Microsoft’s plan to force newer Kaby Lake/Rizen processor owners to Win10 backfires

Topic

New Reply

Draconian update shutoff, aimed at newer 7th generation processors, also snagged some 6th gen AMD Carrizo machines — and at least one Intel Celeron p
[See the full post at: Microsoft’s plan to force newer Kaby Lake/Rizen processor owners to Win10 backfires]

Reply | Quote

Replies

I don’t understand how they could release a trap door “feature” like this without checking, double-checking, and checking the list again. Do they think that the model of “throw some code out there and let the world complain” can always work? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to wonder: How are people whose updates are inadvertently shut off entirely supposed to get the fix?!?

Perhaps Microsoft will call off the 7th generation dogs, and just support Win7 and 8.1 for newer hardware, as long as the hardware supports Win7/8.1.

This is profound.

Microsoft put end-of-support dates on their OSs. Everyone expects support to last that long. Decisions were made on those dates. The cost to do that had to be budgeted. Sorry, but the dates don’t suddenly get to be ignored.

-Noel

7 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, samak, Karlston, HiFlyer, Rock, James Bond 007

Reply | Quote

Noel Carboni wrote:

This is profound.

Microsoft put end-of-support dates on their OSs. Everyone expects support to last that long. Decisions were made on those dates. The cost to do that had to be budgeted. Sorry, but the dates don’t suddenly get to be ignored.

-Noel

Do other OS platforms guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology used by those who, contrary to published advice, refuse to update to the latest version?

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Do other OS platforms guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology used by those who, contrary to published advice, refuse to update to the latest version?

Microsoft has known all about the possibility (and the probability) of yet-to-be-invented technology interacting with Windows. Yet, even though they were fully aware of this, they gave an end-of-update date of 2020 for Windows 7, and 2023 for Windows 8.1. In other words, they promised to support Windows 7 until 2020 (and 8.1 until 2023), even though they and everyone else knew that yet-to-be-invented technology would be connected to that version of Windows.

I consider “support” to be releasing updates that have been tested a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable variety of hardware/software. If an update hasn’t been tested, or has barely been tested, and it has then been released, then no reasonable IT professional would consider that to be “support”.

Issuing reasonably-tested security updates for this scenario isn’t the same in any way as the situation where there are “those who, contrary to published advice, refuses to update to the latest version.” Moving away from Windows 7 to a different version of Windows was never part of the deal. Moving to a different version of Windows is called an “upgrade”, not an “update”, and it is completely different than receiving “support” for your current version of Windows.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

9 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, Karlston, samak, HiFlyer, radosuaf, James Bond 007, Noel Carboni

Reply | Quote

MrJimPhelps wrote:

b wrote:

Do other OS platforms guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology used by those who, contrary to published advice, refuse to update to the latest version?

Microsoft has known all about the possibility (and the probability) of yet-to-be-invented technology interacting with Windows. Yet, even though they were fully aware of this, they gave an end-of-update date of 2020 for Windows 7, and 2023 for Windows 8.1. In other words, they promised to support Windows 7 until 2020 (and 8.1 until 2023), even though they and everyone else knew that yet-to-be-invented technology would be connected to that version of Windows.

I consider “support” to be releasing updates that have been tested a reasonable amount of time and with a reasonable variety of hardware/software. If an update hasn’t been tested, or has barely been tested, and it has then been released, then no reasonable IT professional would consider that to be “support”.

Issuing reasonably-tested security updates for this scenario isn’t the same in any way as the situation where there are “those who, contrary to published advice, refuses to update to the latest version.” Moving away from Windows 7 to a different version of Windows was never part of the deal. Moving to a different version of Windows is called an “upgrade”, not an “update”, and it is completely different than receiving “support” for your current version of Windows.

Didn’t answer my question!

Reply | Quote

Well, let’s see over 50% of the Windows market is still using Windows 7 which is mostly made up of educational institution’s, medical institution’s, and financial institution’s. Home user’s are a very small percentage of that 50% (perhaps 4-7%) that Microsoft claims and other statistical reporting tools. I highly doubt the statistical data only reflects home user’s.

Many of those businesses will never upgrade to Windows 8.1 or 10, due to security issues and data collection. You think medical institution’s or financial institution’s will adopt Windows 10? Windows 10 Enterprise still has data collection. Many of these facilities write their own contracts with Microsoft so the EOL is nothing but basic hogwash.

Windows XP was support for a very long time until most all medical institution’s and financial institution’s migrated to Windows 7.

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

Many of those businesses will never upgrade to Windows 8.1 or 10, due to security issues and data collection. You think medical institution’s or financial institution’s will adopt Windows 10?

Yes; see case studies:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/industry-health

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/industry-finance

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Didn’t answer my question!

I think the various distros of Linux come closest to guaranteeing that whatever new comes along will work with their OS, because with Linux, there are active user communities working hard to get all of the new stuff working with their distro of Linux. So, although it isn’t a guarantee, I think it’s the best you’re going to get these days.

Since you are comparing “other OS platforms” to Windows, I commented on Microsoft and Windows.

In the case of Windows, Microsoft has ALWAYS tried to make Windows as compatible as possible with as many devices and software as possible. This is a huge reason why Windows became the dominant OS for desktops and laptops.

That’s why people are so upset about Microsoft’s new approach with Windows 10 (as well as with Windows 7 and 8.1), in which they are now forcing their customers to do things the Microsoft way, rather than Microsoft making an honest effort to accomodate them.

Perhaps your question was rhetorical?

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

MrJimPhelps wrote:

Perhaps your question was rhetorical?

