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

[PlayStation 2]

Six pages of bitching. 

You know, why am I talking about it, it's customary on this forum by this point.

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, they want everyone on Windows 10. No shit. 

 

Windows 7/8.1 also harvest your data. 

Not really because i didnt downloaded any updates since this whole fiasco broke out. First they try to hide the fact that their newest ""OS"" is basically a spyware, then they go back on their word and cut off software that is still under support... If you still trust in them(and how you defend MS its obvious that you do) then there is a relly big problem inside your head.

 

@Dan Castellaneta

Not just here, its present on other forums. And if you think that MS is a poor innocent victim here then you have some really loose screws in your head...

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I've said this before and I'll say it again, upsetting customers by telling them they can't use KL and W7 is a LOT better PR than allowing them to receive updates that could break their system and then telling them to fuck off with any problems. 

 

What is W7/8.1 nagging you about exactly? You're using unsupported hardware that was known to be unsupported from long before Kaby Lake ever launched. W7/8.1 will only stop you from installing updates on unsupported hardware -- you can't even install Jelly Bean on an S8 or Mavericks on the 2016 Macs without serious modifications. Windows still requires hardware drivers and updates need to be validated. 

I contest the idea that those security updates could significantly damage a windows installation due to the newer hardware platform. It simply doesn't make sense to me and from what I've read there doesn't seem to be much to support that theory. If it is indeed the case, then sure, hold them back - I just doubt it. Note that these are security updates and not driver or functionality updates which would indeed depend on the hardware.

 

As for the nagging, I haven't used w7 or w8 in years and I don't have a kaby or ryzen system anyway so I haven't experienced any of this, but according to the original post you'll get occasional popups saying the hardware is not supported. Now, if the OS just didn't work with the newer systems that would honestly be just fine - what I dislike is the idea that MS is artificially holding stuff back to boost windows 10 sales.

[PlayStation 2]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

@Dan Castellaneta

Not just here, its present on other forums. And if you think that MS is a poor innocent victim here then you have some really loose screws in your head...

Trust me, I know.

I'm just grounding the statement to here.

 

I don't think MS is a victim, but guess what, instead of complaining on an internet forum not related to Microsoft, you can protest with your wallet, where it really hurts.

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Not really because i didnt downloaded any updates since this whole fiasco broke out.

 

then they go back on their word and cut off software that is still under support...

 

If you still trust in them(and how you defend MS its obvious that you do) then there is a relly big problem inside your head.

Oh, so then not getting updates is no big deal then. 

 

When did they promise support for new hardware that wasn't available until after the OS was well past end of sale? 

 

You can call me a Microsoft shill all you want, but I hate Windows and literally only use it to play games. 

 

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As for the nagging, I haven't used w7 or w8 in years and I don't have a kaby or ryzen system anyway so I haven't experienced any of this, but according to the original post you'll get occasional popups saying the hardware is not supported. 

You chose to run unsupported hardware, I don't see a problem with Windows telling you that. 

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You chose to run unsupported hardware, I don't see a problem with Windows telling you that. 

There are many less intrusive ways of doing so, especially when your system is running just fine otherwise.

[jagdtigger]

14 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Trust me, I know.

I'm just grounding the statement to here.

 

I don't think MS is a victim, but guess what, instead of complaining on an internet forum not related to Microsoft, you can protest with your wallet, where it really hurts.

I done that , wont buy any machine with win preinstalled. I have two retail win7 so i will be fine for a while.

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Oh, so then not getting updates is no big deal then. 

 

When did they promise support for new hardware that wasn't available until after the OS was well past end of sale? 

 

You can call me a Microsoft shill all you want, but I hate Windows and literally only use it to play games. 

 

You chose to run unsupported hardware, I don't see a problem with Windows telling you that. 

Let me ask you the opposite, where is it says(aside from the one sided modification MS did not so long ago when they decided to screw over their customers even further and started blocking updates) that an OS will only be supported on HW that was available at release? Until then this discussion is over. Its just disgusting when a company goes back on its words. And yes not updating is a big problem. But after all the lying and underhanded tactics i have a little problem trusting in them that their patches contain what they say.

 

/EDIT

BTW there is a big difference between choosing not to update and prevented from updating.

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Let me ask you the opposite, where is it says(aside from the one sided modification MS did not so long ago when they decided to screw over their customers even further and started blocking updates) that an OS will only be supported on HW that was available at release? Until then this discussion is over. Its just disgusting when a company goes back on its words. And yes not updating is a big problem. But after all the lying and underhanded tactics i have a little problem trusting in them that their patches contain what they say.

