelings towards it.

 

I respect your opinion.  To me it is about the principal more than the consequences.     Being a scummy company and being ethical are two different things to me, MS is not being unethical, just scummy.

[Dabombinable]

21 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But there is nothing entitling Microsoft to do this, and no policy or argument you've brought up suggests otherwise.

 

I think I've read all of it.

 

Corporate legal teams are more about finding how to push boundaries in favour of the company, how to use semantics to fit business interests in some way that is technically within the law, and how to get away with something, and not so much about ensuring that the company abides by convention and good faith interpretation of law.

 

 

 

So, going back to shortly after Windows 7's launch, we can see what extended support was advertised as being.

 

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/psssql/2010/02/17/mainstream-vs-extended-support-and-sql-server-2005-sp4-can-someone-explain-all-of-this/

 

 

And here: https://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-extends-consumer-support-for-windows-7-vista/

 

 

And from the newest (2017) version of the life-cycle description:

 

 

There is still another (and probably others) Microsoft support life-cycle definition page version which is older than the above first two definitions, but which is still earlier than the latest (2017) version, which we have been referencing in this thread. It is a version which describes extended support as meaning there are no new features, and more free telephone support, and I believe includes no mention of any "Extended Support is not available for consumer, consumer hardware, or multimedia products" - which still doesn't mean what you've proposed it to, leadeater.

 

And I see nothing in the newest, revised version of Microsoft's life-cycle page that offers a reduction in what extended support means for Windows owners. And it wouldn't matter, because the obliged conditions are those which were advertised while Windows 7 was being sold, which are those that I've quoted in this post.

Long story short, security updates should still be rolled out for Windows 7 regardless of the hardware its running on.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip-

I think you are confusing what is meant by

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Extended Support is not available for consumer, consumer hardware, or multimedia products

 

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

I meant Sandy Bridge, making the point that all the normal user desktops that are currently receiving Windows 7 extended support, are consumer hardware, and the policy you cited is not referring to a restriction on receiving Windows extended support updates on consumer hardware, otherwise (amongst other reasons) Sandy Bridge PCs would not be able to receive Windows 7 extended support security updates.

 

Sandy Bridge and Windows 7 both existed in the mainstream support time frame therefore Windows 7 would support it. The Life cycle is specifically in terms of the Operating System so the age of the hardware does not make it fall out of support.

 

However new hardware after mainstream support is not obliged to be supported as that could be covered under any of these.

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

• Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended Support phase
• Extended Support is not available for consumer, consumer hardware, or multimedia products

 

You can have supported software running on unsupported hardware which means you are unsupported, it's the combination that is the issue and not so much that Windows 7 is under extended support so should be getting security updates which is correct.

[Technous285]

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You can have supported software running on unsupported hardware which means you are unsupported, it's the combination that is the issue and not so much that Windows 7 is under extended support so should be getting security updates which is correct.

The problem here is that Microsoft is pushing a change that nerfs a Windows 7/8.1 system from being able to receive security updates (which is required as part of 7's Extended Support & 8.1's Mainstream Support) if one is running the OS on Ryzen/Kaby Lake.

 

Sure, Microsoft can say "Even if the CPU's & motherboards are tested by the manufacturers to work with Windows 7 & Windows 8.1, labeling them as such, don't be surprised if our "tech support" folks tell you to upgrade to Windows 10 as we can't be arsed to actively update those 2 OSes for that hardware." for Ryzen/Kaby systems, but out-and-out blocking folks from applying basic security updates (as part of the overall support system) just because the OS detects the CPU is Ryzen/Kaby is beyond ridiculous and could be considered abusive or even breaking the terms of the support contract, depending whom you're asking or which country you're applying the consumer laws of (eg: most of the EULA crap relating to locking a OS key to a particular hardware build is invalid in regards to most Windows systems here in Australia).

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, Technous285 said:

The problem here is that Microsoft is pushing a change that nerfs a Windows 7/8.1 system from being able to receive security updates (which is required as part of 7's Extended Support & 8.1's Mainstream Support) if one is running the OS on Ryzen/Kaby Lake.

Yes I am ware of that, whats being debated is if Microsoft is allowed to do it or not. If they are allowed to block it based on extended support excluding design changes or new feature requests etc then that overrides Windows 7 getting security updates as that is one of the stated conditions to be eligible to receive them.