No. Because it seems to me that people expect some kind of (unwritten) guarantee from Microsoft Windows that is not expected on any other OS.

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Do other OS platforms guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology used by those who, contrary to published advice, refuse to update to the latest version?

Permit me to put the shoe on the other foot.

Why doesn’t Microsoft continue to supply Win7 updates for machines that maintain Win7 compatibility? In other words, why isn’t the onus on the manufacturer to keep their machines compatible?

Gigabyte says all of its motherboards support Skylake/Kaby Lake processors running Win7. Sure, they won’t support USB C or other new technologies, but the motherboards and processors are basically sound.

Why is Microsoft running a trap lockout, apparently untested, apparently without a way out, on machines that continue to be supported by the manufacturer?

And why is it implementing that one-way decision without adequate documentation, without a program that’ll determine if the machine will be locked out?

8 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, samak, HiFlyer, Pim, radosuaf, Karlston

Reply | Quote

That’s a no then?

Reply | Quote

I’m not aware of any OS vendor who promises that their OS will run on… washing machines, hovercraft or Sonic Blaster 10.0.

On the other hand, I’m not aware of any OS vendor who says they’ll actively block upgrading their OSs on machines designed and guaranteed, by the manufacturer, to run the OS. Think Gigabyte.

It’s a show of desperation. A stick when a carrot would be much more effective. And look where the stick’s gotten us!

The “Get Windows 10” mentality is still alive in Redmond. I wish it would go away.

13 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, walker, Elly, Karlston, samak, HiFlyer, MrJimPhelps, Cybertooth, Pim, radosuaf, PKCano, MikeFromMarkham

Reply | Quote

Once again, there is a difference between “not support” and “actively sabotage.”  “Support” means “we’ll help you.”  Not supported means “you’re on your own.”  Neither of those even comes close to “we’ll break your stuff.” I don’t expect MS to support people trying to install 7 on Kaby Lake or Ryzen, but I do expect them not to send out malware as part of a security update!  And it is malware, without question.  Anything that intentionally breaks a Windows installation against the will of its owner is malware.

I expect a trusted provider of an operating system that is the heart and soul of my PCs to give it to me straight.  I don’t expect them to lie and say that only Windows 10 has the extra-special technology needed for new-generation CPUs, only to find out later that this was a complete lie, with Windows 7 working just peachy on Kaby and Ryzen systems.   Why should we accept this rather egregious lie from them?  It’s evident that we can’t believe a word they say; they will lie to us without hesitation to sell us something we don’t need.  To me, that is getting dangerously close to fraud.

What do I expect from Microsoft?  I expect Microsoft to avoid using the Windows Update system to break an important function of Windows installations they find inconvenient to try to get people to adopt another of their products.  Why should we accept that Microsoft would ever be in the business of sabotaging people’s working, licensed installations of Windows?  This is simply never acceptable, under any circumstance, ever.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

11 users thanked author for this post.

Steve, walker, Elly, samak, radosuaf, HiFlyer, Cesar, Cybertooth, woody, Karlston, James Bond 007

Reply | Quote

I agree. At this point what’s the difference between a Windows Update and malware? You’d think only malware would go out of its way to prevent Windows Update from working, but Microsoft is doing that job for the malware now. Now you have to ask yourself. Who does this benefit? What does Microsoft have to gain from blocking updates for Windows 7 and 8.1 on Ryzen and Kaby Lake chips? It’ll make their customers angry. It’ll make them less likely to upgrade to Windows 10 in the long run. It doesn’t benefit AMD or Intel because it’s not their OS so they’re not the ones making updates to. It doesn’t benefit their corporate customers who have to PAY for Windows. (assuming their using the Enterprise edition), it doesn’t benefit me or anyone who reads this because it jeopardises the security of our machines if we’re using 7 or 8.1 on a Kaby Lake or Ryzen chip because we can’t patch now. It only creates a big mess for Microsoft because updates will get blocked on machines that shouldn’t get blocked.

Let me tell you, Linux is catching up. In another few years it could seriously pose a threat to Windows. If Microsoft doesn’t stop their BS antics now, there might not be a Windows in the future. Might not happen next year or even in another 10 years, but I can guarantee if they don’t stop this now then they’ll regret it.

5 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, HiFlyer, Cesar, FakeNinja

Reply | Quote

Ascaris wrote:

I expect a trusted provider of an operating system that is the heart and soul of my PCs to give it to me straight. I don’t expect them to lie and say that only Windows 10 has the extra-special technology needed for new-generation CPUs, only to find out later that this was a complete lie, with Windows 7 working just peachy on Kaby and Ryzen systems. Why should we accept this rather egregious lie from them? It’s evident that we can’t believe a word they say; they will lie to us without hesitation to sell us something we don’t need. To me, that is getting dangerously close to fraud.

Could you quote a part of something where you think Microsoft lied?

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Do other OS platforms guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology used by those who, contrary to published advice, refuse to update to the latest version?

1. I am not aware of ANY Linux distro actively blocking updates on any hardware.

2. As far as I recall, it was possible to support all the “yet-to-be-invented technology” in Windows XP for 13 (thirteen!) years while now it is impossible, even though differences between Skylake and Kaby lake are in fact non-existent from OS’s point of view.

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Linux distros allow to install on any current hardware (more problems with UEFI than the CPU/GPU). Depending on the kernel version some hardware features may not be supported. Depending on the distro, updating the kernel, can be done. For some it’s can tricky but with others quite easy. The analog here is the W7 kernel does not support newer hardware features that the W10 kernel does.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Do other OS platforms guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology used by those who, contrary to published advice, refuse to update to the latest version?