 

/EDIT

BTW there is a big difference between choosing not to update and prevented from updating.

You're the one who made the claim that they're

Quote

[going] back on their word....

So where did they ever give their word that they would support future hardware that wasn't released until after end of sale? The burden of proof is on you. 

 

You're right there is, but you CHOSE to buy a non-supported system. Therefore you CHOSE not to get updates. Going with Kaby Lake was still a choice; no one forced it on you. 

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

You're the one who made the claim that they're

So where did they ever give their word that they would support future hardware that wasn't released until after end of sale? The burden of proof is on you. 

 

You're right there is, but you CHOSE to buy a non-supported system. Therefore you CHOSE not to get updates. Going with Kaby Lake was still a choice; no one forced it on you. 

Dig up the "original"(MS modified it one sidedly so they can justify what they are doing) wording of the life cycle faq and read it. There will be no mention of what MS is currently doing. Locking out computers from the update service because running on newer HW, and not just the windows update. But the standalone ones which would indicate that the user knows what he is doing.

[79wjd]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Dig up the "original"(MS modified it one sidedly so they can justify what they are doing) wording of the life cycle faq and read it. There will be no mention of what MS is currently doing. Locking out computers from the update service because running on newer HW, and not just the windows update. But the standalone ones which would indicate that the user knows what he is doing.

link. 

 

And unless it explicitly says it will support unreleased hardware they're not going back on their word. 

[LAwLz]

It is always mind blowing to see the Microsoft Defense force at work.

This thread is so full of lies and misinformation.

 

I think this will address a lot of the lies and misinformation.

 

1) Windows 7 did not include mandatory telemetry at release. Nor did the optional telemetry collect anything near the same amount as Windows 10 does with everything set to minimum. Microsoft did however patch in some (I have not looked into how much) telemetry into it. This happened fairly recently.

By the way, since one of the telemetry updates for Windows 7 and 8.1 were labeled as a security update, they have broken the trust with their consumers. You can no longer trust that a "security update" is actually going to fix security issues. This is horrible and quite frankly I think Microsoft should be sued for it.

 

 

2) Microsoft does not validate updates for each and every chip. They have never done this. The idea that they are blocking updates because of compatibility reasons is completely taken out of thin air. This is the first time Microsoft has done this. On top of that, updates are not written for specific chips. Everything just gets compiled to standard code which will run flawlessly unless there is some very specific issue with the way the chip handles specific instructions. Mozilla does not have to test each patch of Firefox for each specific processor and chipset under the sun, correct? That's because there are standards being followed which ensures compatibility.

Microsoft is not blocking driver updates. They are blocking things like security updates. In fact, since Windows 7 is on extended support they should only release security updates. They are not introducing new features to the scheduler or things like that, which could have issues depending on the chip it is installed on.

There is absolutely no reason why a security update to for example how fonts are handled would need to be verified for each specific chip.

 

 

3) They are doing it because it's no longer supported is also false. Windows 8.1 is still in mainstream support. This means that things like new features and support should be exactly the same as the day it was the latest version. Not supporting it is exactly as douchebaggy as Microsoft starting to block all updates to Windows 10 if you got an RX 580, and then say you should install Windows S if you want more updates.

By ending support early like this they have broken the consumers' trust with what support actually means. Even if Microsoft says they will support Windows 10 for X amount of years, they have shown that they have no problem ending support tomorrow if they think it would benefit them.

 

 

This is not about Microsoft not wanting to spend time and effort supporting an old OS. I get that they don't want it. But the problem here is that they are actively spending time and resources making sure updates which would work, doesn't.

This is similar to if Samsung tried to push out the latest Android update for the Galaxy S6, but Verizon blocked the update because "the Galaxy S7 is old. People should get the Galaxy S8 now".

The work has already been done, and it would work. Putting down time and effort to deliberately kneecap the product your customers has bought, just because you want them to buy the newer version is not something that should be defended. Quite frankly I think Microsoft should be sued because they are harming their own customers. It might not be against the law, but I think it should be.

 

It's like if Volkswagen remotely disabled the breaks on your car because you repaired the engine using an older part.

"Ohh but they only did it because VW has not been able to verity that the old engine piece is compatible with their breaks!". Such a bullshit excuse. You don't disable security features which should work just fine left and right.

