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

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not what I asked for. Give me a source that confirms that Steam has to code update for specific processors and/or chipsets. And the updates should be security updates and not adding new features such as support for the media encoding block in Skylake (that's adding new features, not security updates for old ones).

 

And that is a really weak argument too. Microsoft implied that they do some validation, does not mean they have to do validation for specific processors. Again, we have standards which ensures compatibility. Like I said before, do you honestly think that Mozilla codes every update for Firefox so that it works on every single processor it can run on? Or do you think that they adhere to standards which means that if it works on one processor, it works on a wide range of processors?

 

Again, we are talking about security updates. They are not introducing support for new instructions sets, or adding hardware based features. We're talking about standard security patches.

 

 

You're not making any sense here. So according to you, blocking updates outright will generate less backlash than giving users the choice to install updates but at the risk of it not working? That is fucking bullshit and you know it. There is already a backlash so clearly they have not avoided it. In fact, judging by this thread there are many users who would be less pissed if they were given the choice. And besides, what kind of shitty argument is that? You're basically saying:

"Having known vulnerabilities on your computer is better than having a minuscule risk of an update breaking something on your system".

Why are you trying to justify the risk of having an issue by saying it is better to 100% guaranteed have an issue? It's not.

Microsoft denying their paying customers security updates guarantees that people are at risk. People would be more safe installing unverified updates than to not get any updates at all.

 

Again, terrible argument.

"Ohh if they introduce a new feature in Windows 8.1, which they are contractually obligated to do, then something might break and then they would have to put in more work which surely they shouldn't have to do!".

If your product is still in the support period then you have to support it, no matter how much work it takes. That is what being supported means. If Microsoft did not want to support their products for this long then they should not have put it in their contracts that they will support it. You can not prematurely drop support while claiming that you still support it.

 

 

There are no excuses for what Microsoft is doing!

I'll take a look through the steam client update history when I'm bored later. 

 

A browser is also different than an OS in the way they deal with hardware. 

 

The VP of Microsoft was also referring to security updates when he was talking about only releasing reliable/compatible security updates. 

 

Yes. Being told that you can't get updates because you chose to buy unsupported hardware would piss me off a lot less than being able to update and not have a problem fixed because they don't care.

 

If your product is still in the support period, and it's running hardware that was available while the product was still for sale, then I agree. But if you're running hardware that was known to not be compatible from day one then it's your own damn fault. What if there was some massively redesigned CPU released the day before support ended, would you expect Microsoft to make W8.1 compatible with it? No, when you promise support you promise support for what is available while the product is still relevant. W7/8.1 weren't relevant when Kaby Lake was released as both were already end of sale. 

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

A browser is also different than an OS in the way they deal with hardware. 

That would be a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft are blocking all updates including browser updates.

But I don't think you have enough programming experience to actually make these claims. You are just making assumptions.

Yes, it would be different if the patches were things like updates to the scheduler, or updates to the driver models. But that's not the types of upgrades we are talking about here since Windows 7 is in extended support.

Why do you think device drivers exist? It's so that the responsibility of making sure that the OS can interact with the OS in a predictable and well defined way, without the OS needing to be modified.

That's why you can put in an RX 580 and make it work on Windows 10, despite Windows 10 being released well before the RX 580 was released.

 

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The VP of Microsoft was also referring to security updates when he was talking about only releasing reliable/compatible security updates. 

Did you even read my post? I said that the "he implied that they need to verify updates" is not the same as "evidence that they need to verify updates for specific processors and/or chipsets".

A patch for Internet Explorer does not need to be verified on 100 different processors. I would not be surprised if they only verify it on one processor. Because processors all use the same instruction set (please don't be pedantic now...)

 

If you make your program that says i++ then you don't need to verify that on every single processor, i will increase by 1.

 

 

22 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes. Being told that you can't get updates because you chose to buy unsupported hardware would piss me off a lot less than being able to update and not have a problem fixed because they don't care.

That's why they could give users the option. Do you want to be told to fuck off straight away? Then you can click that button. Do you want to get updates but with the possibility of getting told to fuck off in the future? Then you have that alternative.

But I really don't get why you think being guaranteed to have issues is less frustrating to have a slight risk of having issues.