Neither can Windows, because you cannot guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology.  That’s like building a car engine and ensuring that a car can handle any engine you throw in it, whether gas, steam, hydrogen, battery, supercapacitor, or coal.

When comparing how different Vista was from XP, or 7 from Vista, or 8/8.1 from 7, or 10 from 8/8.1, we are not far off from Windows10 in 2017 being a separate OS from Windows10 in 2015.  Just slapping the same label doesn’t make it the same.  Is the 1954 Chevrolet Corvette the same as the 2017?  No, but they’re both Corvettes!

Fortran, C++, R, Python, Java, Matlab, HTML, CSS, etc.... coding is fun!
A weatherman that can code

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

AlexN wrote:

Neither can Windows, because you cannot guarantee support for yet-to-be-invented technology. That’s like building a car engine and ensuring that a car can handle any engine you throw in it, whether gas, steam, hydrogen, battery, supercapacitor, or coal.

All the processors use the same x64/x86 set of instructions – so it’s like you had different engines with same mounting points, similar dimensions and output power – no problem in supporting all of them.

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

So Windows10 is going to handle 128-bit, 256-bit, 512-bit, etc. processors?

I don’t see my statement addressed at all here.

Fortran, C++, R, Python, Java, Matlab, HTML, CSS, etc.... coding is fun!
A weatherman that can code

Reply | Quote

Meanwhile, MS have charged governments and organizations millions$$$$ to provide Win XP custom support after its EOL in 2014 …….
https://www.howtogeek.com/186754/microsoft-is-still-making-security-updates-for-windows-xp-but-you-cant-have-them/

So, it is likely just an excuse for M$ to say that they “can no longer” provide support to Win 7/8.1 users who are using the latest 7th-gen silicon/processors.
IOW, MS are saying to the people, “Wanna use the latest and greatest processors?, you can’t use Win 7/8.1, you gotta use Win 10. Don’t like it?, you can use Linux or MacOS… .”.

Reply | Quote

It’s not “can no longer”; they never did.

Reply | Quote

Yes, I agree that no producer of an OS can guarantee that it will work with as yet undeveloped hardware, you are quite correct.

However, windows 7 DOES work with Kaby Lake processors, that is a fact, I have been running mine for some months now without any issues, until now.

I was horrified to see the “unsupported hardware” message and immediately uninstalled all the latest updates.

That message no longer appears and when checking for updates, I do not get an error message.

In reality, only time will tell if I managed to escape the trap……

3 users thanked author for this post.

walker, HiFlyer, Karlston

Reply | Quote

Spot on… this sudden decision to drop support for processors could constitute violation of a written promise per that OS policy.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Karlston

Reply | Quote

No support has been dropped. But where’s the written promise?

Reply | Quote

The promise of extended support till 2020 for Windows 7 Skylake computers was a written promise of support. The subsequent announcement that some Windows 7 Skylake computers would not be supported till 2020 was the dropping of that promised support.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

4 users thanked author for this post.

walker, HiFlyer, Elly, Karlston

Reply | Quote

MrJimPhelps wrote:

The promise of extended support till 2020 for Windows 7 Skylake computers was a written promise of support. The subsequent announcement that some Windows 7 Skylake computers would not be supported till 2020 was the dropping of that promised support.

Where exactly was the promise that ALL Skylake computers would be supported on Windows 7 until 2020?

Reply | Quote

They didn’t promise that ALL Skylake W7 computers would be supported until 2020; but they DID promise that those purchased before the new policy was announced would be supported until 2020.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

3 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, Karlston

Reply | Quote

Maybe we’ll have those “lucky” ones uninstall the rollups and check if WU works again after that? Then we’ll know if we can use the method in the future…

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

1 user thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Given that the rollups are cumulative, it seems that as long as they are removable, your way should work, Radosuaf.

It boggles the mind that MS can be this bad at this.  They’ve released bad updates in the years past, but I don’t recall it ever happening with such regularity.  I’d say they shot themselves in thge foot again, but they’ve already done that so many times, they couldn’t still have any feet left to shoot.

Microsoft critics couldn’t ask for better examples of why we must have control over updates, why they should not be rolled up, why the rapid release cycle is a bad idea for Windows, and why they should not have eliminated most of their professional QA people.

It again seems that MS is deliberately trying to sabotage itself.  It’s hard to imagine MS can be this incompetent.  Even though corporate customers are spared the worst of Microsoft’s update errors if they choose to be, since they can select the CBB update channel, the repeated failures and media reports of one disaster after another can’t be filling enterprise customers with confidence about Microsoft.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

6 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, samak, Karlston, FakeNinja, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Another with the ongoing fiasco is anyone with any integrity will think long and hard about recommending W10 to anyone. Too many self-inflicted problems to deal with.

5 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, Karlston, Cesar, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

“Let’s force people to update to Windows 10 by deliberating breaking their computers in a way that makes it impossible to update to Windows 10!” – Redmond mentality

Fortran, C++, R, Python, Java, Matlab, HTML, CSS, etc.... coding is fun!
A weatherman that can code

10 users thanked author for this post.

walker, Elly, samak, Cesar, Karlston, HiFlyer, FakeNinja, Noel Carboni, James Bond 007

Reply | Quote

AlexN wrote:

“Let’s force people to update to Windows 10 by deliberating breaking their computers in a way that makes it impossible to update to Windows 10!” – Redmond mentality

I really laugh at this. Thank you for the good laugh.

It is both funny and irritating to see what Microsoft does in this instance. But I should not be surprised that they choose to COMPLETELY block updates for Kaby Lake / Ryzen users who choose to run Windows 7 or 8.1.