 

I think it is mind blowing that people are defending this kind of practice. It is despicable.

[jagdtigger]

34 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

link. 

 

And unless it explicitly says it will support unreleased hardware they're not going back on their word. 

They changed their support policy after their sold the damn thing, if thats not it then i dont know what it is... They had to do it because the original didnt contained any of the HW lockout they doing right now. Maybe they wouldnt support them directly but it didnt had any provisions about new HW void your right to get updates...

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

They changed their support policy after their sold the damn thing, if thats not it then i dont know what it is... They had to do it because the original didnt contained any of the HW lockout they doing right now. Maybe they wouldnt support them directly but it didnt had any provisions about new HW void your right to get updates...

Okay, so link me to the original policy. And again, unless it says they will support yet to be released (or even announced) hardware they haven't gone back on their word.

 

[79wjd]

57 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is always mind blowing to see the Microsoft Defense force at work.

This thread is so full of lies and misinformation.

 

--W7/8.1 Telemetry snip--

 

--Validation snip--

 

--Mainstream support snip--

 

This is similar to if Samsung tried to push out the latest Android update for the Galaxy S6, but Verizon blocked the update because "the Galaxy S7 is old. People should get the Galaxy S8 now".

 

It's like if Volkswagen remotely disabled the breaks on your car because you repaired the engine using an older part.

"Ohh but they only did it because VW has not been able to verity that the old engine piece is compatible with their breaks!". Such a bullshit excuse. You don't disable security features which should work just fine left and right.

 

I think it is mind blowing that people are defending this kind of practice. It is despicable.

I really don't consider myself part of the Windows defense force seeing as I actually hate using Windows, but that also doesn't mean I agree with all the bitching towards this decision. Yes, Microsoft clearly did it for their own interests, but as far as I'm concerned, they haver every right to do so and never promised anything more. I don't see why mainstream support would include supporting hardware that wasn't even released until well after the end of sale date. 

 

The point about W7 telemetry is that at this point most of the people complaining about W10 who are running w7/8.1 are running updated versions with full telemetry enabled. 

 

Steam is constantly patching its client for hardware-specific issues, so Microsoft does need to actively support a processor when it writes updates, and if they're not going to be doing that then they shouldn't allow those updates out in the wild where it will only create a PR nightmare.

 

Again, of course the motivation behind all of this is Windows 10. But I'd rather see them block updates then push out updates that they're not going to provide support with. 

 

It would be more like Android saying they're too lazy to make Kit Kat support an SD835.

 

Also no, it would be more like if Volkswagen said they wouldn't provide software updates to the onboard computer if you replaced the engine with a third party engine that was released four years later.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Okay, so link me to the original policy. And again, unless it says they will support yet to be released (or even announced) hardware they haven't gone back on their word.

 

I googled for the past ~50 minutes but MS did a superb cleanup job on that one, i cant find the original... But if you think about it if their original allowed them this lockout they wouldn't change it right? And changing the conditions after the fact is in fact equal to going back on their word in my viewpoint.

[Centurius]

This is the kind of bullshit that made me drop Windows 10 and go back to 8.1

[Donut417]

Here is my Two Cents.

 

According to Barnacules Windows 7 and 8.1 should have no issue running on newer hardware period. Though they might not be able to full utilize the newer hardware, meaning your not getting your full performance. 

 

This is a way to get every one on to Windows 10. Why? Well MS is currently supporting 3 Desktop OS's and a few Server OS's. They most likely want to bring that down to a more manageable level. From a business stand point, I fully understand why they are doing this. Im sure its expensive to support multiple OS's. But, I do understand where many users are coming from as well. You should not be forced to use a new OS you dont like. Truthfully if you dont like MS's decision (Like me), then move to a different OS, there are many distros of Linux and MAC OS. Its not like we dont have a choice, you just have to be willing to change. 

 

At the end of the day Windows in a Microsoft product, they can do with it what they please. We are in no position to demand anything from Microsoft. The only thing we can do as customers is vote with our wallet. 

[79wjd]

36 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

I googled for the past ~50 minutes but MS did a superb cleanup job on that one, i cant find the original... But if you think about it if their original allowed them this lockout they wouldn't change it right? And changing the conditions after the fact is in fact equal to going back on their word in my viewpoint.

Not necessarily. Terms of service are changed all the time. But again, what did they actually change? 

 

I spoke with Microsoft support and they don't have access to the original lifecycle policy, but she said that if I call they may be able to send it to me: 1-877-696-7786, so if you want to call I'd like to read the original policy. 

