Microsoft has detailed its support plans for new and upcoming processor generations. The general gist: all upcoming processor generations from Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm will require Windows 10. Windows 8.x and Windows 7 will not be supported on these new platforms.
Going forward, as new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support. This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability and compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon. For example, Windows 10 will be the only supported Windows platform on Intel’s upcoming “Kaby Lake” silicon, Qualcomm’s upcoming “8996” silicon, and AMD’s upcoming “Bristol Ridge” silicon.
Through July 17, 2017, Skylake devices on the supported list will also be supported with Windows 7 and 8.1. During the 18-month support period, these systems should be upgraded to Windows 10 to continue receiving support after the period ends. After July 2017, the most critical Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 security updates will be addressed for these configurations, and will be released if the update does not risk the reliability or compatibility of the Windows 7/8.1 platform on other devices.
You better be prepared for this when shopping for new hardware in the coming years.
Shouldn’t it be “Microsoft to deny support for new hardware but in Windows 10”?
Not really, no.
The new hardware is breaking compatibility. It’s not just Microsoft deliberately crippling their software. They’re not obliged to continue to update their old products forever.
They don’t necessarily have to force you to upgrade both your software (auto-download of Windows 10) and your hardware (won’t support old cpus) either.
x86 been a rather efficient platform until now, beside virtualization and memory upgradability. AMD64 is even better and I see nothing that would limit them soon.
It’s not MS’s task to stop supporting old hardware, especially considering they are platform agnostic with their run-everywhere Windows 10. This is foolish.
“Windows 7 will continue to be supported for security, reliability, and compatibility through January 14, 2020 on previous generation silicon. Windows 8.1 will receive the same support through January 10, 2023.”
“Through July 17, 2017, Skylake devices on the supported list will also be supported with Windows 7 and 8.1″
So these devices can work with Windows 7 or even 8.1, it’s just a conscious decision by Microsoft and Intel to force their paying customers to risk their privacy by force-upgrading them to Windows 10. What a dick move.
By the way, what happens to the Skylake owners who have already purchased a computer with Windows 7 expecting at least four more years of support, who will now be forced to upgrade next summer? I had a Dell Precision workstation with a 14nm Xeon and Win7 in my cart just this week, but went another direction instead of clicking buy. What would I have expected if I bought the machine? Do these people get a refund, get grandfathered in, or can we expect a class action lawsuit?
Sounds like one more reason to buy AMD, which has been going out of their way to open up their hardware and support open source projects..
http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/open-source/
Personally I think AMD really ought to send MSFT and Intel some flowers, as a LOT of guys I’ve talked to now consider new intel CPU verbotten because they don’t want to take the spyware that is Windows 10. I know I’m quite happy my system is running an FX-8320E which works great and hopefully by the time Win 8.1 reaches EOL I’ll have another OS to use since MSFT seems hell bent on committing suicide.
Did you bother to read the freakin’ headline where AMD is in LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME BOAT before you wrote that post?
What’s even more hilarious is that AMD’s rebranded APUs that are literally just Kaveri plopped into a new motherboard for 2016 are affected by announcement too.
Something tells me you like to come to a biased and bigoted conclusion first and then ignore any facts (like basically the entire story) that you find to be inconvenient to your conclusion.
Upgrading to Windows 10 is free until next summer, so there is no problem with support.
Personally, I’ve never ever heard of CPU-specific Windows updates, so your quote is most likely bullshit. They are x86 processors, they run the same code as every other chip out there. Having support for chipsets / motherboards is a different story, but again that’s up to the device manufacturers and not Microsoft.
Most certainly nobody’s going to break existing systems by force removing the required device drivers.
Edited 2016-01-18 14:59 UTC
They crop up infrequently, for example, this one is for AMD CPUs which changes the way processes are assigned to processor cores as are they are bundled together in modules.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2645594
Obviously it’s up to the system & cpu manufacturers to actually drop backwards compatibility. Did both AMD and Intel really go along with this? Somehow I doubt they’d agree to break backwards compatibility as the article suggests. Why would they risk their own reputation breaking things including non-MS operating systems?
Keep in mind, Dos is “not supported” on 64 bit processor, but it still technically works… So is this just a clever scare tactic by microsoft marketing to make a fuss over absolutely nothing at all?