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

CPU kernel update is the same for Windows 7,8,8.1,10 … these nutjobs at Microsoft just decided to not send the updated kernel to former versions. It’s the same d**n file! How often does the CPU kernel get updated? Very very rarely. Microsoft has always been in bed with Intel.

Edited for content

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Cybertooth, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

The kernels for Windows 8.1 and 10 aren’t exactly the same as 7.

Reply | Quote

oops, pardon me.

CPU driver, not kernel.

Reply | Quote

This wouldn’t be a problem if they didn’t go out of their way to block updates. If I were Microsoft then I would be embarrassed. If they don’t want to support newer hardware then fine. But don’t prevent us from installing updates. I’m willing to deal with any problems that might arise from using Windows 7 and 8.1 on unsupported hardware. This is utterly ridiculous. Also AMD is supporting Windows 7 on Ryzen. So just let us install updates.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer, FakeNinja

Reply | Quote

See previous post:  #post-107839

The update is regarding both the CPU Kernel and HAL.

If a user attempts to install Kaby Lake/Rizen processor and attempt to run Windows update on former Windows versions they will be locked out. Microsoft isn’t “blocking” so-called updates… they’re intentionally not distributing the updated CPU kernel and HAL to former Windows versions for newer CPU technology and are technically extorting customers to upgrade to Windows 10, which is a load of c**p.

Edited for content

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

If I read the tea leaves correctly, they’re also blocking any future use of Windows Update on the snagged machines – and the lock can’t be uninstalled.

1 user thanked author for this post.

walker

Reply | Quote

If that is the case, @raadosuaf’s method will not work.

Reply | Quote

I will test this within next few days and post results.

Reply | Quote

You would have to have had a good backup before the update got installed, and then restore that backup, to once again be able to update.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

The current HAL.dll is 424kb and updating the new technology isn’t going to make the Kernel or HAL any much larger. It’s really dumb that they just don’t push out the HAL and Kernel to 7,8.1… really. Not pushing it out to former version serves no purpose other than Microsoft wanting to capitalize off users personal data collection… that in itself ought to be illegal and a Class A Felony against Microsoft. Corporations have too much power these day’s and they should not. If you think about it, it’s not different than walking up to your neighbors mailbox and opening their letters and scanning all of their private information. It’s a Class A Felony opening someone else’s mail regardless if it’s a family (some legal exclusions in there) member.

Anyhow, if Microsoft goes through with this then I’m sure there will be a 3rd party HAL.dll for users to slipstream into an install, the kernel may be tricker, but neither will be digitally signed. Oh the windows xp slipstreaming hal, kernel, driver, and software days.

Reply | Quote

Just to clarify a typo. I’m writing about CPU driver, not kernel, and Hal.dll. Sorry about that folks.

Reply | Quote

I expect that the lock can be uninstalled.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Karlston, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

What backfire? i didn’t catch the meaning

Reply | Quote

Installing Win updates on Win 7 or 8.1 computers with Kaby Lake or Ryzen CPUs

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

oops, pardon me. CPU driver, not kernel.

Most CPU driver releases from Intel are nothing more than .inf files that allow the components to be properly named in the Device Manager.  I’ve yet to see one that has actual binary code… it’s always been built into Windows.  Maybe this is an exception…

…and if it is, there might be a way to work around it, once the “NO updates for you!” bit is overcome.

It might be possible to edit the .inf file that comes with the driver to add support for the chipset.  Off the bat, I think I’d delete the 6.x sections (NT6.x is Vista through 8.1) and rename the 10.0 section to whatever version of Windows you’re using.

I’ve edited numerous .infs before to do things like this, and it works fine… the only downside (with 64-bit editions for sure… I haven’t used x86 since XP, so I am not sure if mandatory driver signing has come to those) would be that you’d have to boot into Windows with driver signing enforcement disabled, install the driver during that session, select “allow” for the big, scary, red dialog, then reboot.  Once the driver is in, the driver being unsigned doesn’t matter anymore.

I don’t know if Windows 10 would mess with that driver, given the reports that it does things like that, but my guess is that it would find that the driver you put in was a better fit than anything it found in the Windows Update library, since supposedly, the proper drivers that are a better match don’t exist in the first place.  If it did remove yours, you’d have to repeat the process of disabling driver signature enforcement before reinstalling it.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Karlston

Reply | Quote

Drivers can be quite complicated and the last CPU driver for windows was in 2009.

Microsoft will just push out a patch if wuauserv see’s that one of these systems are running Ryzen/Kaby Lake and if you are then there’s an “update” and then no more updates. So, the owner of a Ryzen/Kaby Lake on a 7,8,8.1 will be locked out. There may be a work around for those technically inclined.

I know both Ryzen/Kaby Lake work ok on 7,8,8.1, but there are suppose to be an updated CPU driver, Hal.dll, and Hal.inf for Windows 10 to support newer technologies. That update to those files are the same across all Operating Systems since Windows 7.

In any case AMD Ryzen has certainly broke a few walls.

Reply | Quote

So for now any processors less than 7 are okay?

Reply | Quote

No, only a limited list of high-end OEM computers using 6th-gen Intel Skylake chips that have been approved by MS will not be blocked for Win 7/8.1.

So, only 5th-gen chips or earlier are completely safe from the tentacles of MS-Windows Update.

Reply | Quote

I have a 3rd gen chip so I’m good I guess…

Reply | Quote

Can someone just release a a workaround for this already?? Seriously it can’t be that hard… just trick WU into thinking I’m running another CPU.