 

 

24 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

If your product is still in the support period, and it's running hardware that was available while the product was still for sale, then I agree. But if you're running hardware that was known to not be compatible from day one then it's your own damn fault. What if there was some massively redesigned CPU released the day before support ended, would you expect Microsoft to make W8.1 compatible with it? No, when you promise support you promise support for what is available while the product is still relevant. W7/8.1 weren't relevant when Kaby Lake was released as both were already end of sale. 

You are bringing up examples which are completely unrelated to what is happening. The processors Microsoft are blocking updates from are not massively redesigned from a programming perspective. They still use the same instruction sets as before (apart from maybe supporting optional extra instructions which do not need to be used).

 

What Microsoft should have said, if they wanted to make the argument you are making right now, was that Windows was sold "as is".

Support for future hardware is and has always been implied in their support contracts, because they have historically been supported. You can not argue against this with a straight face.

Support for future hardware is implied. Consumers expect Windows 10 to support Intel's and AMD's next processors, correct? Just like they expected Windows 7 to support future products, and Windows 8.1 definitely was expected to support future processors.

 

But this is not about what Microsoft can and can't do. It is about what they should and shouldn't do.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Did you even read my post? I said that the "he implied that they need to verify updates" is not the same as "evidence that they need to verify updates for specific processors and/or chipsets".

A patch for Internet Explorer does not need to be verified on 100 different processors. I would not be surprised if they only verify it on one processor. Because processors all use the same instruction set (please don't be pedantic now...)

 

If you make your program that says i++ then you don't need to verify that on every single processor, i will increase by 1.

 

 

That's why they could give users the option. Do you want to be told to fuck off straight away? Then you can click that button. Do you want to get updates but with the possibility of getting told to fuck off in the future? Then you have that alternative.

But I really don't get why you think being guaranteed to have issues is less frustrating to have a slight risk of having issues.

 

 

You are bringing up examples which are completely unrelated to what is happening. The processors Microsoft are blocking updates from are not massively redesigned from a programming perspective. They still use the same instruction sets as before (apart from maybe supporting optional extra instructions which do not need to be used).

 

What Microsoft should have said, if they wanted to make the argument you are making right now, was that Windows was sold "as is".

Support for future hardware is and has always been implied in their support contracts, because they have historically been supported. You can not argue against this with a straight face.

Support for future hardware is implied. Consumers expect Windows 10 to support Intel's and AMD's next processors, correct? Just like they expected Windows 7 to support future products, and Windows 8.1 definitely was expected to support future processors.

 

But this is not about what Microsoft can and can't do. It is about what they should and shouldn't do.

Yet he was specifically talking about them cutting support for Skylake systems, so it's implied that updates need to be validated for different processors. 

 

Because in one case you're told that you won't be supported and then you're not supported. In the other case, you're that you're not supported but you keep getting supported so when you eventually run into a problem you end up being more frustrated. 

 

It doesn't matter, the point is still the same. Mainstream support shouldn't guarantee coverage for hardware that isn't released until after the end of sale date. I expect Windows 10 to support every new AMD/Intel processor that is released up until the day that Windows 10 ceases to be sold. 

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yet he was specifically talking about them cutting support for Skylake systems, so it's implied that updates need to be validated for different processors. 

And you have posted 0 evidence to support this claim that is only implied (to you).

Your argument is an assumption based on an implication. Do you understand how weak that argument is?

 

4 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Because in one case you're told that you won't be supported and then you're not supported. In the other case, you're that you're not supported but you keep getting supported so when you eventually run into a problem you end up being more frustrated. 

Again, then give users the option. Why are you so against giving users choice?

 

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

It doesn't matter, the point is still the same. Mainstream support shouldn't guarantee coverage for hardware that isn't released until after the end of sale date. I expect Windows 10 to support every new AMD/Intel processor that is released up until the day that Windows 10 ceases to be sold. 

1) You yet again go back to what Microsoft are legally allowed to do and not do do, instead of talking about what they should or shouldn't be doing.

Just because they are legally allowed to do something does not mean we should accept and encourage it. I strongly recommend you read my previous post so that you understand what self-destructive behavior you are engaging in. I don't say this lightly. I honestly believe the world would be a better place if you shut up, because your opinion is dangerous. I really mean that. You are not only making excuses for decisions which put paying consumers in danger, but you are also actively telling concerned users to shut up and stop "bitching".

 

2) Can you link me to the part of the contract which says Microsoft only supports new hardware up to the point of End-Of-Sales?