If it really will stop working, does that mean MS had the foresight to implement cpuid timebombs in windows 7 itself such that it would deliberately stop working on backwards compatible CPUs of the future?
The worst case scenario is that MS will send a windows 7 update to break windows on those CPUs. If so, they’ve taken market abuse to new heights!
Edited 2016-01-17 14:03 UTC
New CPU generations often come with new chipsets, and need new drivers for disk controllers and such. I don’t think the CPUs themselves will be a problem.
No it isn’t,
True, but it’s still up to the manufacturer to include windows 7 drivers, and it’s not in either AMD or Intel history to totally break the backwards compatibility of prior operating systems. So I’m left wondering what MS is planning on breaking.
Sorry for the off topic.
I don’t know how to contact you otherwise:
Baidu did the same as Google and Microsoft and released their machine learning stuff as open source:
https://thestack.com/world/2016/01/15/baidu-releases-open-source-ai-…
I don’t think they will actively break anything, I just think those drivers will be ‘unsupported’, no WHQL; manual updating and the following potential for breakage. A bit like using proprietary drivers under Linux, in other words.
But I’m just guessing, of course.
Since most modern CPUs include GPUs, it’s more likely the video support that they don’t want to back port.
The problem is that these new machines can and already do work with Windows 7. They have been sold since the third quarter of 2015. Surely, if major features did not work with this hardware+software combination, we would have heard complaints by now.
It is Microsoft that is pushing an arbitrary stop date sometime in the Summer of 2017 when they will force these new systems to be updated to Windows 10. Older architectures, including Broadwell which is also 14nm and was also released in 2015, will be allowed to run Win7 for three additional years.
The technical reasoning for the forced upgrade is dubious at best, since this configuration already works with no reported issues. With this in mind, Microsoft is admitting that this configuration will work just fine until they decide that it won’t in the Summer of 2017.
Agreed.
I think Microsoft is testing reaction. Most mindless zombies (the average person out there) won’t care and us who know better (the minority) won’t matter. They want control over our computers and this is one more step.
Richard Stallman considers Windows to be malware and he points out that Microsoft “sabotages” Windows users by disclosing vulnerabilities to the NSA before patches are released. People continue to support Microsoft nonetheless.
ok, so it’s about lack of support for those operating systems. i was wondering how you could lock out certain os on a cpu level.
Edited 2016-01-17 14:49 UTC
Yeah, there’s a ton of wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, but it’s not the end of the world as some are saying. This is no different than how it’s always worked between desktop operating systems and new technology. Windows 98 and 2000 will install and run just fine on modern Core series CPUs, they just can’t offer support for, say, the VT-x virtualization technology those chips offer.
Personally I find it more egregious that Apple dropped support for early Core Duo Macs when they did; the hardware is physically capable of running OS X Lion, and did so just fine in test builds, but they ultimately decided to disallow installing the OS for those machines for no practical reason. As in, Lion and later will not install on a Core Duo Mac even if you drop in a Core2 Duo chip, unless you’re prepared to do some serious hacking around with system files.
At least with Windows, you can install your beloved 2000 or XP on a Skylake processor and it will run. You likely won’t get full driver support from the board manufacturer, and you won’t get to enjoy the advanced features Skylake brings, but your OS will run just fine otherwise, and that’s the way it’s always been.
In other words, this is business as usual across the computing spectrum, and is nothing new for Microsoft in particular. It just makes for some juicy clickbait.
Well. Apple is a HW company, so it makes sense that they want people to buy new machines (they give the OS basically for free).
I do have to wonder, have you actually tried to install Windows 98 or 2000 on a modern machine?
We have Haswell i5 machines at work that run XP. Video isn’t accelerated of course, but that doesn’t impact their function. At home, I’ve successfully booted and ran Windows 98SE on a Core2 Duo machine, and 2000 on a Haswell i5. Again, no drivers for some components, but there is no artificial block against booting them, as this and other headlines attempt to imply.
Microsoft is not saying Windows 7 and 8.1 will suddenly stop working or installing on Skylake and later processors, just that the advanced features of those processors will no longer support those old OSes, which is how it has always been.
How exactly did you manage to boot OSs that do not support SATA natively on a machine that only uses SATA?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but there were plenty of Socket 775 boards that supported PATA, including two in active use in my house.
Anything else you want to make up out of thin air?