Reply | Quote

https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/installing-win-updates-on-win-7-or-8-1-computers-with-kaby-lake-or-ryzen-cpus/

1 user thanked author for this post.

Karlston

Reply | Quote

I was thinking more like a third party program that tricks Microsoft into thinking you have another CPU, I really hope an easy and permanent solution to this comes out.

Reply | Quote

My Intel skylake based  box, which i built myself, has an OEM version of Win7 installed on it What happens to people like me  who have 6th gen intel boxes running retail or OEM versions of win 7  & 8.1 Does MS not realise that many build our own and don’t buy pre built desktop pc’s ?

Reply | Quote

If you install that software on your own PC, you don’t have a “genuine” copy of Windows.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/is-it-ok-to-use-oem-windows-on-your-own-pc-dont-ask-microsoft/
http://winsupersite.com/windows-7/no-oem-you-windows-7-oem-packaging-not-individuals

Reply | Quote

This is all really about pushing users into Windows 10 if your buying new hardware. Has nothing to do with compatibility or loss of function with these new chips. Its simple, we want to force you out of these older Windows versions and into Windows 10.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Karlston, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

If you look at it from a professional point of view, Microsoft is acting in a completely unprofessional way.

On one side, they always told people to not run unpatched Windows version and that it was irresponsible to use XP after EOL because of the security issues. They even issued a security patch shortly after XP’s EOL because the problem it fixed was too bad and could have caused important issues for the Internet. They also pretend that Windows 10 should be run because it is more secure than 7, so they seem to take this security issue seriously, right? Many people claim these security issues are overblown, but it is always possible to get that rare occurence of a protocol defect that could results in a massive-scale infection just from being connected to the Internet. Remember Nimbda and Code Red? Just because something doesn’t happen often doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

Regardless and even if you don’t believe that 10 is more secure (I don’t), running a patched system is important and best practice in a professional setting. There is not much justification for leaving your security up to the randomness of your context and employees when it is so easy to just patch the computers. More than running an antivirus, patching is probably the most important action to do to stay secure, maybe after being careful and not clicking on everything and browsing shady web sites. Sure, patching the browser is more important if you use an alternative browser, but that doesn’t mean the rest is not important. You never know which library by Microsoft is used by your favorite application. In the past, there was a buffer overflow in one image processing library from Windows used by many software, so any bad code thrown at your software could be used to infect you if Windows wasn’t patched.

So Microsoft tells you patching is important and to get out of unsupported OSes. Fine. On the other hand, if they detect a certain processor based on an arbitrary marketing strategy, they actively prevent this computer from receiving security updates and purposefully make it insecure when it would be secure, even if the computer works fine with this processor. This is completely irresponsible. They are creating an army of potential zombie computers for no justifiable technical reason. Do you think those people will jump to 10 or they will just run unpatched? And if the potential numbers are so low like b pretends, why do it anyway? Why not do like that new IoT virus and simply brick the computer or prevent Internet access instead? Then they could not get infected and spread the infection to others. What they are doing is arguably worse than just preventing online access to the device. Of course, I don’t think Microsoft should do that, but I think the rhetoric works.

I think the reason they are doing what they do is they are scared that businesses will put 7 on new computers or 8.1 and that will delay their plan even more. Any responsible business won’t do it if Microsoft drops support for those processors, but if they didn’t, maybe a good amount of them would do it after trying Windows 10, especially the ones that don’t have the tools of the big enterprises.

Ask that 10-employees company boss if he is happy his computers come with games, ads and other distractions, plus the inability to block the Windows Store on his chain store bought computers. After having to call more times than before the external firm he uses to “manage” his computers to fix issues after feature updates, the external firm says I could install you 7 or 8.1 if you prefer and it would be more like before. Or, think about that a bit more standardized environment where they have 7 licenses and they replace computers that breaks, putting 7 to manage every computer with the same version. Why go to the trouble of 10 when 7 is so much easier to install and forget for those not that big companies?

You know what problem Microsoft would face? Imagine in 2020 there is still so many people on 7 that they have to back off like they did with XP and extend support a bit more to avoid creating a huge mess of unpatched computers on the Internet. They certainly don’t want to have that problem on their hand. Now imagine that unlike with the XP situation, there is no quite good alternative like 7 was to XP, to make most businesses finally accept to change OS. Ouch!

4 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Ascaris, Karlston, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Didn’t Windows 7 computers come with games?

Reply | Quote

Yes and it was easy to uninstall them before giving the computer to the user, locked up in standard user account. With 10 Pro and no big enterprise tools, you do that and 4 months later, you get all the bloat again, plus you can’t easily prevent people from using a Microsoft Account to download whatever bloat they want on the computer, because an admin is not an admin anymore, unless you get into the realm of Enterprise or you really took the time to dig how to block accounts on Pro.

I am not talking about the big Enterprises, b. Those will be fine. They have the training, the resources, and the Windows Enterprise version to be in a much better position. I am talking about all the semi-sophisticated context, all those places that hires a consultant to help them a bit with their computer, all those small lawyers and medical firms, SMBs…

And even if you make a point about games, my main point is not about games. It is about security and the irresponsible behavior of Microsoft in this particular instance, which is a big departure from the maybe predatory but at least professional Microsoft of the past.

Yes it would be nice if everyone was managing their computers in a professional way, but it is not the case, as the XP situation showed us clearly in the past. Many didn’t plan the transition properly and maybe some of them are still paying the big bucks for out of EOL support and it is not always their fault either. My point is to blame Microsoft for making the Internet and those computers less secure with no reasonable justification.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Karlston, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Sorry PKCano, I didn’t know that c*** was a bad word in English. I often miss mistakes when I type too so that is why I often edit quickly after posting to fix a few that are easier to spot after posting than before.