 

3) Why do you expect support for new hardware only up to the point of end of sales? If I had asked you ~3 years ago "when do you think support for security updates will stop for computers using new hardware?" then you would not have expected it to be at the end of sales date, because you would have absolutely 0 reasons to expect that. Your "expectation" is only based on facts we have in our hands today. All other versions of Windows does not line up with your expectation whatsoever.

[TheKDub]

On 5/6/2017 at 3:09 PM, djdwosk97 said:

In fairness, Microsoft said from day one that Kaby Lake wouldn't be supported by W7/8.1.

 

I don't see why Microsoft should be expected to support new hardware on an old OS (if they clearly stated before that new hardware launched that it wouldn't be supported).

That doesn't mean that they should go adding hurdles for people who still want to use windows 7 or 8.1 on Kaby Lake to jump over.

 

Until Microsoft stops being a miscreant, I'll just stick with Skylake and below, as well as Windows 8.1.

[sgloux3470]

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

 

 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, sgloux3470 said:

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

 

 

Everything apparently...

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, sgloux3470 said:

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

 

 

The spyware that isn't there. The malware that isn't there. The shit ton of MS collected and sold data that isn't collected or sold. Basically, the sensationalist lies articles made to scare the average user, to generate more clicks and ad views.

 

Although, there are many people that have had REAL problems with Windows 10 (but name ONE product where that statement isn't true), that seem to be repeatable with certain hard and softwares, more so than prior versions of Windows.

[NumLock21]

So that patch thing doesn't work anymore?

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

22 minutes ago, sgloux3470 said:

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

 

Dx9 4gb memory limit

Forcefully updating mah gpu drivers 

Was actually on win 10 before

 

 

[Donut417]

34 minutes ago, sgloux3470 said:

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

 

 

Besides MS not allowing opting out for data collect. My biggest pet peeve is the fact they dont validate the updates like they once did. Too many people having issues with Windows 10 updates. The fact they force updates on you, sucks, because then you have a bigger chance they will fuck something up. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, sgloux3470 said:

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

 

 

Apparently  linux is superior, apart from the lack of hardware support, games and app support that is.   The basic fact of the matter is you can't please everyone and most people on here are just to tight to pay for a new OS.  

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Besides MS not allowing opting out for data collect. My biggest pet peeve is the fact they dont validate the updates like they once did. Too many people having issues with Windows 10 updates. The fact they force updates on you, sucks, because then you have a bigger chance they will fuck something up. 

 

The number of issues people are having after updates has not changed.  People have been complaining about windows updates since the dawn of internet updates.  

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Apparently  linux is superior, apart from the lack of hardware support, games and app support that is.   The basic fact of the matter is you can't please everyone and most people on here are just to tight to pay for a new OS.  

 

 

The number of issues people are having after updates has not changed.  People have been complaining about windows updates since the dawn of internet updates.  

Yeah, but Ive never seen sooo many complaints on any other version of Windows. Ive personally never had any issues with updates on any other version of Windows. Ive used Windows 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, XP pro, XPx64, and 7. Now I have 10, and Im concerned about every time I update that its going to break shit. 

[4960X]

I have disabled all the services associated with Windows Update. So far my computer has been running fast.

[mr moose]

Just now, Donut417 said:

Yeah, but Ive never seen sooo many complaints on any other version of Windows. Ive personally never had any issues with updates on any other version of Windows. Ive used Windows 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, XP pro, XPx64, and 7. Now I have 10, and Im concerned about every time I update that its going to break shit. 

 

We call that cognitive bias, There have been just as many issues with all versions of windows.  But if I had to take a guess at one having more issues than any other I would say it was vista or ME.  But that would be a guess, because there is no real way to tell .

[AlwaysFSX]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

We call that cognitive bias, There have been just as many issues with all versions of windows.  But if I had to take a guess at one having more issues than any other I would say it was vista or ME.  But that would be a guess, because there is no real way to tell .

95 was particularly terrible too. That's the only reason why 98 ever came about.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

We call that cognitive bias, There have been just as many issues with all versions of windows.  But if I had to take a guess at one having more issues than any other I would say it was vista or ME.  But that would be a guess, because there is no real way to tell .

Dont forget Windows 8.

 

Windows 7 is the only one that I remember that has been universally liked from the start. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Dont forget Windows 8.

