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

[shaithis]

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.

The problem is, which is worse:

a. Blocking the updates
b. Allowing them unsupported and then one update hoses a ton of machines


I think MS believes b is worse and I kinda agree.....although maybe they should look into an option c

[ik9000]

The problem is, which is worse:

a. Blocking the updates
b. Allowing them unsupported and then one update hoses a ton of machines


I think MS believes b is worse and I kinda agree.....although maybe they should look into an option c

Kabylake is skylake shrunk down. If it affects one it will affect the other. It smacks of "want new hardware? - then we're forcing you to use win10 because that is what we (MS) want, because we want to monetise you and force you to accept telemetry and have no control over future updates."

[shaithis]

Kabylake is skylake shrunk down. If it affects one it will affect the other. It smacks of "want new hardware? - then we're forcing you to use win10 because that is what we (MS) want, because we want to monetise you and force you to accept telemetry and have no control over future updates."

Well maybe but then I run Win10 and have not been monetised and don't have telemetry enabled. You can stick it to the man if you want to

[Corky34]

I think MS believes b is worse and I kinda agree.....although maybe they should look into an option c

I want to see what's behind door C please bob....please be the car...please be the car....please be the car

[Ttaskmaster]

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?

OK, so let's look through it, shall we?

"You’ll have to use Windows 10, otherwise you won’t receive security updates or patches.
This will undoubtedly earn the ire of users, but there’s a really good reason for it. In an official blogpost called “Windows 10 Embracing Silicon Innovation”, they attributed this to the immense difficulty in ensuring older versions of Windows are able to use the features of these chips"

So I assume MS cannot easily bring the OS up to scratch and therefore cannot support it on the newer hardware.

“Windows 7 was designed nearly 10 years ago before any x86/x64 SOCs existed. For Windows 7 to run on any modern silicon, device drivers and firmware need to emulate Windows 7’s expectations for interrupt processing, bus support, and power states, which is challenging for WiFi, graphics, security, and more. As partners make customizations to legacy device drivers, services, and firmware settings, customers are likely to see regressions with Windows 7 ongoing servicing”

Sounds legit to me....

"fixes will only be released if they don’t “risk the reliability or compatibility” of Windows 7 and 8.1 on non-Skylake systems".

So it's a risk...?
So by blocking certain hardware, MS don't risk people blaming an OS that they've been saying since January will not be so supported.


"Microsoft is determined to not repeat the mistakes it made when it came to the discontinuation of Windows XP.
Even the largest Windows XP fan would agree that its continued prevalence has been a disaster for computer security. It lacked some of the most rudimentary user security protections, like UAC (User Account Control), and it saved passwords with the insecure LN hashing algorithm, making it trivially easy for someone who gains physical access to the computer to gain access to it."

Hmm.....

[Corky34]

All you've done is parrot what that article wrongly claims, that's not an answer.

What new features are there on Kaby Lake that aren't on Skylake or Broadwell? If you're going to claim Microsoft are blocking updates on Kaby Lake and Ryzen system surely you know what those features are, i mean just take that articles claim that Windows 7 needs to emulate interrupt processing, bus support, and power states, are you seriously suggesting that interrupt processing, bus support, and power states have changed so much from Broadwell to Skylake to Kaby Lake, are you really suggesting that a Kaby Lake CPU is so different that installing it in a MoBo would cause the OS to screw up someones PC.

And besides this has nothing to do with MS not wanting to risk people blaming an OS as one of those OS's is in still in the mainstream support phase during which Microsoft said they'd issue security updates, nonsecurity hotfix's, no-charge incident support, warranty claims, design changes and feature requests, and self-service support.

[Ttaskmaster]

If you're going to claim Microsoft are blocking updates on Kaby Lake and Ryzen system

I'm claiming nothing.
They ARE blocking them and they've stated so.
Makers of hardware have also said their kit will be Win10 only.
I merely assume they know more about their stuff than we do, given how they designed it and all?