Reply | Quote

AlexEiffel wrote:

With 10 Pro and no big enterprise tools, you do that and 4 months late, you get all the bloat again, plus you can’t easily prevent people from using a Microsoft Account to download whatever bloat they want on the computer, because an admin is not an admin anymore, unless you get into the realm of Enterprise or you really took the time to dig how to block accounts on Pro.

Doesn’t take much digging, and seems quick and easy:

Block Microsoft accounts

Reply | Quote

Ok b,
but you need to know what to search for first. Maybe you start by activating the gpo to block the store, then you get a feature update and it doesn’t work anymore unless on Enterprise version . If you are lucky you might find that blocking Microsoft Accounts will do the trick. But none of that will have been in your face from the beginning.

Thanks for holding us to standards of rigor, but you again made a diversion out of the main subject which is that Microsoft is acting in an irresponsible manner by disabling security updates on functional computers when there is no valid technical reason to do it. I don’t care that they announced it, it doesn’t make it right.

You are can disagree at that point. It becomes an opinion, but I think that would be incoherent with what Microsoft stood for in its glorious past on this particular topic. They were far from perfect, but some things they got very right.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Elly

Reply | Quote

Even when MS began the “Windows Genuine Advantage” thing in the XP era, only optional updates were blocked for non-genuine Windows.  Security updates were deemed to be too important to hold hostage, so everyone got them.

The updates were not issued freely out of concern for the alleged pirates themselves (I say alleged because a good many legitimate installs were flagged, a problem that continues to this day), but for the legitimate users.  Botnets running DDOS attacks on a server you need to use can ruin your day even if your machine is fully up-to-date, so it’s in the interest of Microsoft’s legitimate users to help ensure the security patches are never withheld intentionally.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

3 users thanked author for this post.

HiFlyer, Elly, AlexEiffel

Reply | Quote

@ Ascaris

The MS of Win XP days is very different from the M$ of today.

Reply | Quote

They were very bad in different ways. I remember being so mad they integrated IE with the file Explorer, the way the crushed competition using not so clean methods, their bloating updates trick to make you buy new computers, their annoying habit of trying to introduce proprietary things everywhere like vbscript and activeX. I am glad the Internet finally got stronger than them or else we would still have website that says “this web site needs Internet Explorer to function properly”. Oh, we still do?

Microsoft wisen up in this regard, but maybe they had no choice, too. Mobile initially made them remove lots of bloat in the deep OS to be able to try to compete, Apple made them embrace open standards for the Web by killing Flash and the never really relevant pathetic attempt at proprietary Silverlight.

But I still liked Microsoft a lot better then, because I could focus on my work more than on Windows.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ascaris, Elly

Reply | Quote

The design of skylake and kabylake has not changed.
Nevertheless blocking these is a malicious harassment, and arrogance of Microsoft.
Such a company can not be allowed to be forgiven.
Originally it was not limited by CPU!
It is crazy!

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Karlston, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Whatever the merits of Microsoft’s processor support decision, I do think it is inappropriate for MS to use a cumulative security update to disable WU on a user’s computer system. For those of us who have a problem with this type of behavior, I suppose it is because we are not yet properly attuned to MS’s W10 philosophy that you relinquish control of your system by virtue of accepting the Windows EULA. In other words, MS is not disabling your system; they are disabling their system of which they are the self-anointed administrator. That said, I do not think that Intel and AMD are necessarily well-served by MS in this matter as it implies that their late generation processor sales are inextricably linked to MS’s business plan surrounding W10. I personally will not abide using W10 in its existing form and I am comforted in my position by the fact that the vast majority of individuals using W10 that I have interacted with would prefer an alternative. Most of these folks were either tricked into upgrading via the GWX tactics to W10 or acquired it as the OEM installed OS on a new system.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, Karlston, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Microsoft considers itself to be a king.
It is not the responsibility of the user that the share of windows 10 is sluggish.
This is because win10 is trying to extract user information and use it maliciously.
I want an appropriate operating system and I do not want it for malware.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

How does Windows 10 use user information maliciously?

Reply | Quote

Windows 10 is a new business model of Microsoft.
Users do not want their information to be provided to third parties and they do not want to display advertisements.
I believe this is a malicious use of user information.
Since English is a translation, there may be a problem but please forgive me.

Reply | Quote

How does Microsoft provide user information to third parties?

Malicious means intended to do harm. Displaying adverts is not malicious.

Reply | Quote

Wasting one’s bandwidth and CPU cycles IS malicious.

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

2 users thanked author for this post.

Elly, HiFlyer

Reply | Quote

Microsoft’s plan to force newer Kaby Lake/Rizen processor owners to Win10

This was why MS implemented mandatory monthly Patch Rollups for Win 7/8.1 in Oct 2016.
Group A and B are proven useless in thwarting M$’s diabolical plans, like the one above. Those who foresaw this and refused to accept any of the Patch Rollups were mocked by some as Group W.

P S – In a year or two, new OEM computers using Intel Skylake and Kabylake CPU will be quite common.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft is making a mistake.
There are certain arguments that hardware can not support hardware unless the OS can cover it due to hardware restrictions.
However, the architecture of Skylake, Kabylake has not changed at all, only the difference of 14 nm or 14 nm +.
In the first place these are designed as hardware compatible with x86 and x64,
Within that range users have the right to use them.
It does not mean to support the new functions of CPU.
They explicitly implemented a new function to identify the CPU and forcibly stop the update with the ID of the CPU. (They even refuse to update virus definitions)
Instead of functional problems they implemented this feature with harassment effort.
I did this to discipline the user who bought the operating system.
I will not go to windows 10, even if the vulnerability is neglected.
The user is not a Microsoft slave. We are a human being who can choose what we want to use.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

But what we can do ? and what we will do ? after support gonna be dropped after some years windows 7 and 8.1 will no longer be supported that means no updates no security updates then what ? i will not gonna move to that windows 10 crazy wonderland… and now this c**p with the cpu’s.. things are really bad.. what do you guys think about the future ?