Rather simple; Slipstream the driver to any bootable media, like an usb stick (2k supported booting from USB since SP1 when it got the ZipDisk usb driver). Win 2k does not even support 48bit LBA and no SATA chipset, to does not stop anyone that want to use it though, as you can just use the CP drivers, change the 5.1 to 5.0 in the .inf file and slipstream them. (Does not work with vista drivers though)
Windows 2000 SP4 support LBA48 bits, you just have to enable it through registry. I’ve even crafted an installation disk with nLiteOS that features this plus multiple tweaks that renders Win2K SP4 close to WinXP SP3, minus the theming and multi-core support. Most of the XP drivers just install and run fine on 2K.
Haha, I thought that. Would be an interesting experiment, but an educated guess says is it would work fine, at least with [S]VGA drivers.
So it isn’t as if the new processors will stop working, just that the older OS versions won’t get updates with certain non-supported configurations?
I can’t wait until Win7 stops being ‘supported’ with ‘updates’ that are popup ads for Windows 10 and unwanted 6GB downloads!
You could stop them now just by upgrading to a Non MS Operating System.
I’ll leave the choice to you.
Windows is not the only game in town now.
MS are not helping themeselves with this policy of nagware and even downloading W10 to people who have not asked for it.
I’ve tested and “played with” about every operating system there is. Windows XP is a dream to use compared to Linux. And Windows 7 is nearly the apex of OS function, hardware and software compatibility, and usability.
Windows 8/8.1 is a clusterf***. And Windows 10 doesn’t seem to be much better, although my Win 10 exposure is admittedly limited.
I guess I was voted down for badmouthing Windows 8, the favorite OS among the clique of OSAlert regulars?
lol.
Actually if you would have just bothered to apply Classic Shell to 8.1? You’d have had Windows 7 with a better file manager, faster boot times, and a better task manager.
That said I can’t blame ya for liking Windows 7, its a damned nice solid OS and the only one that didn’t NEED to deal with OS hacks like Classic Shell to make usable.
I skipped Win8* and have zero interest in Win10. Actually less than zero with all the stupid & sneaky shit Microsoft keeps pulling. My opinion of Microsoft is at an all-time low, but I sure an happy with my Win7 desktops.
Unforunately none of the non MS OSes support Skylake on 7 year old versions either. In fact they don’t even support it in their 2 year old versions.
When I made a new Haswell based computer a year ago, I found out a normal install CD for thee latest Debian stable couldn’t even boot it. I needed a newer kernel, and therefore a newer version than the latest stable.
2000/XP/XPx64 still works just fine on my haswell system, and all devices has supported drivers, even wifi and IME and all. (Gigabyte ITX motherboard)
Edited 2016-01-17 19:06 UTC
I don’t believe you.
Just gooling “Haswell XP support” says that you are going to have a hard time unless you are using unofficial drivers.
Intel H87 chipset works just fine with the 2014 inf_allos package from intel.com.
Graphics is a nvidia 660TI and drivers are available from nvidia.com.
Wireless is Ralink 3*** series with drivers available from mediatek.
All of it works, even the originial wifi (6005 Centrino) with drivers from Intel.
Atheros Ethernet drivers is available for the network card.
What part would you consider not compatible?
I bought this motherboard especially to run XP x64.
So what you did is get driver packages that worked.
That isn’t the same as being supported.
Hasn’t it always worked like that for XP and earlier, supply the drivers yourself?
Basically what he has done is buy hardware that is generic enough that you can load up older drivers from anywhere, which is fine.
He said they were “fully supported” when in fact there happens to be enough driver binaries hanging around so he can get a working system. So I was correct in being suspicious.
It is fair enough to say “well I can still get it working with XP 64” but claiming “full support” is very different.
Why he is still running XP 64 is the real mystery here. It is out of date, hibernate, suspend etc don’t work properly on systems with over 4gb of ram (this wasn’t supported on my Core 2 Duo E6400).
Edited 2016-01-18 19:44 UTC
I have never tried hibernating, it does not matter, the system is never shut down. It runs 24/7 and is compatible with the Siemens/Nixdorf control software for the P4303 automated Dimter “Fr~A¤smaschine”(Vista and newer is not).
It is not like i would like to upgrade, but you do not get a computer f~APr 4k and upgrade your machine park fpr 200k just to suit the computer. The Computer has to fit the machinery.
