With the release of Chrome 110 (tentatively scheduled for February 7th, 2023), we’ll officially end support for Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. You’ll need to ensure your device is running Windows 10 or later to continue receiving future Chrome releases. This matches Microsoft’s end of support for Windows 7 ESU and Windows 8.1 extended support on January 10th, 2023.
It’s time.
Why? Shouldn’t 10 percent of the market be served?
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/windows/desktop/worldwide
Over 13% actually. About the same as Windows 11.
Losing a viable web browser for a platform effectively consigns it to e-waste.
Adurbe,
It wonder if this merely means they’ll stop testing on windows 7 or if they’ll do something that actively blocks it? As a developer I do wonder what windows features they felt they needed in chrome that they didn’t have in windows 7? Unlike IE, browsers these days are relatively self contained with their own rendering & scripting engines, which makes modern browsers (relatively) easy to port. Maybe I’m missing something but I doubt it takes many resources to keep in support for windows 7.
Maybe you should ask the ReactOS Devs how hard it is to add support for these updated browser versions. Seems like they use new APIs all the time, which usually means only old browser versions work on ReactOS.
Apple tactics. They force you to buy their latest hardware or use unofficial patchers for “unsupported” Macs.
dark2,
Well, ReactOS’s compatibility target is even older than windows 7. Their official target is windows xp/2003 while everything newer is explicitly ruled out.
https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS-Versioning
I tried to find a page about browser support, but what I found was forum threads like this.
https://reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21360
https://reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20971
The developer suggests NT 6 APIs are needed, which would be Vista and that makes sense to me, however as it was just something said in passing, it doesn’t seem like a good authoritative source. I don’t know if we can find something better.
@Alfman that’s some powerful willful misinterpretation. The kernel will continue to be based on 2003. They have absolutely no problem with adding newer APIs and compatibility modes (much like Windows supports running apps in compatibility mode for older versions.) The first link you gave is quite literally about setting up such a compatibility system instead of just falsely reporting a different version of Windows. It is not “explicitly ruling” anything.
When browsers dropped support for Windows XP, they started to use API calls that XP did not have. The same thing happened when they dropped Windows 2000. I am not sure what Windows 7 lacks that browsers may start using but it seems there is always something devs wants to use if give them a different minimum version. It is not just new APIs either but deprecated APIs that you no longer need to support.
There is also the move from 32 bit to 64 bit support only which was a bigger deal in the Windows XP transition.
A final factor could be the installers. It amazes me how often it is the installers that determine what platforms any given piece of software will support.
@Alfman
You are correct, ReactOS browser support is limited by API availability as they target 2003 as you say. They do support “compatibility” APIs for newer versions but this is not out-of-the-box at this point.
ReactOS specifically is also currently 32 bit by default ( as that is what XP / 2003 were as well ). I do not think the 64 bit port is completed yet and, since ReactOS lacks WOW64, the lack of 64 bit software compiled for Server 2003 would make it a bit useless anyway.
Current browsers have been 64 bit only for a while.
dark2,
I literally provided an official source for every point I made, but in case you missed it I’ll quote it here verbatim:
The forum discussions also confirm this is the reason given for why newer browsers aren’t working. So I’m very unclear on what it is you are accusing me of misrepresentation for.
tanishaj,
I understand that, but I was curious about the specifics because I’m currently drawing blanks as to what specifically chrome needs from windows 10/11 on top of what windows 7/8 has. It might be more of a bureaucratic decision than a development one, though we’d need more information to know for sure.
I experienced this with wine recently. Even applications that work can be blocked by installers that refuse to let you install the software. This is just one of the reasons I really miss basic ZIP archives over executable installers.
@Alfman, Your forum links don’t indicate any of what you’re saying. As for the actual compatibility goals, there are also many forum links with the devs stating they have no problem adding Vista and beyond API calls to ReactOS. You just don’t want to get on Mattermost or the forum and ask the question to real people as suggested so you don’t have to challenge your own viewpoint.
Edit: Of course you could also read the FAQ instead of cherry picking the wiki to agree with you: https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ
dark2,
That’s funny because I’m just repeating what they claimed and I still don’t know what exactly you disagree with?