Edited for content

Reply | Quote

Well, I don’t think the world will end if your preferred Windows version stops getting MS updates.

Using a good security suite that’s kept updated, and practising good online sense should keep you safe from the nasties.

Back on-topic, I don’t think this move by MS will grow W10 by very much. You can bundle current and future users into three camps…

(1) Those on pre-Kaby-Lake/Ryzen CPU’s now – just business as usual with whatever Windows version they currently use.

(2) Those building their own new Kaby Lake or later PC’s – with enough smarts to build, they’ll be aware of the problem and use available workarounds to install and update whatever Windows version they want.

(3) Those buying new Kaby Lake (or later)  devices with Windows 10 pre installed. Those who decide W10 is not for them, probably can find someone cluey enough to upgrade them to W7/8/8.1.  Microsoft’s biggest Windows 10 gains will come from this group, but my gut feel is around 50% will keep W10, the rest will ditch it.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Reply | Quote

I have a question that I’d like answered.

Microsoft is a software development company – right ?

They have undertaken to support windows 7 until 2020 – right ?

It seems very simple to me.

So, how can M$ actively sabotage their own system because somebody chooses a particular hardware configuration for himself, I continuously upgrade and build my own machines and my software is genuine, purchased at full price and not OEM.

If the system didn’t work with the hardware configuration, all well and good, chance I took and I have to suck eggs as they say. Like putting a 50 cc bike engine into an automobile – won’t work, stupid.

Windows 7 does work with Kaby Lake, it’s kinda like fitting an aftermarket turbo to your car, you would lose your warranty but the car will work – likely better (but not much in this case) than it did.

I can just imagine Toyota engineers putting sugar into your fuel tank becuase you installed said turbo. This is, in essence, what M$ have now done – ridiculous to say the least !!!

If M$ offered a warranty, maybe they have a case, but they do not offer any warranty at all, so what gives them the right to sabotage my system ?

Microsoft obviously think that they are gods,  so maybe the time has come for a class action suit ? This may take them down a notch or two.

Their unilateral actions are, in my opinion;
1) in direct conflict with my freedom of choice as a user of “genuine microsoft” products
2) in direct conflict with the interests of the hardware manufacturers
3) in direct violation of their stated support of win7 until 2020, since said support was given in good faith. It is only through their actions of sabotage (and not any actual incompatibility) that Kaby lake processors are no longer “compatible with win7.”

How dare they do such a thing, and my question is, how do we, as consumers, allow it ?

I am very interested to see how people will react to my post.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft do provide a one-year warranty in the license terms of every Windows version.

They aren’t sabotaging anything, just declining to provide updates for unsupported configurations. Don’t all OS suppliers take similar steps?

Reply | Quote

b wrote:

Don’t all OS suppliers take similar steps?

No.

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

Reply | Quote

These processors worked perfectly fine under Windows 7. When they deliberately break Windows Update for no reason other than to force users off Windows 7 to Windows 10, it is sabotaging Windows 7. They are breaking people’s computers intentionally which is what malware does.

You talk as though these processors already had problems on Windows 7 and Microsoft is just deciding not to fix those problems. If that were the case, it might be a bit different. The fact that Microsoft is deliberately creating a problem where there was previously no problem is a blatant attempt to manipulate people into using Windows 10 and IS sabotaging Windows 7 by breaking Windows Update functionality.

There is a difference between deciding not to support something and deliberately breaking their own software (sabotaging) so that a problem is created where none existed previously because Microsoft wants people on Win10. BIG difference.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Blocking updates does not break a computer. Windows remains functional.

I’m surprised people around here aren’t more grateful, since they spend inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to avoid updates when they are offered.

Reply | Quote

Blocking updates breaks part of the Windows 7 software as some sort of punishment for not upgrading to Windows 10. Sure, Windows 7 still works, but they are trying to stop people from updating despite the 2020 support date. These processors work fine under W7 without the update that breaks functionality. It’s intentional and it’s messed up. The fact that it doesn’t affect me one way or the other (Group W) doesn’t change that what they are doing is manipulative and wrong.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Once again, they’re pushing non-security updates in the security-only update.
Furthermore, the updates being cumulative means you can ignore April’s updates, but you’ll get it in May if you install those. At this point, a lot more people are going to be joining Group W, probably myself included.
Now I have customers I have to reach out to, and friends I’ve built PC’s for, to tell them to quit updating their machines because I don’t trust MS worth anything. Even though the newest stuff I’ve built with is Skylake, I don’t trust them to not start flagging those as well.
This is just ridiculous, and I’m done. It’s easier to quit updating completely than it is to hop through this minefield that Microshaft has placed us in.

Reply | Quote

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is group W ?

Reply | Quote

Group W refuses to take any more updates from Windows Update/Microsoft

1 user thanked author for this post.

Rusty1963

Reply | Quote

I think that I have been forced into that position by M$’ outrageous antics.

As I posted earlier (anonymous) I uninstalled the offending update and am no longer bothered by the warning message and searching for updates does not return me an error.

As I also said, time will tell if I’ve had a close shave or been snagged !