The only other option is Mac OS X, which I am considering ever so more seriously now that Microsoft gone completely berserk with their Windows 10. Does Apple still make any serious desktop/workstation? I don’t want a laptop, and I don’t consider “Darth Vader” trash bin cylinder to be a workstation. Workstation for me must have vast expansion and upgrade possibilities (at least 4 RAM slots, 4 PCI-* slots, 6 SATA slots, 8 USB slots, changeable CPU…) and “Darth Vader” has none.
It will be in Intel’s and AMD’s best interest to keep producing drivers for Win 7 and 8.1 on new hardware. Even today, I hit their sites and download the newest chipset and graphics drivers, going forward, it won’t be that much different.
Microsoft is just pushing responsibility for newer drivers for older OS’ back to the manufacturer. Just like most other hardware bits.
Just buy a Mac. Runs Windows, Mac OS X and Linux!
That’s a thought though, what about macs that use Intel processors?
I run CentOS 7 on my 2009 13in MacBook.
Intel CPU. It has run Windows 7 in the past. Pretty easy to swap the SSD to boot El-Capitan. (I don’t like dual boots)
Yes… that way you don’t have to worry about new technology at all!
There is an interesting twist here.
It would appear that a critical or security Windows 7/8.1 update will not be released for Skylake based systems (after July 2017) if it breaks compatibility and reliability of the Windows 7/8.1 platform on other devices…..
Does this imply that features specific to the Skylake platform, which could be exploited from a Windows 7/8.1 environment to compromise its security, will not be addressed if this cascades issues in pre-Skylake based systems?
Come hell or high water, MS will make their usage numbers for Windows 10.
I wonder how much money was passed to Intel/AMD to go along with this?
Not from this user they won’t!
If it came to the point that the only OS you could run on any device would be Windows 10, I would go back to pen and paper and a pack of envelopes. My computers would go in the skip and my mobile phone’s would follow them!
I have no interest in Windows 10 whatsoever. It stinks and sux balls! (As well as looks worse than Win 98).
Maybe just Redmond saying them that they are more than happy on helping their hardware run… On Win10.
So the options are: Running over whatever you find at the attic and have an occurrence of switching on again, and remain confronting users’ fury, as have been for decades, Or going on to grab the full hardware/firmware/software stack, which is of course plausible only in the new stuff [Such could be my dream, of Redmond dreams].
First Microsoft took the unprecedented step of releasing Windows 10 for free and deploying it universally across all of its devices from tablets to phones to the X-Box. Next it began pushing the new operating system onto Windows 7 and 8.x devices without owner consent. PC owners refusing to upgrade are being nagged at an annoying rate requiring registry hacks to turn off the notifications. Now, Intel and AMD will REQUIRE Windows 10 on all new generation processors? Something sure smells fishy with all of this!! Call me a conspiracy theorist but I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that Windows 10 allows our government unfettered back door access to every Windows 10 device which will allow easy spying and collection of users personal data and web activity on a global scale. No thank you. When I ditched Windows for Linux 13 years ago and never looked back, I knew I did so for a very good reason! Linus Torvalds actually admitted publicly that he was approached by the NSA and asked to build back doors into the Linux kernel and he flatly refused. Obviously Microsoft and Apple did not. It’s no wonder why the government now considers Linux users to be “extremists” as they have officially labelled us as such.
Edited 2016-01-17 17:53 UTC
You did right. The problem is, this has now got so extreme that like you I believe something big is behind all this! So big that how long now before lawsuits start cropping up against alternative OS’s in a bid to shut them down?
Oh look! The NSA vote down bunnies are here already. Was that statement a bit too close to home for you and hit a nerve? Good!
No need to feel like its a conspiracy. The Windows 10 EULA flat out states that Microsoft will download what ever they feel like downloading and share it with who ever they feel like sharing it.
Makes you wonder how the hell is Windows 10 legal or acceptable to use for anything involving confidential information. At least EU should ban its use in health care and government.
I’ve heard that claim, by no coincidence from Linux users, but I have yet to see any proof to back it up. So, citation please.
Linux? Extremists? What about us Amigans!? We’re the ORIGINAL extremists!
Beware, an Atarian is standing behind you ! He holds this dangerous sharp edged mouse #fear#
I’ve got news for you, kid.