I could accept that maybe their position on NT 6+ API being a non-goal has changed, or maybe they have exceptions, or whatever, but you keep beating around the bush with unjustified accusations. Would you please post links and get to the point?
@Alman and @dark2
The link to the FAQ that dark2 shared does contain this:
“The present compatibility target for ReactOS is Microsoft Windows Server 2003TM (NT 5.2). Features present in later versions of Windows NTTM based operating systems may also be implemented in ReactOS but this is lower priority until basic NT 5.2 compatibility is completed. Work is continually being done to implement newer NT6 APIs or to provide for their future implementation.”
While I do not really understand what is being debated here, if the question is if ReactOS devs are willing to add NT6+ APIs to ReactOS, the answer seems to be “yes, they will though they do not see it as important”.
It’s a shame that people using Windows 10 and Windows 11 will still have to put up with the continuing hassle of pointless and unjustified “updates” for a browser that’s been finished and working fine for 10+ years now.
May I assume that one of the first updates that the lucky windows 7 and windows 8.1 users will miss out on is breaking all the adblockers?
And that’s why I bought a grey-market Windows 10 LTSC 2019 key from a shady reseller. No pesky “big updates” (which are actually in-place upgrades), only security updates. And with LTSC 2019 you get security updates until 2029 (regular Windows 10 goes EOL in October 2025).
But be careful, LTSCs newer than 2019 don’t have such long support, you need 2019. Contact your shady reseller to make sure you are getting that.
Also, Microsoft doesn’t give out LTSC 2019 ISOs from their website anymore, you either have to contact your shady reseller for an ISO or get it from other sources. The MD5 for the official LTSC 2019 ISO x64 eng is AB19351F8295BFDAF245BD4441FD73E3 and SHA1 is d5b2f95e3dd658517fe7c14df4f36de633ca4845
kurkosdr,
For a long time I’ve considered buying retail licenses, whether gray market or official channels. The theoretical benefit is that you can buy a license once and not have to keep paying for it over and over again with every new computer. The problem in practice though is that most computer vendors will force you to buy an OEM license on top of your retail license, effectively double charging for windows over and over again. Linux users face the same problem paying for windows licenses they don’t use. It should be illegal.
Anyway I agree with you about windows 10 updates. Even windows 10 professional edition tries to strip owners of control.
– Windows 10 LTSC 2019 does not come as a retail license. It’s an “Enterprise” version and as such, it only gets volume-licensed to businesses. The reason people like you and me can buy LTSC 2019 at all is because shady resellers set up shell companies that volume-license Enterprise and then they resell the keys generated by the volume-license one at a time to people like you and me. Of course, this means that, if Microsoft catches wind of what those people are doing, their volume license gets yanked and the entire set of keys gets invalidated, but by then your PC will have passed activation so you won’t notice anything. If this happens to you and you need to reformat, your only recourse is to contact the shady reseller in question and ask him for a new key (which he’ll get from the new shell company he has likely set up in the meantime). I did that once btw. Or if that fails buy a new key from someone else. That’s the only way to have LTSC 2019 as an individual user, there is no retail license.
– For Windows 10 Home and Pro, if a license doesn’t come with a disc and a COA sticker inside unopened packaging, it’s not a retail license. Anything else is either a volume-license key or a resold “big OEM” license. Your cheaper option for retail is DSP (which comes in special slim packaging), but keep in mind that even that can be expensive. I bought one for my mom’s laptop (which has to be used in a professional setting), and it cost me 90 bucks. But if you do buy one, you can reformat whenever you want without worries and most importantly in my mom’s case you can pass BSA inspections.
kurkosdr,
Yes I know what enterprise licenses are. I used to deal with them when I was a windows sysadmin a long time ago.
I don’t think that has any legal standing in copyright law. Of course there’s the clickwrap license agreement, but I don’t remember reading those requirements in the terms of agreement either. It’s not clear how a clickwrap agreement even applies prior to installation when the user is presented with an opportunity to “agree”. I looked to see if I could find case law involving online resellers for retail copies, alas I didn’t find anything. Microsoft themselves doesn’t seem to enforce licensing terms all that seriously as long as there’s no copyright infringement.