Graphic design, Animator, Moviemaker, Editor and Photographer. Amateur computer techie.

Reply | Quote

I was looking at the documentation for KB4015550, the April cumulative security and quality rollup for W8.1 x64. and the AMD Carizzo DDR4 processor being disabled for future windows updates is shown as a known issue. I found it somewhat interesting that MS makes no mention of what happens with the Kaby Lake/Rizen processors if the update is installed. I suppose disabling WU for those processors is not considered an issue for MS and so why give an unsuspecting user any heads up as to what to expect upon installation. I guess when you are a “trapper” you take care to conceal the trap?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

I ran across this site last week “https://www.patreon.com/simplix” which creates stand alone cumulative Update Packs for Windows 7, installing all of the non-telemetry updates through March of this year. It’s from a Russian site so be wary, although I installed it on my son’s computer and haven’t had any viruses or problems to date. This might help Kaby Lake and Ryzen users in addition to those of you in group W as he says he will continue to add newer updates as necessary.

Reply | Quote

That Patreon page you show is their fundraising page. Their website (English Translation link) can be found at:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fupdate7.simplix.info

As you say @ryegrass, caution is advised! I personally would avoid it like the plague…

1 user thanked author for this post.

walker

Reply | Quote

@Kirsty  You’re right, perhaps someone with more technical knowledge can check these update packs more thoroughly. I scanned the one I installed with Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, and Security Essentials but there could easily be some backdoor that I am not seeing.

Reply | Quote

I would guess that it’s based on one of the packages compiled and available through two trustworthy German sites but I’d be wary of it as well.

Here’s one of the DE sites (I still haven’t found time to rediscover the other): http://winfuture.de/downloadvorschalt,2671.html

Reply | Quote

Woody, I found this a little earlier. Have posted in another thread but I thought I should mention it again.

In it the OP claimed he/she is using a computer with a Core i7 950 CPU, which is an “old” CPU from 8 years ago, but was hit by the “Unsupported hardware” message after installing some updates. Another one in the same thread claimed he/she is using a computer with an Athlon II dual core, which is also an “old” CPU, and was also hit by that message.

We know that the CPU detection code is buggy and Microsoft admitted it wrongly blocks AMD Carrizo CPUs. But if this is true, this shows that the CPU detection code in KB4015549 (which is presumably what that thread’s OP installed) at least, was clearly fingering the wrong CPUs. If confirmed, I would say that is utterly unacceptable. But should we be surprised at all now that Microsoft is producing bad and buggy patches?

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

Reply | Quote

It’s not only happening with KB4015549 but also with the KB4015546 security-only update as well.

Reply | Quote

I wonder if future security-only updates will include that WUA
because if not, it’s enough for Group B to skip April’s update

Reply | Quote

Seems a patch/crack may have been discovered…

https://www.ghacks.net/2017/04/18/bypass-for-windows-update-lock-for-modern-processors-found/

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

1 user thanked author for this post.

walker

Reply | Quote

I just read about 2 more old CPU’s on which Windows Update refuses to work after the April Windows 7 rollup, besides the Intel Celeron Dual-Core CPU T3000 that was already mentioned on the forum: an Intel Pentium Dual Core E5400 and an AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. Both processors date back to 2009. The links refer to the forum of a Dutch tech website.

It makes you wonder how many more casualties are out there. Nice work Microsoft…

2 users thanked author for this post.

Sessh, woody

Reply | Quote

ARRRRRRGH!

Reply | Quote

Really unfortunate. The GWX campaign continues. It’s stuff like this that makes it obvious why the ABC groups are still valid and necessary. If everyone on W7 went to A, many people would be left with computers no longer capable of updating at all. I understand that this must be a pain to keep going on with, but don’t take it out on the users that depend on this site and the experts on it for guidance to avoid this very thing among other things; it’s Microsoft’s fault. Doing away with the groups is the same as just telling people “We give up! Just submit to them.” To many, this is unacceptable. Keep up the fight!

1 user thanked author for this post.

woody

Reply | Quote

Well if you look at the Desktop Top Operating System Share Trend you might be forgiven if you concluded that–statistically speaking–the situation has flat-lined for the past year with Windows 7 at 50% and Windows 10 at 25%.

HP Compaq 6000 Pro SFF PC / Windows 10 Pro / 22H2
Intel®Core™2 “Wolfdale” E8400 3.0 GHz / 8.00 GB
HP ProDesk 400 G5 SFF PC / Windows 11 Pro / 23H2
Intel®Core™ “Coffee Lake” i3-8100 3.6 GHz / 16.00 GB

1 user thanked author for this post.

woody

Reply | Quote

Isn’t it interesting as Microsoft makes decisions to answer the question “Do we live or do we die?” they time and time again come up with “We die?” It’s been decision after decision through the past four years at least, which tell the customer “You are NOT our customer. You are our victim.”

Linux is already ready for prime time for well over 90% of Windows users. If the switch were made overnight, the reaction would be “something’s different and I can’t figure out what it is.” People would just resume using their computers in the same way they always have, but without Microsoft treating them like a doormat.

The key is for commercial companies, like Steam, to see the writing on the wall “Microsoft has fallen and can’t get up” and begin to support the better operating system.

Microsoft seems to think people are afraid to leave the “security” that Windows represents, but, as usual they are blind. Everyone is already using a different operating system, Android or iOS, and they love it. Microsoft has lost the intimidation factor they seem to be relying on to save their behinds.

Goodbye Microsoft. We won’t miss you.

Reply | Quote

anonymous wrote:

Everyone is already using a different operating system, Android or iOS, and they love it.

I’m not.

Reply | Quote