Support for the advanced power management features and other enhancements baked into Skylake and beyond won’t be backported to a six year old release of the Linux Kernel.
Nobody uses a six year old Linux kernel.
I thought that was called debian stable
2014 is 6 years ago now? Boy the built-in calculator in windows is worse than I thought…
Lol. The kernel isn’t six years old in Debian stable. Granted, it is not the newest LTS kernel branch, but still not six years old.
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/intel
Enterprise companies will backport.
Rhel 6.7 has kernel 2.6.32!
https://access.redhat.com/articles/3078#RHEL6
Which was released in 2009… Making it what 5-6 years old.
Close enough, I think.
it has little to do with vanilla 2.6.32, redhat backports a truckload of things.
Or switch to Linux already now
Edited 2016-01-17 19:49 UTC
When Nikon releases a Linux version of CaptureNX2, I’m all over it. Also require the Garmin software for our GPSes, Autocad for work, and Fender Fuse for my digital guitar amp. Follow up with Canon, DeLorme, ESRI, Texas Instruments, and on1.
I can’t afford to buy a newer version but if there’s an upcoming Linux release of Adobe CS2 that I can use with my current license, that’d be great!
Since you’re like the Linux spokesperson, maybe you could pull some strings and finally get it done?
Since you are their customer, express your interest to them. Since “the customer is always right”, they are ought to pay attention
Edited 2016-01-17 20:39 UTC
It was quite an accomplishment getting StarOffice/OpenOffice ported to Linux. Of course that was over fifteen years ago during the Year of the Desktop Linux.
Accomplishments keep pouring in. Linux became a solid gaming platform in the last few years, and it will only improve. MS won’t have any rest.
Edited 2016-01-17 23:08 UTC
I can honestly say you’re the first person I’ve come across to refer to Linux as a “solid gaming platform”. Even my die-hard Linux friends don’t have the gall to make such a claim.
Since I do all my gaming on Linux, I’m saying it from first hand experience. Last two/three years were simply phenomenal. If before that Linux barely saw any new games coming out, now it’s already estimated as close to 1/3 of any new titles released through major distributors.
Edited 2016-01-18 03:14 UTC
Well that is because you wouldn’t use another OS other than Linux for your gaming so you wouldn’t know whether it was any better or not.
Unfortunately according to ars that performance on a lot of the games just isn’t upto par.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/2015/11/ars-benchmarks-show-signifi…
And lets face it, Steam OS is just a Debian Spinoff.
A lot of the steam game library is either very old games, indie stuff.
Edited 2016-01-18 19:14 UTC
I’m not using Steam (I prefer to buy my games DRM-free such as from GOG), but their push for Linux gaming is surely appreciated.
Edited 2016-01-18 19:18 UTC
Getting better is great. But with the fact that the performance on the Graphics just isn’t as good as Windows (and I am not interested as to why) and that most of my library doesn’t work with Steam on Linux isn’t just isn’t a compelling reason.
My library of games probably looks something like the best selling games on Steam for the past 7 years.
Also Origin and Uplay (yes I have bought games on both services and it isn’t a horrific experience). Both don’t work without having to go the Wine/Crossover root … when everything works with Windows.
Graphics situation is getting better gradually as well, and I don’t argue that OpenGL is in general quite a mess for different historic reasons. That’s why upcoming Vulkan has a chance to set things straight. Of course we’ll never know until that will happen. It will depend on participants like Nvidia and Co. playing nicely, and not breaking things for everyone.
Origin and Uplay is something I won’t even touch with a ten foot pole. They are infested with DRM to the brink. I only buy DRM-free games.
Edited 2016-01-18 19:25 UTC
How is Steam any different?
Unfortunately the piracy levels of the last decade mean that realistically any online service won’t offer new games without it.
That’s obviously incorrect. GOG is the best example, and that’s in fact my digital store of preference for games (since I don’t buy games with DRM). They are growing quite quickly.
Edited 2016-01-18 19:52 UTC
No it isn’t comparable.
Most of the games offered on GOG are older games. Fear 2 is listed on their home page, and that is about 10 years old now.
You gotta be realistic that while it (GOG) is a good service it just doesn’t offer the same things to the same people.
It just isn’t compelling when you want to play the latest and greatest.