 

Windows 8.1 should never have been blocked being that it's under mainstream support, that one I would say it rather cut and dry. I'm not sure how they got away with that or should.

 

Microsoft is also doing some other rather questionable things like this new amendment to the Windows 10 Terms of Service which wasn't in previous versions of Windows.

Quote

10.    Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waiver if You Live in (or if a Business Your Principal Place of Business is in) the United States.

 

We hope we never have a dispute, but if we do, you and we agree to try for 60 days to resolve it informally. If we can’t, you and we agree to binding individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and not to sue in court in front of a judge or jury. Instead, a neutral arbitrator will decide and the arbitrator’s decision will be final except for a limited right of appeal under the FAA. Class action lawsuits, class-wide arbitrations, private attorney-general actions, and any other proceeding where someone acts in a representative capacity aren’t allowed. Nor is combining individual proceedings without the consent of all parties. “We,” “our,” and “us” includes Microsoft, the device manufacturer, and software installer.

Sure that only applies to the US but they are putting in great effort to reduce the ability for people to be able to fight some of the things they are doing.

[Nowak]

Hey, uh, @Delicieuxz and @leadeater, can you please fix your posts for night theme users? Thanks ^^

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Daring said:

Hey, uh, @Delicieuxz and @leadeater, can you please fix your posts for night theme users? Thanks ^^

Argh damn it, is it most of them?

 

Edit:

@Daring Better?

[Nowak]

Just now, leadeater said:

Argh damn it, is it most of them?

A good portion of them, yes.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Yes I am ware of that, whats being debated is if Microsoft is allowed to do it or not. If they are allowed to block it based on extended support excluding design changes or new feature requests etc then that overrides Windows 7 getting security updates as that is one of the stated conditions to be eligible to receive them.

 

Windows 8.1 should never have been blocked being that it's under mainstream support, that one I would say it rather cut and dry. I'm not sure how they got away with that or should.

 

Microsoft is also doing some other rather questionable things like this new amendment to the Windows 10 Terms of Service which wasn't in previous versions of Windows.

Sure that only applies to the US but they are putting in great effort to reduce the ability for people to be able to fight some of the things they are doing.

I would like to hear a lawyers opinion on just how binding that ToS is in the US. In Australia I am pretty sure you can't trump law or legal rights with a private contract. And many software licenses contracts (eula and ToS) which come inside the packages are not considered binding contracts. In Australia a contract (eula or ToS) is considered to be unfair and not legally binding if the contract gives one party sole ability to change or interpret the contract.  In this case changing the contract after sales to inhibit a consumers legal rights is considered unfair.

 

 

 

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would like to hear a lawyers opinion on just how binding that ToS is in the US. In Australia I am pretty sure you can't trump law or legal rights with a private contract. And many software licenses contracts (eula and ToS) which come inside the packages are not considered binding contracts. In Australia a contract (eula or ToS) is considered to be unfair and not legally binding if the contract gives one party sole ability to change or interpret the contract.  In this case changing the contract after sales to inhibit a consumers legal rights is considered unfair.

NZ law is pretty similar, but we do copy a lot of AUS laws so..

 

For us consumer rights trumps almost everything which is nice, even manufacture warranties are meaningless and you are covered for the expected life of the product. That means if you buy a washing machine with a 1 year warranty too bad for the manufacture as they have to fix it if it breaks after a year, can't remember if its 3 years or 5 though.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

NZ law is pretty similar, but we do copy a lot of AUS laws so..

 

For us consumer rights trumps almost everything which is nice, even manufacture warranties are meaningless and you are covered for the expected life of the product. That means if you buy a washing machine with a 1 year warranty too bad for the manufacture as they have to fix it if it breaks after a year, can't remember if its 3 years or 5 though.

 

Here too,

 

I found it: This is the page for Australian consumer law regarding contracts https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/shopping/contracts-and-sales-calls/contracts

 

The awesome thing about our law is that a contract can be considered unfair and thus non binding if you answer yes to any of these:

 

-Is your right to sue the supplier over the contract limited?

-Is the font size and style difficult to read?-

-Does the contract contain long sentences, clauses or paragraphs?