Not to make a fuss about it, but technically OEM copies are not supposed to be installed by end users if you go by their terms. But I think it would be extremely difficult (aka expensive) to enforce and it would be nothing but bad PR for microsoft,
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/microsofts-view-on-purchasing-windows-10-oem/40c814b7-67c4-4879-9f00-fa333717849b
https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-it-ok-to-use-oem-windows-on-your-own-pc-dont-ask-microsoft/
And yet you thought it was appropriate to plug your complaint about pre-installs of retail editions of Windows into a comment talking about enterprise editions of Windows.
Volume licenses are the result of a contract signed between you (an entity) and Microsoft. It’s not a boxed copy that you buy from the computer store where the license key comes with “first sale doctrine” rights, you sign a very specific contract and are bound by it. A term in the contract is that you cannot resell those keys. Also, when it comes to buying volume-license keys piece-by-piece from shady resellers as an individual user, what exactly are you buying from the shady reseller that affords you “first sale doctrine” rights?
About clickwrap licenses, I think they should be illegal for copies bought by end users, but unfortunately they are legal, so Microsoft is not doing anything different from every other OS vendor (shows you a license, tells you to return the copy or the computer it came with for a refund if you don’t agree). Not to say this is a good practice, but it’s how every OS vendor operates.
If the BSA asks, claim you bought the computer refurbished from a third-party shop or whatever. But if you want to do things 100% by the book, you should indeed buy the proper retail copy (the one that comes in the nice box).
kurkosdr,
The exact same double license problem arises regardless of whether you’ve got a retail or enterprise volume license. If a computer dies and want to go to a local store to replace it quickly to minimize downtime, you can do that but you’ll end up double paying for another completely redundant OEM license that you don’t want or need. Typically to avoid being forced into buying unnecessary licenses you have to build your own computer, but 1) it’s problematic with laptops and 2) you shouldn’t have to.
This is an objective complaint, there’s no need to be so difficult with me for wanting to talk about it.
How is this related to LTSC 2019? Again, LTSC 2019 is an Enterprise license, it’s not available to regular users either as a packaged copy or as a pre-install.
Also, how do computer vendors “force you to buy an OEM license on top of your retail license” exactly? For Windows 8.1 and up, the key is “etched” into the BIOS by the manufacturer, and the installation disc will find it and will not even ask you to type a key. And Microsoft will gladly give you an ISO from their website to use as installation media. This used to be a problem for Windows 7 and earlier (and even then you could find an image compatible with pre-install keys from digital river), but it’s not a problem now. For Windows 8.1 and up, don’t buy a new Windows license if your computer already came with a Windows license, it’s insanely dumb. Just don’t.
Quick question: How much did you pay for the Windows license that came with your Windows laptop? And how did you arrive at that number? Do you really think big OEMs like Dell and Acer pay DSP prices? No, word on the grapevine is that they pay peanuts per computer shipped (as low as a single-digit amount of dollars), and with the money they make from crapware and antivirus trials typically pre-installed on Windows computers, the Windows license may actually have a “negative” price. And don’t get me started about the act of demanding that a boxed product be customized for you when no such service is offered. It’s like bitching to a car manufacturer for not removing the rear seats and giving you some discount for it (when you know jack squat about how much the manufacturer paid for those rear seats to the supplier) and when no such customization service is offered. I am thoroughly sick and tired of Linux users making that complaint over and over and trying to plug it into every semi-related discussion they can (like you just did), when they don’t know what they are talking about and can’t quote a single reliable number for the discount they are demanding. If you want a Windows-less computer, buy one. Nobody owes you customization services they didn’t offer, much less to pay you for such a service.
kurkosdr,
It wasn’t specific to LTSC, but the double payment would still apply when you buy a computer from a regular retailer and then install your LTSC license on it. You end up with an extra windows license you won’t use.