You might be happy restricting what you purchase for ideological reasons but most don’t care.
Tbh after the mega piracy of PC games of the early 00s … I don’t blame the industry for implementing quite strict DRM (not that it has ever caused me a problem).
Edited 2016-01-18 20:00 UTC
“Greatest” is a very subjective matter. I care for good art, and not for mass market junk. And in fact, practically all new games that I care about came out on GOG.
Big publisher funded games (which usually but not always coincide with those who insist on DRM) more than often fall into mass market category these days. And the rise of big independent studios (inXile, Obsidian and others) created a lot of interesting and good art lately.
I don’t see a direct correlation between using DRM and quality of the art though, it just happens that legacy publishers who usually are into mass market ideas, are commonly the same one who stupidly insist on DRM.
Anyway, it’s an interesting and long subject, and these comments aren’t very suitable for such discussion.
Edited 2016-01-18 20:07 UTC
It isn’t about art. Even if it was, nobody said that DRM increases the quality of art, I doubt anyone would claim that.
What DRM does it make it more difficult to pirate (these days they have very good DRM for Games like Just Cause 3 which even the pirates say is getting impossible to crack). After the rampant piracy of the 00s I don’t blame game publishers for mandating DRM.
People took the piss and this is why we can’t have nice things. As someone who programs for a living, I wouldn’t like it if people pirated a lot of my work.
Edited 2016-01-18 21:56 UTC
It doesn’t. All it does is making life more difficult for paying customers.
Edited 2016-01-18 21:59 UTC
Sorry you are wrong.
http://www.geek.com/games/video-game-drm-expected-to-become-uncrack…
Even the pirates admit it that they are at a point where they are having real problems.
As for paying customer, how would you explain that I have had zero problems ever with any of the online services that I have mentioned? That steam is massively popular … obviously none of these people are having problems with DRM.
As far as I am concerned Steam “just works” and I know that is true of most people who use the service.
The truth is that it is you who has problems with Steam because it uses DRM and will ignore of it others merits, such as it being a popular, cheap and reliable way to purchase games (not art .. they don’t sell art)
Edited 2016-01-18 22:20 UTC
Conversation finished. I’m describing quite well known facts, that anyone can see just by studying different distributors. Do you research.
Losing your temper because someone said you were talking rubbish is a good way to lose an argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVuTmuFeWI
You just did that video mate.
No you are not fact. They are subjective tastes. You can’t say that your taste is better than other because you say so … that is snobbery.
Edited 2016-01-18 22:31 UTC
BTW You are still a massive zealot that can’t see past the blinkers. Nothing changed in over a year since I last commented here.
I’ll just repeat what I said above – do your research before arguing or dismissing arguments of others. Otherwise you are wasting everyone’s time.
You were the one that said that you knew better about taste than others not me. That is what you said IT IS NOT A FACT!
That is snobbery and you cannot decide what is an isn’t worthy of being quality when it is media. It is purely subjective.
If you can’t understand that you are either being willfully ignorant, thick as a brick or an actual elitist.
Edited 2016-01-18 23:17 UTC
1st step. Stop using AutoCAD and replace it with Draftsight, its compatible except for 3D, if you don’t use 3D then Draftsight works for you, it runs on Linux.
I think we do use Draftsight, the free version, on some computers since Autocad is so expensive.
Solidworks too.
Yes, the free version, you can renew it I think every 6 months to remain free.
AutoCAD is sooo expensive.
But:
There is no replacement for Photoshop in Linux
You can use http://rakarrack.sourceforge.net/ or guitarix.org as a replacement for your guitar rig in Linux, but don’t expect miracles.
The solution to your (and many other people’s problem) is to run Linux on the new hardware not supported for any other versions of Windows. In order to run your Windows software you can run XP, 7 or 8 in a virtual machine.
People have commented that Win 7 also phones home. Yes- but not nearly as much by default
And you can selectively deny(to an extent)certain updates at least for a while
I am stuck for various technological reasons with using windows for work. I would very much like to stick with win7 for quite some years or until MS bow to the (currently rather lacking) pressure to bring out a Win11 that is both less aggressive with the phoning home and data gathering & hopefully coordinate the present jarringly different (and often duplicate) Metro settings and Win32 Desktop control panels – etc etc.
So – I at least – hope there is an campaign, petition, whatever is takes: to force a back-track.