But if you really knew better, you'd be working for such a company and producing kit far superior to this stuff anyway, right?

And besides this has nothing to do with MS not wanting to risk people blaming an OS as one of those OS's is in still in the mainstream support phase during which Microsoft said they'd issue security updates, nonsecurity hotfix's, no-charge incident support, warranty claims, changes and feature requests, and self-service support.

Yes, yes, Microsoft just want to force everyone to use Win10, so they can capture our telematics and sell our data...

[aidanjt]

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

Do you mind being more specific? There's nothing in that article that lists any rational reason why newer CPUs shouldn't get any software updates from Microsoft, just because the CPUs are newer.

[Corky34]

I'm claiming nothing.

Sorry, what? You did say "they're blocking updates on hardware that (they say) isn't compatible, to avoid possible conflicts and fritzing the existing Win install" and also said "I assume they physically cannot support this most latest of developments in some way" and lets not forget that you said "many saltworthy lawyers would potentially be engaged on behalf of subsequently fritzed PC owners to sue MS for NOT telling people about this" so please stop with the strawman.

I merely assume they know more about their stuff than we do, given how they designed it and all?

You know what they say about assuming things, right?

Maybe you should reserve that assuming to yourself as it seems, despite repeated requests, that you still can't say what new features are on Kaby Lake that aren't on Skylake or Broadwell, it's a simple enough question but it seems you're incapable of answering it.

But if you really knew better, you'd be working for such a company and producing kit far superior to this stuff anyway, right?

Yes, yes, Microsoft just want to force everyone to use Win10, so they can capture our telematics and sell our data...

Using logical fallacies does nothing but weaken your position.

Do you mind being more specific? There's nothing in that article that lists any rational reason why newer CPUs shouldn't get any software updates from Microsoft, just because the CPUs are newer.

An opinion shared by most people who've read it judging by the comments section of the article.

[scaryjim]

... 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.

Delivery of updates is part of support. They are blocking the updates. They are not blocking the OS. The two are not the same. You can continue using the OS.

[aidanjt]

Delivery of updates is part of support. They are blocking the updates. They are not blocking the OS. The two are not the same. You can continue using the OS.

Blocking *all* updates, not CPU specific updates. Nobody is expecting them to deliver driver updates actually relevant to the actual hardware if they don't want to support it. That's fair enough. In fact, I'd prefer if they didn't. But blocking all software updates that have nothing to do with the hardware for incredulous reasons is beyond the pale.

[scaryjim]

... blocking all software updates that have nothing to do with the hardware for incredulous reasons is beyond the pale.

Why? Updates are part of the support package. If the system isn't supported why on earth would it get updates?

[peterb]

But are they stopping updates for all users, or just those running on specific (newer) hardware even though the update would work on the newer hardware (for now). It was my understanding that it was the latter, which I think is dubious practice.

[Corky34]

Why? Updates are part of the support package. If the system isn't supported why on earth would it get updates?

I get the feeling we're going round in circles.

Because when i paid $119.99 for Windows 8 Microsoft told me they'd provide, among other things, design changes and feature requests until January 9, 2018.

They didn't tell me that not only would they not provide design changes and feature requests to support newer hardware but that they'd also curtail the support i paid for by 6 years if i upgraded to newer hardware.

Not only that but when i bought my new Windows 10 PC Microsoft told me that i had full downgrade rights to both Windows 8.1 & 7, however i now find out that if i take them up on their promised downgrade right that I'm no longer going to be supported because my new PC has a Kaby Lake CPU, and that one over there has something called a Ryzen in it.