By forcing you to pay for it, obviously. While some exist, it’s quite rare that a commodity PC seller will not force the sale of an OEM windows license.
First off, we often don’t have a choice but to buy a bundled OEM license with the computer. The idea wasn’t to buy a retail license for a computer that already has an OEM license, the idea was to buy a retail license ONCE and then to keep using it as explicitly permitted by microsoft instead of paying for OEM licenses every time you get new laptop/desktop. This is a legal and financially sensible decision especially if you’re going with the professional edition, but it gets foiled by being forced to buy unwanted OEM copies.
It was around $90-100 in 2018 I think. Many vendors won’t even show an itemized price though, you pay the windows tax and that’s that. I’m being completely sincere when I say I’d rather buy a windows license once and then transfer it from one computer to the next, but in practice you’d end up having two windows licenses because your forced to buy an OEM license.
What can I say, I will continue to complain about unjust bundling, it’s unethical and should be illegal too.
That is disingenuous when they already allow you to customize the version of windows and sometimes even customize the software bundled on it too. Not installing an OS is less work.
This is like saying that you already have an MXM GPU from your not-so-old gaming laptop that was run over by a dump truck and the manufacturer “forces” you to buy a new MXM GPU when you buy a new gaming laptop (yes, some laptops still have upgradeable MXM GPUs). How is this the manufacturer’s problem? He has literally zero obligation to customize the product to accommodate your particular case.
System76 is right there, Lenovo and Dell sell FreeDOS or Ubuntu versions of their computers. So that’s not true anymore. But still, why does the manufacturer has to offer customization options to your demands? Does Apple offer MacOS-less versions of their laptops? Do car manufacturers allow you to remove random bits and bobs from the car beyond what their customization options allow? Of course not. They offer a product for sale.
How do you know it was around $90-100? How do you know the manufacturer has paid DSP price? You don’t, you are buying a boxed product and have no clue how much the manufacturer has paid for each item, nor does the manufacturer have to tell you. They don’t have to remove it for you and offer you a discount either. Also, Dell has refused to offer such a refund because they say the users “got their Windows license for free” (can’t be bothered to find the link right now). And considering how little Dell pays for Windows licenses per computer and what they make from crapware and AV trials, it’s not implausible. You have no clue how much Dell pays for the WIndows license, so unless you have a solid number backed up by evidence, stop throwing numbers around.
Any consumer electronics boxed product is a collection of bundled parts. The only reason Windows is the only item people fuss about is because it started evolving into a freeloader tactic before the new EULA plugged that hole. Nobody asks Apple to remove MacOS from Macbooks, or try to attach an arbitrary price/discount to it, despite MacOS also coming with a clickwrap license.
Keeping slow-moving copies of FreeDOS or Ubuntu computers might not be in their financial interest. And anyway, they don’t have to, especially when System76 is right there and they don’t have to give you any particular option. So, be glad that they offer you the option to buy some non-Windows computers at all. Because, again, they don’t have to.
kurkosdr,,
I don’t think vendors should be allowed to force you to buy unwanted & unneeded software licenses.
It was itemized, some vendors show it while others don’t. Either way you’re paying the windows tax and inflating windows sales figures whether it is earned or not.
I don’t even care if they stock FreeDOS or Ubuntu, a no-OS option is fine. Use an empty drive/image, really not a big deal. I can agree with you that selling extraneous OEM licenses is in their financial interest even though consumers don’t want them, but it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to get away with it.
You are not going to change my mind about this, and even though I think you should change your mind because being forced to buy unwanted software licenses is an objectively anti-consumer policy, I accept that you won’t be changing your mind either. It seems we must agree to disagree.
Unwanted? Depends on the individual buyer. This is the same as having a bunch of SO-DIMMs or MXM GPUs lying around. So what? The manufacturer doesn’t have to care about your particular case. Nor does the manufacturer have to allow you to take parts out of the laptop and return them for a refund. Unneeded? PCs need an OS to work, and most customers expect a working computer out of the box. And since OEMs do offer non-Windows PCs for sale, the question becomes: How many non-Windows PCs does a computer retailer have to stock? Do they need to have at least one non-Windows PC per store? Do they have to have them in alternating rows with Windows PCs? Who decides? Because the real issue is that retailers don’t stock non-Windows PCs because they can’t move them as fast as Windows PCs. They have no problem stocking Macs or Android tablets.