I don’t run any client OSes on bare hardware anymore. So as long as I can install Linux/BSD/Genode/etc. on the hardware, the virtualization software should keep the clients running just fine. (If they screw that up, I will be very angry!)
P.S. I have been already moving away from Windows as fast as I can for quite a while, and I am definitely in the crowd that refuses to run Windows 10 for any reason. (If business requires it, it will be under very controlled circumstances.)
I don’t get the outrage. This has happened before. When AGP was superseded by PCIexpress in the gpu world, chipsets were dropped from driver support from Nvidia and relegated as legacy in both windows and Linux drivers.
If you were lucky enough to have the more recent agp cards, Nvidia maintained Windows driver compatibility all the way through Vista.
I haven’t used one in a while, but I assume they still work but only as basic display adapters with generic drivers, which defeats any performance over a cheap pci express card like a gt 510.
Same with CPUs, and it gets more complicated as bus standards change (Pascal bus comes to mind)
I wonder how this interacts with Windows Server support on those chips, given Server 2016 isn’t even released yet… the update cycle for server OSes is a lot more delayed than the desktop cycle due to things like standardization and certified configurations. I can quite see a company insisting on 2008r2 on a chip in a year’s time… and if they’re going to support 2008r2 then they’re essentially supporting Windows 7.
Or are they going to start differentiating Xeon even more and making desktop chips/chipsets entirely unsupported for Windows Server (and vice versa) or something?
Edited 2016-01-18 00:07 UTC
Unfortunately there seems to be technical reasons for this. I’m not discounting any intentional decision on behalf of Microsoft, however I ran into a similar issue even with Linux, during a hardware upgrade. New hardware require new drivers, and they are not always readily available.
What happens is there are new chipsets, and new methods to drive I/O devices and memory with each new hardware generation. In my case with Linux, which was ~10 years ago, the issue was “resolved” by disabling SMT kernel. Well actually RedHat (or Fedora, can’t exactly remember) later released a fix, but there was a period when my shiny new AMD hardware was not fully supported.
Most recent motherboards (except for special purpose ones) come with a lot of backward compatibility shims to emulate older hardware to run generic OS’es. Those exceptional cases seem to be 1. apple, 2. embedded/low power single board computers. When I built my HTPC, I had to go through several different Linux distros to be able to install Linux on then new AMD APUs. I’m not only talking about missing video card drivers, but plain being unable to boot the operating system even in text mode.
I do not like this decision, since I still keep my old OS on my laptop. But on the other hand I know Linux will adopt, as it always has, and older Windows users will either “upgrade” to 10, or switch to an alternate operating system.
Edited 2016-01-18 04:05 UTC
sukru,
It’s not clear based on your comment that you even got into linux at all to test it’s drivers. Some computers can be finicky to boot even though Linux would technically work if you resolved the boot issues. Did Grub fail? Sometimes that’s a problem. Or even something like UEFI/secure boot getting in the way? Many distros don’t have a UEFI bootloader at all, so the system would have to be set to boot in legacy bios mode first. It could actually be a buggy chipset too, if so it might be fixed in newer firmware.
I have an HP that has a bios featured called “fast boot”, in which it tries to skip directly into windows, and Linux will not boot in this mode. For that matter, neither will windows after a crash. I had to double-fault the load process to get back to a clean boot. This wasn’t worth the hassle and so I turned the feature off – now both boot fine.
I’ve yet to see an x86 system with firmware that doesn’t support legacy bios booting at all, but I’m sure that day will come. What’s the make/model of this computer and which distro ended up working for you?
Edited 2016-01-18 06:05 UTC
Also, I fully expect if I buy some new last generation hardware, I won’t be able to install my old Linux distro, but have to put a very new version.
The situation is quite similar: in Windows 10 I may not want the telemetry, as in a new Linux I do not want the deeper Systemd integration.
The situation is not that similar, on most Linux distros you can upgrade the kernel, and tool chain, on your own. So you can keep up with drivers and what not, even if that specific distro doesn’t.
Furthermore, the linux distro ecosystem is fairly diversified. Meaning that you are likely to find an up to date distro with the legacy features which you prefer.
None of those two items really apply to the Windows ecosystem. I’m not claiming one system to be better than the other.
I really don’t care about that, not using Windows from along long time