Windows 7/8.1 updates blocked on Kaby Lake and Ryzen PCs

[Ttaskmaster]

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.

Well, they're not supporting it either way and they don't want to deal with people fritzing their machines applying updates to unsupported hardware, so you're out of luck whatever way you look at it.
I assume they physically cannot support this most latest of developments in some way, so sue them for not being able to do something they couldn't possibly predict...

[scaryjim]

... 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. ...

The big difference is that the Win 10 case was enforced changes to an existing PC. Win 7/8.1 + Ryzen/Kaby Lake is a different case; that's the installation of an old OS on a new PC, after it was widely reported that MS wouldn't support it. That makes it a much less defensible position.

[aidanjt]

that's the installation of an old OS on a new PC, after it was widely reported that MS wouldn't support it.

'Widely reported' isn't an out for breaking a promise to support the OSes. There's no technical limitation in the new CPUs that prevents them from working with the old OSes. This is just an arbitrary 'screw you' for older OS users. There's simply no excusing that.

[scaryjim]

'Widely reported' isn't an out for breaking a promise to support the OSes. ...

They're still supporting the OSes on supported hardware. Show me where they promised to support those OSes on all future x86 platforms and you'll have a point.

Only you can't, because they didn't promise that. People just assumed they would do.

[Corky34]

Well, they're not supporting it either way and they don't want to deal with people fritzing their machines applying updates to unsupported hardware, so you're out of luck whatever way you look at it.
I assume they physically cannot support this most latest of developments in some way, so sue them for not being able to do something they couldn't possibly predict...

As I've already said in this thread i don't have anywhere near the money to sue Microsoft, not only that I'm unaffected by this change, however as i said any lawyer worth their salt would, IMO, have sufficient evidence to argue the case that Microsoft shouldn't, legally, be doing this, maybe if you read through the thread is would save me having to repeat what's already been said.

The big difference is that the Win 10 case was enforced changes to an existing PC. Win 7/8.1 + Ryzen/Kaby Lake is a different case; that's the installation of an old OS on a new PC, after it was widely reported that MS wouldn't support it. That makes it a much less defensible position.

I know the difference, i was using that as an example of recent legal action that, to me, seems a bit superfluous.

I guess the defensibility of it will be put to the test as, IMO, it would be a miracle if we didn't see legal action based on this as changing a contract halfway through isn't, again IMO, something that's acceptable or (INAL) legal, it would be like discovering a 5 year warranty had been cut short by 2 years after you bought the item.

They're still supporting the OSes on supported hardware. Show me where they promised to support those OSes on all future x86 platforms and you'll have a point.

Only you can't, because they didn't promise that. People just assumed they would do.

Just because it's impossible to prove that negative doesn't mean, by omission, they would or wouldn't support all hardware, if they intended not support certain hardware then they should have made that clear to people before they bought the software and agreed to the EULA.

[aidanjt]

They're still supporting the OSes on supported hardware. Show me where they promised to support those OSes on all future x86 platforms and you'll have a point.

Only you can't, because they didn't promise that. People just assumed they would do.

You're right, they didn't, in fact they didn't list supported hardware at time of launch at all beyond the generic architecture. Last time I checked Kaby Lake and Ryzen are still amd64 based.

[Ttaskmaster]

however as i said any lawyer worth their salt would, IMO, have sufficient evidence to argue the case that Microsoft shouldn't, legally, be doing this, maybe if you read through the thread is would save me having to repeat what's already been said.

MS have said they would not be supporting XYZ hardware. If they hadn't said this and released updates, many saltworthy lawyers would potentially be engaged on behalf of subsequently fritzed PC owners to sue MS for NOT telling people about this.... and since not everyone will get the message anyway, it's simpler and less of a risk to just block the updates.

[Corky34]

So what leads you to believe that security updates intended to address vulnerabilities in software would cause a "fritzed PC" as it's not happened in the past 20 years of Windows being supported on newer hardware, and how would you even begin to explain how it would cause a "fritzed PC" on something like Windows 8.1 where Microsoft told people they'd support the addition of new features for another 3 years.

[Ttaskmaster]

So what leads you to believe that security updates intended to address vulnerabilities in software would cause a "fritzed PC" as it's not happened in the past 20 years of Windows being supported on newer hardware, and how would you even begin to explain how it would cause a "fritzed PC" on something like Windows 8.1 where Microsoft told people they'd support the addition of new features for another 3 years.

So no-one has ever complained that MS updates screwed up their PC, in over 20 years, right?

I'm sure they will support new features for the next 3 years... just not on this new hardware.

[aidanjt]

So no-one has ever complained that MS updates screwed up their PC, in over 20 years, right?

Plenty have, just none of them were caused by their CPU being too new. Kaby Lake still supports all the same instructions Core 2 Quad does. There isn't a single rational reason behind blacklisting Kaby Lake and Ryzen from Win7/8.1 updates.

[Corky34]

So no-one has ever complained that MS updates screwed up their PC, in over 20 years, right?

I'm sure they will support new features for the next 3 years... just not on this new hardware.

Complaining about an update screwing up a PC is a very different thing than saying you do or don't support something, it seems you don't know what the difference is between mainstream support and extended support, the former means Microsoft provides security updates, nonsecurity hotfix's, no-charge incident support, warranty claims, design changes and feature requests, and self-service support, the latter only includes self-service support, and security updates.

Microsoft makes no promises of incident support, warranty claims, design changes and feature requests when a product reaches its extended support phase, in other words once a product reaches extended support your on your own if a MS updates screwed up your PC.

EDIT: Just for fun lets entertain the idea that a MS update screwed up someones PC, what exactly would be the cause of that seeing as Skylake is supported and Kaby lake isn't even though they're both the same microarchitecture, Kaby Lake is after all just an optimisation of Sky Lake.

[Ttaskmaster]

There isn't a single rational reason behind blacklisting Kaby Lake and Ryzen from Win7/8.1 updates.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/windows...next-gen-cpus/

[Corky34]

Sorry but just posting a link doesn't answer the question, what exactly on a Kaby Lake is so different that it would cause a MS update to screw up someones PC whereas a Skylake or Broadwell wouldn't?

[scaryjim]

... what exactly on a Kaby Lake is so different that it would cause a MS update to screw up someones PC whereas a Skylake or Broadwell wouldn't?

Probably nothing, but to provide official support MS would have to test every single Windows update on those platforms to be sure.

Anyway, MS have never said it's a technical decision (no matter what anyone trying to defend their actions might think). It's a business decision; one they're free to make since they've never provided any assurance that old OSes would be supported on new hardware.

[ik9000]

[b][i]Anyway, MS have never said it's a technical decision (no matter what anyone trying to defend their actions might think). It's a business decision; one they're free to make since they've never provided any assurance that old OSes would be supported on new hardware.

Yeah, and we're not asking them to give assurance of support. But it is not right that they are blocking CURRENT OS's on new hardware. Not supporting it is one thing. BLOCKING IT is the issue.

[Corky34]

Probably nothing, but to provide official support MS would have to test every single Windows update on those platforms to be sure.

As ik9000 pointed out no one is asking them to provide support (the my PC is broke please fix it kind of support) beyond the end of the mainstream support phase, something that Windows 8.1 is still in.

Anyway, MS have never said it's a technical decision (no matter what anyone trying to defend their actions might think). It's a business decision; one they're free to make since they've never provided any assurance that old OSes would be supported on new hardware.

Very true, it's a business decision, however i still disagree that they never said that old OSes would be supported on new hardware, not only because they say mainstream support includes design changes and feature requests, but also because they never said it wouldn't.