If you want to buy slow-moving stuff, order it online.
kurkosdr,
Yes obviously it depends on the buyer. My point was that it shouldn’t be forced, not that it shouldn’t be available.
You can argue for those things if you really want to, but personally I’m more concerned about being forced to buy unwanted software licenses. Physical hardware isn’t truly in the same boat. Think about it. You can turn around and sell, repurpose, or give away extra hardware you don’t need. But now if you have extra software licenses that you were forced to buy, then are you allowed to sell that? No? Well that’s part of the problem.
And? That is a really pathetic excuse for forcing customers to buy extra/unwanted licenses when they don’t need them.
It’s not rocket science, they can figure something out. We can agree they’re not going to do anything about it without a law in place that gives consumers a right to decline unwanted software licenses. Microsoft in particular would fight this tooth and nail since their monopoly benefits strongly from forced bundling. Regardless that doesn’t make it any less abusive and consumers like me have good reason to complain about it.
Yes, I would like to see the end abusive sales practices everywhere. both in stores and online.
Edit: How would you like to end this? You understand that neither of us is going to change our mind here, right?
The only reason the “windows refund movement” was even a thing is because somewhere in the MS EULA there was a clause to the tune of “if you don’t agree with this EULA, ask for a refund”, without adequately clarifying if the refund referred to the license or the computer. This allowed people to demand refunds equivalent to the price of a DSP license, without presenting any evidence that a DSP price had indeed been paid by the computer manufacturer to Microsoft. Some manufacturers did honor the request, which means it started evolving into a neat freeloader tactic (claim you don’t agree with the license, get 100 bucks or so back from your laptop purchase, then install pirate windows). As a result, Microsoft clarified in newer versions of the license that the refund refers to the entire computer (aka you have to return the entire computer for a refund) and that was the end of it. I half-hoped Linux users would stop bleating “Muh Windows refund! Muh Windows refund!” right there and then, but nope… here we are, still hearing about it.
To recap: Nobody owes you a customization service they never offered (much less pay you for it), and if you don’t agree with the MS EULA return the entire computer for a refund and buy a Windows-less computer of your choosing instead.
Note though that because “Windows 10” encompasses 6 years of different releases, it’s unclear how long each sub-release will be supported by things like Chrome or Firefox.
It would seem strange to drop support for 7 and maintain support for 10240 (2015 LTSB) since the number of those systems must be tiny in comparison. A stronger case would be 14393 (2016 LTSC and Server 2016) but the usage there won’t be large either. Although Server 2019 is supported until 2029, it’s also not a big market so I’d actually be surprised if Firefox/Chrome follow those dates. Keeping 19041+ makes sense because of all the systems that can’t move to 11, but anything less than that seems niche.
Edit: For what it’s worth, I got a few boxed copies of Server 2019 Essentials for the same reason you got LTSC. This avoids the grey market issues and provides longer support. But it’s unclear to me how long they’ll actually be useful for.
Windows 7 reached end of life on Jan 14, 2020, while Windows 8 doesn’t reach end of life till Jan 10 2023. But Chrome is being retired for both at the same time. This doesn’t sound right.
Windows 7 ESU is being EOLed in January 2023 together with Windows 8.1. You see, Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 are very similar (save for the Metro parts of Windows 8.1), so I guess it makes sense for Microsoft to keep offering paid extended support for Windows 7 (considering they have to do the work for Windows 8.1 anyway) and pull the plug for both at the same time.
To give you a sense of how similar Microsoft considers these OSes, when they stopped EPG updates for the Windows Media Center for Windows 7, they also did for the Windows Media Center of Windows 8.1. And a while ago they sent an update that prevents WMC for Windows 8.1 from working unless you run it as admin, because they sent out the same update to Windows 7 ESU users (and ESU users don’t need to have WMC, I guess).