 

Windows 7 is the only one that I remember that has been universally liked from the start. 

How could I forget that. 8 was like MS had personally sent everyone who owns a computer a turd in a bucket.

 

 

[samcool55]

Come on MS do your worst! My ryzen system is still waiting for the holy update that will break windows update. It's still working for almost a month now with W7.

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Yeah, but Ive (sic) never seen sooo many complaints on any other version of Windows. Ive (sic) personally never had any issues with updates on any other version of Windows. Ive (sic) used Windows 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, XP pro, XPx64, and 7. Now I have 10, and Im (sic) concerned about every time I update that its (sic) going to break s***. 

I've used all of those and then some, and I haven't noticed any more issues with Windows updates than in previous versions.  If anything, the biggest issue people tend to have with Window 10, is in upgrading from a previous version of Windows (from 7 or 8 to 10), rather than doing a clean install.

 

One should always do a clean install of Windows.

[H0R53]

8 hours ago, Donut417 said:

What's so awful about just upgrading to Windows 10?

Everything.

-No custom themes,

-no custom boot logos without UEFI hacks,

-tweaks that break shit,

-spyware,

-telemetry,

-informationless bluescreens,

-poor recovery support,

-bad screen estate management,

-BLOATWARE (that 7 and 8 didn't come with),

-annoying notifications,

-random spikes in CPU/RAM/Disk (from hte bloatware, spyware, and telemetry),

-some files are totally locked down, even with TakeOwnership,

-Legacy DX9 support,

-forced updates,

-bad prepackaged drivers,

 

I could keep going.

 

The fact that so many of you are defending Windows 10 despite clear evidence you are wrong reminds me of the Apple sheeple. I am no means a Microsoft fanboy but Windows 7 was the best release by Microsoft. Ever. If it wasn't, I'd be using something else.

[Dabombinable]

24 minutes ago, H0R53 said:

Everything.

-No custom themes,

-no custom boot logos without UEFI hacks,

-tweaks that break shit,

-spyware,

-telemetry,

-informationless bluescreens,

-poor recovery support,

-bad screen estate management,

-BLOATWARE (that 7 and 8 didn't come with),

-annoying notifications,

-random spikes in CPU/RAM/Disk (from hte bloatware, spyware, and telemetry),

-some files are totally locked down, even with TakeOwnership,

-Legacy DX9 support,

-forced updates,

-bad prepackaged drivers,

 

I could keep going.

 

The fact that so many of you are defending Windows 10 despite clear evidence you are wrong reminds me of the Apple sheeple. I am no means a Microsoft fanboy but Windows 7 was the best release by Microsoft. Ever. If it wasn't, I'd be using something else.

Funny things happen with it....for example setting up Windows 10 on laptops bought for my siblings to use at high school, and both installations automatically installed Ceaser Slots and Candy Crush Soda saga on them. Along with Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Skype and all the shit related to Xbox/Xbox Live. The same things also happened when sidegrading Windows on:

• both of my Mum's laptops (2x Windows 7 Pro x64)
• all 3 of my desktops (2x Windows 7 Pro x64 and 1x Windows 7 Home x64)
• both of my laptops (1x Windows 7 Pro x64 and 1x Windows 8/8.1 Pro x64)

Those defending Microsoft's choices with Windows 10, fuck right off. With all the shit stripped out and disabled yes it is a good OS. When its stock however-which is how the majority of most users would have it-its by far the worst OS so far from Microsoft. Including pre service pack/updates:

• Windows 8
• Windows 7
• Windows Vista
• Windows XP
• Windows 2000
• Windows ME
• Windows 98
• Windows 95

Edit: Posted under Windows 10 Pro x64 on my desktop not signed in with a Microsoft account as I'm still the only one in my family who is charge of testing major Windows 10 updates and confirming whether or not its safe to install it. They've at least finished the sidegrade process screens, and they no longer look older than those of Windows ME (which due to its nature are a cross between Windows 98SE and XP installation screens depending on which part of the installation process your at)

[Jito463]

35 minutes ago, H0R53 said:

Everything.

-No custom themes,

Funny, I can enable custom themes in Windows 10, and even save my own custom themes.

 

-no custom boot logos without UEFI hacks,

I'll grant you that, though I doubt very many people even care about it.

 

-tweaks that break s***,

Care to clarify?  What specific "tweaks" are you referring to?