26 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

But, I do understand where many users are coming from as well. You should not be forced to use a new OS you dont like. Truthfully if you dont like MS's decision (Like me), then move to a different OS, there are many distros of Linux and MAC OS. Its not like we dont have a choice, you just have to be willing to change. 

 

At the end of the day Windows in a Microsoft product, they can do with it what they please. We are in no position to demand anything from Microsoft. The only thing we can do as customers is vote with our wallet. 

As you said, no one is forcing Windows 10 on you, you can use any OS you like. What you can't do is use W7/8.1 on Kaby Lake and expect support or updates, which considering was known from before Kaby Lake launched I don't see the problem. You can certainly not like Microsoft for pushing Windows 10 so hard, but thats something else entirely. 

[Jito463]

14 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

The problem with Linux is the terminal is required

Speaking personally, that's not even an issue for me.  My early (IBM compatible) PC days were with DOS, so I'm quite comfortable with the command line, and even prefer it for many things.  The reason I don't switch to Linux is the gaming support.  When I play my games, I just want them to work.  I don't want to have to fiddle with the game/OS just to make it play.  I'll make exceptions in Windows for old games that I want to play, but even then I'll only do it if it's a one time 'set it and forget it' fix.

[Centurius]

35 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Not necessarily. Terms of service are changed all the time. But again, what did they actually change? 

 

I spoke with Microsoft support and they don't have access to the original lifecycle policy, but she said that if I call they may be able to send it to me: 1-877-696-7786, so if you want to call I'd like to read the original policy. 

As you said, no one is forcing Windows 10 on you, you can use any OS you like. What you can't do is use W7/8.1 on Kaby Lake and expect support or updates, which considering was known from before Kaby Lake launched I don't see the problem. You can certainly not like Microsoft for pushing Windows 10 so hard, but thats something else entirely. 

No one is saying Microsoft should actively provide support for older OS', what they are saying is that Microsoft also shouldn't actively prevent updates from being installed on unsupported systems. If they're worried about people complaining about updates breaking their system at some point in the future they can just include a one-time notice where the user can click to accept the risk of potential future updates breaking something or opt out from updates.

 

The reason they aren't doing this is because they want to take over from Google as the primary source of personal information for advertising purposes. Nothing more, nothing less.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, Centurius said:

No one is saying Microsoft should actively provide support for older OS', what they are saying is that Microsoft also shouldn't actively prevent updates from being installed on unsupported systems. If they're worried about people complaining about updates breaking their system at some point in the future they can just include a one-time notice where the user can click to accept the risk of potential future updates breaking something or opt out from updates.

That would be a fine solution, except that people suck. People would still get pissy with Microsoft for not helping them.

[Centurius]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

That would be a fine solution, except that people suck. People would still get pissy with Microsoft for not helping them.

They would, but then Microsoft could just point at the legally binding agreement they signed when agreeing to the terms.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, Centurius said:

They would, but then Microsoft could just point at the legally binding agreement they signed when agreeing to the terms.

It's still not good for public relations; i'd argue it's far worse than just telling people that hardware isn't compatible.

[jagdtigger]

44 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Not necessarily. Terms of service are changed all the time. But again, what did they actually change? 

 

I spoke with Microsoft support and they don't have access to the original lifecycle policy, but she said that if I call they may be able to send it to me: 1-877-696-7786, so if you want to call I'd like to read the original policy. 

As you said, no one is forcing Windows 10 on you, you can use any OS you like. What you can't do is use W7/8.1 on Kaby Lake and expect support or updates, which considering was known from before Kaby Lake launched I don't see the problem. You can certainly not like Microsoft for pushing Windows 10 so hard, but thats something else entirely. 

This little plus wasnt there AFAIK:

Quote

Prior versions of Windows, including Windows 7 and Windows 8.1, have limited support when running on new processors and chipsets from manufacturers like Intel, AMD, NVidia, and Qualcomm. For more information, please see the

Support Lifecycle FAQ. A device may not be able to run prior versions of Windows if the device hardware is incompatible, lacking current drivers, or otherwise outside of the Original Equipment Manufacturer’s (“OEM”) support period.

 

But its funny how they say limited support, and in reality they just outright blocked them X'D....

[Centurius]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

It's still not good for public relations; i'd argue it's far worse than just telling people that hardware isn't compatible.

Neither is actively harassing paid users of your product to upgrade to a new version that they don't want.