-Does the contract contain confusing jargon and technical terms?

-Is there a lot of cross-referencing within the contract?

 

 

[79wjd]

8 hours ago, Daring said:

I honestly can't believe people are defending this. I've said this before and I'll say it again: this is purely a business decision. You, the end user, do not benefit from this, nor do AMD and Intel.

Of course it's a business decision. Wake up, no large company does anything unless it benefits their bottom line. The only companies that give a shit about the consumer are mom and pop stores and that's because they can't compete and are forced to offer something the rest don't -- care/service.

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Windows 8.1 should never have been blocked being that it's under mainstream support, that one I would say it rather cut and dry. I'm not sure how they got away with that or should.

I don't see why mainstream support implies that a product would be supported on new hardware after the product is no longer being sold (which it wasn't as it reached end of sales before KL launched). As far as I'm concerned, mainstream support just needs to cover reasonable configurations -- I wouldn't expect mainstream support to force MS to support an ancient (and less than the minimum requirements) CPU nor would I expect it to force MS to support a CPU that wasn't even available while the product was relevant. 

[Technous285]

19 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I don't see why mainstream support implies that a product would be supported on new hardware after the product is no longer be sold (which it wasn't as it reached end of sales before KL launched). As far as I'm concerned, mainstream support just needs to cover reasonably configurations -- I wouldn't expect mainstream support to force MS to support an ancient (and less than the minimum requirements) CPU nor would I expect it to force MS to support a CPU that wasn't even available while the product was relevant. 

Dunno about the US, but I can buy a fresh "OEM" copy of Win7 Pro 64-bit SP1 for $210 AUD or a fresh "OEM" copy of 8.1 Pro 64-bit for $200 AUD  alongside "OEM" Win10 Pro 64-bit for $210-215 AUD, all legit and what passes for 'retail' here in Australian computer shops.

If part of your criteria for an OS to be supported is that it must still be for sale somewhere in the world when hardware rolls around, then 7 & 8.1 should still be supported for Australians using Ryzen/Kaby then as we can still get legit copies of it on our shores.

 

It might be a bit hyperbolic of an example, but it shows you can't use the discount support of an OS on a particular platform because it might not be for sale in one singular part of the world at the time of the platforms release.

Additionally, whilst those products are all "OEM" branded, there's basically no other choice for OEM Vs. Retail when it comes to copies of Windows sold here for the past 6-7 years.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Technous285 said:

Dunno about the US, but I can buy a fresh "OEM" copy of Win7 Pro 64-bit SP1 for $210 AUD or a fresh "OEM" copy of 8.1 Pro 64-bit for $200 AUD  alongside "OEM" Win10 Pro 64-bit for $210-215 AUD, all legit and what passes for 'retail' here in Australian computer shops.

If part of your criteria for an OS to be supported is that it must still be for sale somewhere in the world when hardware rolls around, then 7 & 8.1 should still be supported for Australians using Ryzen/Kaby then as we can still get legit copies of it on our shores.

 

It might be a bit hyperbolic of an example, but it shows you can't use the discount support of an OS on a particular platform because it might not be for sale in one singular part of the world at the time of the platforms release.

You can buy it, but it's no longer being sold by Microsoft, anything being sold is leftover supply. Windows 8.1 reached end of sales before Kaby Lake launched, and Windows 7 reached end of sales long before KL launched.

[Delicieuxz]

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

Microsoft is also doing some other rather questionable things like this new amendment to the Windows 10 Terms of Service which wasn't in previous versions of Windows.

Sure that only applies to the US but they are putting in great effort to reduce the ability for people to be able to fight some of the things they are doing.

That doesn't even apply to all of the USA. Some states have laws prohibiting restrictions on consumers being able to sue companies. I'm not certain, but I think Texas and Hawaii might be two which don't allow such contract clauses. And even in states without such consumer-protection rules, that clause in the EULA can be challenged in court, and if it is found unreasonable, can be ruled invalid.

[schwarzerrogen]

Oh No! I have to spend 100 bones to upgrade my OS from one I've had for years and years!

 

Not that big of a deal, really.

[TroubleKlef]

Damn I wish Mac had greater gaming support. I'd rid myself entirely of Windows then.