[Ttaskmaster]

Sorry, what? You did say "they're blocking updates on hardware that (they say) isn't compatible, to avoid possible conflicts and fritzing the existing Win install"

Yes.
This is established fact. There's plenty about how Win7 would need updates well beyond basic drivers and far more than is required under extended support, usually citing how they already had to mess about with the Win kernel for Bulldozer...

and also said "I assume they physically cannot support this most latest of developments in some way"

Yes.
Not a claim, just a thought. Your point?

and lets not forget that you said "many saltworthy lawyers would potentially be engaged on behalf of subsequently fritzed PC owners to sue MS for NOT telling people about this"

You don't need a degree in computer science to understand that. People successfully sue companies for not telling them to refrain from even the silliest of things, so it'd be very easy to bring a lawsuit if MS had not declared this unsupporting of new kit. Thus MS say they're not supporting it in order to cover their backsides.

You know what they say about assuming things, right?

You saying you DO know better than them, then?

Maybe you should reserve that assuming to yourself as it seems, despite repeated requests, that you still can't say what new features are on Kaby Lake that aren't on Skylake or Broadwell, it's a simple enough question but it seems you're incapable of answering it.

As should you.
Most of these articles speak about "hardware", which is why I didn't go into specifics of CPUs. They don't specifically say the CPU is the problem and many argue it's about the chipsets rather than the processors, with difficulties being about the USB drivers and whether the ports are CPU or chipset.
There are some workarounds published with "may" help, but even the very technologically proficient authors seem to have had mixed success. Now with companies saying they're not updating their drivers for it, MS most likely wouldn't be able to uphold their side of the OS without them.

Using logical fallacies does nothing but weaken your position.

But they're so funny!!

An opinion shared by most people who've read it judging by the comments section of the article.

Perhaps they should go tell Microsoft, AMD and Intel how to run their stuff, then... or maybe write some of these tech articles, at least, because I can't find any that explain how Win7 will run perfectly fine on new kit without numerous little problems that require a fair bit of fiddling about to work around...

[Corky34]

Yes.
This is established fact. There's plenty about how Win7 would need updates well beyond basic drivers and far more than is required under extended support, usually citing how they already had to mess about with the Win kernel for Bulldozer...

Firstly it's not an established fact as you've so far failed to substantiate any of your claims, secondly the update for Bulldozer had nothing to do with stability issues as it was an update to the Windows scheduling that addressed performance issues.

Yes.
Not a claim, just a thought. Your point?

So now you're arguing semantics, saying you've made an assumption is a claim is it not?

You don't need a degree in computer science to understand that. People successfully sue companies for not telling them to refrain from even the silliest of things, so it'd be very easy to bring a lawsuit if MS had not declared this unsupporting of new kit. Thus MS say they're not supporting it in order to cover their backsides.

So in other words despite you saying you didn't claim anything you're now explaining something that apparently you didn't claim, circular reasoning much?

You saying you DO know better than them, then?

No I'm saying i know better than you, and judging by your knowledge on the subject that's not saying much.

As should you.
Most of these articles speak about "hardware", which is why I didn't go into specifics of CPUs. They don't specifically say the CPU is the problem and many argue it's about the chipsets rather than the processors, with difficulties being about the USB drivers and whether the ports are CPU or chipset.
There are some workarounds published with "may" help, but even the very technologically proficient authors seem to have had mixed success. Now with companies saying they're not updating their drivers for it, MS most likely wouldn't be able to uphold their side of the OS without them.

I've made no assumptions other than your lack of understanding of the subject we're discussing, I'm still waiting for you to explain what's so different between Broadwell and Kaby Lake, i guess it's going to be a long wait as it seem not only can't you explain the differences but you're also moving the goal posts.

But they're so funny!!

Not really, unless you're idea of humor is acting like a school kid.

Perhaps they should go tell Microsoft, AMD and Intel how to run their stuff, then... or maybe write some of these tech articles, at least, because I can't find any that explain how Win7 will run perfectly fine on new kit without numerous little problems that require a fair bit of fiddling about to work around...

So you're admitting that there's not any issue with running newer hardware on older OS as all you need to do is fiddle around with some workarounds.