 

-spyware,

There's no "spyware" bundled with Windows 10.

 

-telemetry,

True, though it can be disabled.

 

-informationless bluescreens,

The BSOD screens in 10 are as informative as any I've seen in previous versions of Windows.

 

-poor recovery support,

I'm not sure you could put all of this on just 10.  Windows has always had an issue with recovering from errors.

 

-bad screen estate management,

Again, I haven't noticed any more issue with this than with previous versions.  I do disable "snap to border", but that's been there since at least 7 (maybe Vista), so it's not unique to 10 either.

 

-BLOATWARE (that 7 and 8 didn't come with),

On this one I will agree with you, though it is fairly simple to remove.

 

-annoying notifications,

Again I'll agree with you, though again it's fairly simple to disable.

 

-random spikes in CPU/RAM/Disk (from hte bloatware, spyware, and telemetry),

Well, since I've uninstalled the bloat and disabled the telemetry, I couldn't speak to this.  And again, there's no spyware.

 

-some files are totally locked down, even with TakeOwnership,

True, this is an annoyance to me, as well.  I also dislike that even with disabling User Account Control completely, I still have to run certain things as Admin, even if I'm running on an administrator account.

 

-Legacy DX9 support,

I understand what people have said about DX9 support in 10, but it's never posed an issue for me, and I like to play a lot of older games.

 

-forced updates,

While I get the usefulness of this for the average user, I do agree that it's frustrating.  At least with the Pro version, I can change that to only check for updates and not automatically download.  Unfortunately, if it's been a while since I last installed them, it will pop up a full screen message saying that there are updates available, with no option to cancel.  So this one I fully agree with you on.

 

-bad prepackaged drivers,

Again, I haven't noticed this in 10 any more than with previous versions.  Drivers for most components work fine, and video drivers have always been a bad idea to use the defaults ones in Windows.

 

I could keep going.

 

The fact that so many of you are defending Windows 10 despite clear evidence you are wrong reminds me of the Apple sheeple. I am no means a Microsoft fanboy but Windows 7 was the best release by Microsoft. Ever. If it wasn't, I'd be using something else.

I agree that Windows 7 was probably the smoothest launch that MS has ever had, and there are definitely annoyances in Windows 10, but when has that not been the case?  I still get frustrated with Windows 7, when I plug in a basic mouse and it takes up to 5 MINUTES (and that is not an exaggeration) to load a simple driver so I can use it; all because it wants to check Windows Update to get the driver, instead of installing one from local sources.

 

The point is, that people are viewing Windows 7 through rose colored glasses.  Every version of Windows has some issues, without fail.

 

Scratch that, every operating system in existence has some issues.

 

 

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Yeah, but Ive never seen sooo many complaints on any other version of Windows. Ive personally never had any issues with updates on any other version of Windows. Ive used Windows 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, XP pro, XPx64, and 7. Now I have 10, and Im concerned about every time I update that its going to break shit. 

*Raises hand*

 

Vista was almost as hated. In fact up until 4 years ago I was still using Vista and many people were genuinely upset with me because I did. The complains back then was on how fucking slow it was but I actually had a pretty snappy rig going: the trick is that back when Vista came out 2 gb of ram was the 8gb of ram from 1 to 2 years ago: The universal recommendation and you didn't need anything more and such. 

 

But when Vista came out they of course botched the minimum ram and processor required in order to just sell it more even on unprepared rigs. That lead to most people being up in arms and swearing never to upgrade to vista and making a big fucking stink about it. But since I waited a bit and had 4gb ram on my rig and went for the 64 bit version (another common mistake: even people with sufficient memory just went with the 32 bit version and couldn't address over 3.2 and the system struggled) I stripped down a bunch of things from Vista and proceeded to use it for like 4 or 5 years on that right, maybe even more.

[mynameisjuan]

10 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Besides MS not allowing opting out for data collect. My biggest pet peeve is the fact they dont validate the updates like they once did. Too many people having issues with Windows 10 updates. The fact they force updates on you, sucks, because then you have a bigger chance they will fuck something up. 

Please tell me how to validate updates for millions of different configurations of hardware. I get it frustrating but it pisses me off when people complain about updates breaking 3rd party hardware and expected Microsoft to have tested it on that equipment. Its like people expect them to spend millions of dollars on testing.