Printable View
More like the company making the cassette player changing the hardware so it won't play your existing cassettes any more (because they have moved on to selling mp3 payers) - although of course that isn't possible, but it was your analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Perfectly possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
We went to CD-ROM instead of MiniDisc because Sony had already done a deal with IBM...
Seems fairly obvious to speculate that the reason AMD back-peddled was because Microsoft said no to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
AMD can want to support Windows 7 but if Microsoft say "we are blocking updates to CPUs x, y and z", then what can AMD do?
Saying that, I still find it crazy, I cannot remember a precedent like this ever before. It was always a case of unsupported but who cares.....your on your own if running unsupported hardware.....to actively block updates on a working system seems like someone high up at Microsoft had a bad day at the office.
Microsoft want telemetry and spying. win10 adware and BS app store etc. It's all about monetising the windows process. They gave it away for free instead of asking people to pay for it (which we would have done) and instead of giving people the choice between free but invasive or paid for and private, they couldn't be bothered. They put all their eggs in one basket and in so doing are alienating their own customer base.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaithis
I have just ordered a load of parts to keep my old machine going a bit longer and retain my win7 licence on my old hardware. That new HDD ? That gets a linux distro, and that spare machine work are giving me? NAS server running on linux and freeNas. I'm learning new stuff, why? So I never have to run win10. I have it on my laptop and it's not that good. Some bits are, other bits aren't, and they seem hell bent on making it harder and harder to control the settings I used to easily be able to access in win7. And it keeps trying to load up flashing gimiicky adverts everywhere that hammer the on-die GPU and sink my battery life. They are almost all to do with app store, MS plugs and similar. :( Luckily Dell have finally relented and given me a win7 ISO usb that should work once I\'ve loaded in the NVMe and USB3 drivers. A project I need to finish once I get enough time to risk putting the laptop out-of-action.
If you\'re getting flashing ads that\'s not Win 10. Either its laptop maker junkware or something more nefarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
The thing is, they do offer that distinction. It's just you need a domain for it to work transparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
AMD didn't pull the plug. Someone gave out incorrect information, which was then retracted/corrected. Full story in http://forums.hexus.net/cpus/369652-...ndows-7-a.html - basically AMD tested Ryzen on Win 7 but weren't offering support.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
For that to work, the original contract would have to explicitly state that Windows 7 (or 8.1) would be supported on all future x86/x64 hardware regardless. I really can't imagine MS would've put that in the EULA, but if it's there by all means go and sue MS for breach of contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
My money would be on Microsoft having included wording in the EULA to limit support to such future hardware configurations as it chooses to support, and given the enthusiast world had ~ 6 months notice that Windows 7 would not be supported on Ryzen, I don't think you'll get much mileage from claiming that MS should support it just because it's technically feasible.
I've not read through the 8.1 EULA but the Windows 7 one makes not mention of hardware, it's pretty sparse when it comes to talking about support TBH with the only relevant reference point to their support website, i get what you're saying about explicitly stating or not however like i said i would imagine any lawyers worth their salt would take the ambiguity and use that as leverage and ultimately it would be for a judge to, well, judge. :)
And just FYI i don't have anything close to the amount of money that would be required to put that to the test. :(
it doesn\'t have to support it. But to actively block it and prevent someone from using their existing licence is a different case.
Erm, they're not blocking you using it. They're just not providing any further updates. If you have a valid Windows 7 license that allows transfer between computers, you can continue to transfer it between computers. You just won't get any support from Microsoft if anything goes wrong or doesn't work properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
You mean ths support website that explicitly says that Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 are not supported on Kany Lake, Bristol Ridge and Ryzen? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
If that's the case, then there's no ambiguity at all. If the support details in the EULA say "see our support website", what's on the website is what you get.
But they are blocking people from receiving updates, updates they were told they'd receive for 10 years when they bought the productQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
There's plenty of ambiguity as for the past 7 and/or 3 years that support site made no mention of support being limited to particular hardware, and that includes when people signed the contract by installing the software, you can't retroactively change a contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
*goes to read the Windows 7 and 8.1 EULAs*Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Right, there is nothing at all in those giving any inherent right to updates. The only reference to updates is that you may only obtain them directly from MS, and the only mention of support is that it's provided "as described at" a support website that no longer exists. So, there's certainly no change to the contract itself.
Whatever the support page used to say (I can't find a cached copy), it definitely won't have explicitly stated that Windows 7/8.1 would be supported on all new hardware, and MS could easily argue that you couldn't assume implicit support for hardware that didn't exist at the time. Besides, I'd be amazed if the original page didn't include a disclaimer like the one they currently have (emphasis added):
Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/lega...isclaimer.aspxQuote:
Notice About Online Policies and Similar Documents
The information contained in the online policies and similar documents on this website represents the current view of Microsoft as of the date they are posted. Because we must respond to changing market conditions and are constantly evaluating how to better work with our customers and partners, such documents should not be interpreted as legally binding commitments, but rather as flexible documents subject to change occasionally. Similarly, we cannot guarantee that any information in such documents will be error-free or kept up to date after they are posted.
That's what i thought when i fist visited it as it redirects to their generic support page.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Yea i couldn't find a cached copy either as they block robots.txt or something or other and having thought about it after not finding a cached copy i concluded it doesn't, or didn't, matter what the Microsoft site says or used to say as not only has the life cycle of Windows been well document all over the internet for the last 20+ years but also the very fact that Microsoft announced six months ago that updates would be blocked on 7/8.1 on Kaby Lake and Ryzen shows that before that announcement, and before the block came into effect, they were or would have been supported for the full 10 years, added to that is how it's provable that this block has been arbitrarily imposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I'd say that for anyone wanting to bring legal action against Microsoft what the site says/said is of utmost importance, as it would be the foundation of the whole case. You can't sue someone because they didn't do what you think they should have done. As it stands, there's no evidence to support a lawsuit over this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
So they're blocking updates on hardware that (they say) isn't compatible, to avoid possible conflicts and fritzing the existing Win install, thus avoiding people phoning up about problems with their incompatible hardware... and this is bad, how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Yes what the site says/said is of utmost importance however i would say, and our hypothetical lawyer would probably argue, that's at the time of purchase and the time of acceptance of the agreement, it's not about what you think they should have done, it's what they said they would do until 6 months ago, and what they're going to carry on doing for certain hardware configurations.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Also seeing as people have brought a law suit against Microsoft for install Windows 10 without their permission, along with some other odd claims, i would say a law suit against them for artificially restricting updates is all but certain.
It's bad because a) They said Windows 8.1 would get feature updates to support new hardware for another 3 years, b) because patching security flaws is not dependent on what hardware is used, and c) because it's provable that this block has nothing to do with supposedly incompatible hardware causing problems, given the block can be bypassed allowing people to test if an updated causes problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster