AMD/ATI Drops Windows XP Support

Billly Gates writes "The latest beta drivers for the Catalyst drivers control suite only list Vista as the lowest version they will support. We still have almost a year before Windows XP support finally ends. Will NVidia follow? So if you own a AMD system you will not receive audio, chipset, video, or any other drivers for your XP system and must upgrade or use an outdated legacy version. Looks like another death knell for this very long lasting platform."

Comments

Meh.

[pushing-robot]

If you're buying the latest and greatest gaming cards, you're probably going to want DirectX 10 or 11, good multicore support, and an OS that can handle more than 3-ish GB of RAM.

Re:Meh.

[Ardyvee]

That is mostly a non-issue nowadays if you consider Virtual Machines are a thing (and as far as I know you don't install AMD/NVidia drivers on the VM), and that gog.com is a thing. I do get your point, though.

Re:Meh.

[causality]

If you're buying the latest and greatest gaming cards, you're probably going to want DirectX 10 or 11, good multicore support, and an OS that can handle more than 3-ish GB of RAM.

This is a complete slow-news-day non-story. It's just a more specific way of saying "nothing lasts forever".

The headline should have been "Nothing Lasts Forever and XP Won't Be the First Exception" or maybe "For-Profit Corporation Doesn't Want to Support Dying Platform". Not exactly surprising, informative, or newsworthy.

Re:Meh.

[causality]

After slashdoters wrote posts like WIndows 7 == Vista SP 2 they had an effect. Many assume WIndows 7 must suck too because that lie was repeated so many times everywhere by XP loyalists. Many are hesitant to change thinking it is just as slow and bloated and that somehow XP will run faster 100% of the time (not understanding algorithm changes and extra optimizations from the compiler added to the kernel for newer cpus).

I seriously doubt that Joe Sixpack goes running to Slashdot for advice on which OS to purchase. Joe Sixpack just uses whatever comes with his new computer. If the latest shiniest Windows sales are down it's because desktop computer sales in general are down. Making Windows go faster is no longer the prime reason to buy a new machine like it was when we referred to it as Wintel.

I did briefly try Win 7 because it came with a then-new laptop I purchased. I was impressed, actually. For Windows, it was great. For Windows, anyway. Sadly, copyright issues alone would prevent MS from ever offering a comprehensive centralized package manager comparable to what Linux distros offer. Having to track down hardware drivers (at all, ever) is a nuisance. Being treated like a dumb user at every turn is definitely a nuisance. The fact that good relatively common-sense security practices are not enough to prevent malware is a showstopper for me. Not being able to poke around under the hood and configure damned near everything, well that sucks. So little choice in desktop environments sucks too. Needing additional software to do what are nowadays basic things (like GOOD remote access, a compiler, etc) that are standard features on *nix is a nuisance. PowerShell is too little, too late compared to what Bash and its predecessors have done for decades (!) now. A binary registry is simply a bad design decision. And while you may find some sense of community among other Windows users, you will not share that with the people who actually put it together.

Slashdot users are more likely to care about some, or all of these things, or something along the lines, than the mass market that drives Windows sales. Here, you may have a point. But every last Slashdotter could boycott Windows forever and it would be a rounding error in terms of MS sales figures. That doesn't explain why Win 7 hasn't skyrocketed the way XP did. It's either ignorant or dishonest for you to pretend that it does.

Re:Meh.

[Martin Blank]

Microsoft does a fairly good job at maintaining a generally usable driver set available through Windows Update. It's usually not the latest version (and often is a generic driver from a few years ago), but it works. They have an additional problem if it comes from their servers, they get blamed if something goes wrong. Hence the testing and stability requirements before it goes into the repository, because if they break a million systems with a bad driver update, it hits the news even if it is a comparatively rare impact.

I tend to agree with your other points, though if Linux actually reached a critical level of use, its security practices would start getting tested, too. Attackers love to see Linux systems because they're trusted to be secure, a trust which is often violated. You seem to know what you're doing, but the corporate Linux uses that I've seen have relied on poor understanding of how they should be maintained, often based on arrogant declarations from the sysadmins who do things like boast of not having rebooted the web server in two years.

Re:Meh.

[ildon]

Maybe 3 years ago this was true, but at this point I literally know zero gamers that still run Windows XP. And I know a lot of WoW players who haven't upgraded their PCs in years. Just look at the Steam hardware survey. Windows XP is sitting at ~8% when you combine 32 and 64 bit versions.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in the world of technology, things advance whether you like it or not.

I see this bullshit all the time, and it sickens (and saddens) me. You have completely and entirely have forgotten the purpose of computers (re: technology): to solve problems or accomplish purposes that would otherwise be extremely time consuming or too difficult to do otherwise. If what you have works, there is no reason to change it. Most software today changes solely for the sake of change.

Some things don't "advance" because they just work.

I would love to see you argue your point with the individuals/companies mentioned in said article. I can assure you completely they would say the same thing I have.

not entirely..

[gl4ss]

..just because the system is an amd system doesn't get any new/bugfixed drivers, the summary makes it sound like you can't get new network controller drivers for your intel nic if you are running it an amd system..("or any other drivers").

I'm more surprised that they were still producing new drivers for xp, actually, than them dropping the support. it's not like they, or nvidia, are known to bringing on package mentioned features to older cards by driver updates even.

as always, you're only certain to get what you get when you buy the thing.. trusting them to bring newer features to older cards newer worked out.

Re:not entirely..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, my old laptop will no longer be able to play the latest games! Oh wait, it never could handle anything past Sim City 3000 anyway...

Non-story

[Phroggy]

So if you own a AMD system you will not receive audio, chipset, video, or any other drivers for your XP system and must upgrade or use an outdated legacy version.

Ummm, yeah. Microsoft is going to stop releasing security patches for the OS. If you're still running XP, using older video drivers should be the least of your concerns.

Ugh. Another Timothy Lord post

[RR]

Total non-issue. If you're still using Windows XP, then you're also stuck on DirectX 9 and all the other outdated technologies. New code means new risks, which you're avoiding by sticking to Windows XP, anyway. Also, the submission is wrong; this affects only the Catalyst drivers, which handle video and HDMI audio.

Then I noticed that this is a timothy story. Sometimes I think he posts the most inane story submissions just to get the Slashdot readers all riled up and posting comments, thus generating hits and ad revenues.

Re:Ugh. Another Timothy Lord post

[Billly Gates]

Catalyst includes AMD chipset drivers as well. I use it on my AMD based system.

Buying AMD

[tuppe666]

Is getting more attractive by the day...

Ironically I am thinking about buying an ATI card for Linux due to its more open nature(Not intel open), so long term support is built into it. Perhaps AMD is only partly responsible.

Re:Buying AMD

[hairyfeet]

You wanna blame somebody don't blame AMD, blame Intel. Intel owns the patents on HDCP and because AMD doesn't have access to the fabs that Intel does they can't afford to put HDCP support on a separate part of the chip so its baked into the heart of the GPU.

And for those complaining about the Windows drivers? i honestly don't know what you are complaining about as i have used probably over a hundred at the shop and since AMD bought the company the drivers have been nothing but solid. Now are the cards buggy when you buy the bleeding edge? yep but that is true of nvidia as well, there is a REASON why they call it the bleeding edge after all and i have found BOTH companies take about 6 months from the time of a new chip rev before they are good and stable. Good rule of thumb? stay at least one version behind, that way the drivers have all the beta bugs out and are ready for prime time.

But AMD has handed all the specs they can without tapdancing into a patent minefield, so if all you care about is Linux and video decoding? You should probably buy Nvidia although if recent headlines are too be believed we may see Nvidia go the way of 3DFX, man I always said they should have bought Via when they had the chance.

And finally as for XP? Good Lord guys, just let the damned thing DIE already, okay? Running as admin is stupid, trying to get XP to behave without always admin is a PITA and a lot of programs just won't run,its patches have patches, it suffers winrot, it just wasn't that damned great guys, it really wasn't. Now XP X64? THAT was a great OS, as was 2K in its day but we have Windows 7 now which is the new XP, so let us just let XP quietly die. Hell I have Win 7 running on Pentium D systems and lets face it anything older than that is gonna be more trouble than its worth, just let it go.

Re:Buying AMD

[Gadget_Guy]

Your XP installation is overcomplicated. You only need Service Pack 3, because on XP they were cumulative. Your steps for downloading another browser is the same for any Windows version. As for drivers, you need to research your hardware purchasesefore you buy to ensure driver support (just like Linux).

The reason AMD would drop support for XP is not because it is hard for the user to install, but because they changed the driver model with Vista. If they don't need to support two driver models then it would greatly simplify the development process. They probably have an idea on how many XP users actually update their drivers. Sure the OS still has a large percentage of users, but how many of those feel the need to constantly update their graphics drivers. With more and more games coming out with system requirements that exclude XP, the need to keep such an old system up-to-date is reduced.

Re:Buying AMD

[0111 1110]

I agree that XP x64 is a decent OS. That is what I am running now. Along with Arch Linux and Windows 7 Standard Embedded. I don't like regular Windows 7 because it is so bloated. 12- 50 GB for an operating system? Seriously? My dog could write a more efficient OS. I don't see why an environment for running other programs has to be so big. My Arch Linux install is around 3 GB and that's with lots of stuff installed. My XP x64 install is bloated enough at around 6.6 GB, having grown from around 4 GB at install time. Doubling the bloat as a best case scenario without any significant benefit is not what I consider progress.

Is Win7 more secure? Yup. Is it a relief to be able to run as non-admin? Yup. I dislike the default GUI but that's mostly fixable. I don't feel that the OSX dock is anything worth emulating, but again that can be turned off. There is no search without indexing but I just use Agent Ransack instead and other third party apps to replace the missing functionality from XP. Still, running an embedded OS as a desktop OS is not without its problems. So I require XP as well at least until Microsoft gets its head out of its ass and starts showing some respect for my hard drive space and memory as well as for actually improving the OS and not just trying to make more money. But I don't think that has any chance of happening with Ballmer in charge. They have made progress in faster boot times as well as better security (from XP to Vista/7 only), but the bloat and sloppy programming overall is inexcusable.

Genuine improvements to an OS are basically what you see with Linux: small, incremental changes and bugfixes. There's no need for the kind of vast overhauls that MS feels they have to do to sell more copies. They accomplish nothing, at least nothing good, and they introduce lots of bugs. The embedded version of 7 is not too bad. I do end up with the most compatibility problems with the embedded system though. More even than XP x64. I probably just need to refine which components to add on my next install. Nevertheless some apps just won't install or run and then I'm left with either Linux or XP.

Where is the problem here?

[Bearhouse]

If you have an XP system, you either:
1. Have an old hack that you are never going to update, since it just works, or
2. Are a corp user with (hopefully) a decent tech team which will ensure you don't buy & support hardware where this will be an issue...

Or (obscure security-related issues aside) am I missing something?

If it works, why worry.

[chromaexcursion]

XP systems are older systems. You haven't been able to buy XP for years.
How many people have XP systems and are buying new graphics cards?
If it still works, who cares.

If you've hit something where the graphics drivers are obsolete, there's probably a lot more wrong.

keeping up with advances and supporting older systems is EXPENSIVE. AMD made a cost decision, it's not worth it.

Re:If it works, why worry.

[EvanED]

They have already been doing it for nearly 2 decades, there are no infrastructure or upkeep costs at this point that would be substantially diminished by removing XP support.

Says someone who hasn't even written software, apparently. Even if nothing else, dropping a configuration removes a bunch of testing costs.

However, it's even more. When Vista was released, Microsoft made a bunch of changes to the driver model -- basically the API that drivers are programmed against -- usually to move stuff from kernel mode to user mode. (This increases system stability.) Vista through 8 (I think) all use this driver model. Supporting XP as well means writing and maintaining XP-specific code for its driver model.

I don't know anywhere near enough about this to say that it costs 2% more or 20% more or 50% more. But to say that "it costs these companies zero dollars" means that you clearly have zero knowledge about what you're talking about.

except when there's a security bug

[dutchwhizzman]

It won't really be a problem if you're not running into security problems. However, if someone finds a way to use the video driver to get SYSTEM or Administrator access to your computer, you'd really want the vendor of said video driver to come with an update. Since MicroSoft is still supporting the OS in terms of security updates, you'd expect the video driver vendor to do the same.

Mind you, just because there's no XP support in the latest beta driver doesn't mean AMD won't fix security flaws if those would arise. It's pure speculation to suggest that something like that might or might not happen. I have a gut feeling that the people at AMD would be smart enough to at least just fix the bug and do a minor version bump if something like that would happen in the period that MicroSoft still supports XP.

Re:except when there's a security bug

[Rockoon]

This is XP that we are talking about, where people nearly universally run it as administrator.

Using a display driver exploit on XP is like using C4 explosive to open a screen door.

Re:except when there's a security bug

[Anonymous Coward]

No, modern versions of Windows have only unprivileged users by default. "Administrators" is the equivalent of the sudoers or wheel group on *nix.

20% of users still use XP

[tuppe666]

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201205-201305 you will be one in five users who have not updated from XP

People aren't updating because computers are expensive, Intel and Microsoft take all the profits and walk away with a gross profit margin of over 70%...and new versions of the Microsoft Windows software, are poor tablet interfaces.

Re: Buying AMD? choose cheap old card

[xiando]

Make sure you buy an older card. The free software driver driver for 7000+ cards is a broken joke. Works well for older cards, though. Evil proprietary drivers does sort-of work alright with newer cards but doesn't support older cards. Also know that you can't use 1 old and 1 new card since free driver only works with old cards and proprietary only new.

Re:Except that is not hapening yet

[rabbit994]

It's not going to be pushed back. It's already been pushed back once as it should have ended in 2011 (10 years after release date) and it's less then 12 months till April 2014 so yes, less then year.

XP is finished and Microsoft is determined to take it out back and shoot it. At this point, I can't really blame them. Which happened first, 9/11 or XP GA date? XP GA. Mainstream Linux Kernel was 2.2 branch. If you tried to get support for an application on Linux 2.2 these days, everyone would laugh you out of support channel and Red Hat would require a crap ton of money. Yet people expect drivers manf, software developers and Microsoft to support it Windows XP.

Old AMD Catalyst drivers pretty easy to find

[iYk6]

Find old versions right here: http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/previous/Pages/radeonaiw_xp.aspx

I went to AMD's driver site, which I found with the google search, "amd catalyst download". I clicked on "Windows XP (32 bit)". Then I clicked on "Previous Drivers and Software."

Keyword: Beta Driver

[rsmith-mac]

The submitter is reading too much into this. The drivers linked are beta drivers - this is not the first time AMD hasn't published an XP version of a beta driver, due to the relatively low number of XP users on 5000/6000/7000 series video cards (all of which are post-Win7). XP is supported by the current WHQL certified driver (13.4) and I expect the next certified driver will support XP, too. If and when AMD does drop XP support they'll announce it a couple of versions ahead of time, just as they did for Win9x and Win2K.

Probably wanted to drop pre-WDDM

[cbhacking]

Also, there's an important point here which isn't being addressed in the summary.
Vista and later (all NT 6.x versions) use a new "WDDM" driver model for video drivers. Although there are various characteristics of WDDM, the really defining one is that only a tiny shim that basically wraps the direct hardware access lives in kernel mode. Everything else - the actual program logic of the video driver - lives in user mode. This is fantastic for a number of reasons:
1) All the crash-prone code is now user-mode. When a XP video driver crashes, it causes a bluescreen. When a Win7 video driver crashes, it causes a blank screen for about a second while the user-mode driver restarts.
2) Updating and rolling back video drivers no longer requires a reboot; in fact, it only takes a couple seconds. It's actually practical, if you really want to, to switch video drivers between games (for example, if the latest and "greatest" doesn't work with one of your older games, but you want to use it for everything else).
3) Developing and debugging user-mode code is a lot easier than doing the same for kernel-mode code. This change lets developers spend a greater portion of their time improving the driver logic, rather than making the driver work with the various configurations of the NT kernel.

My guess is that AMD decided the benefits of item #3 were worth more than continuing to release drivers for 12-year-old OS. By no longer maintaining the pre-WDDM version, they can focus their resources on supporting modern platforms that are also easier to develop for.

Re:Probably wanted to drop pre-WDDM

[cbhacking]

Um... no. That's ridiculous, in fact. As a MSDN subscriber, I can still download, from Microsoft, MS-DOS 6.0. That doesn't mean I have to call it a "0 year old" operating system!

If you want to get picky over the "12 years" claim, you could argue that I should count from the last time a major upgrade was released, which would be 5 years (and SP3, unlike SP1 and SP2, was hardly major).

Re:Probably wanted to drop pre-WDDM

[bingoUV]

That is the age of Windows XP design. But since Microsoft doesn't sell Windows XP design, but just copies and licenses to use it - design age is immaterial from a support perspective. My car is 2 year old, this model was released 5 years ago. That doesn't mean my car is 5 year old, mine is just 2 year old. From support perspective, 2 years is what matters, though if the design has some inconvenient feature that wasn't fixable 5 years old technology, one might not find fault with the car manufacturer that much. But if battery starts giving issues, they can't say it is a 5 year old car and hence no support for you.

Similarly, from the last date a license of Windows XP could have been purchased (I hear for corporates that date is still not past, but I am not sure), or another license purchased and downgraded to XP - is the age of Windows XP that matters from a support perspective. Such support duration, of the last customer, is not really long in case of Windows XP at all.

Re:Irrelevant news for nerds

[epyT-R]

..and at least one of us is a myopic projectionist who is unable to see past his own shit.

Re:I like XP

[hairyfeet]

Dude pick up an ATI HD4850, you can pick those up for like $35 if you look around. I am running one and I can tell you all my games run GREAT in Win 7, I can fire up Just Cause II and do the whole "cool guys don't look at explosions" bit, Batman AA and AC run great, the Borderland series run fine, its no problem.

If you want something faster and have a little bit more green an HD7750 runs close to the 6850s while using half the power and again runs great in windows 7. XP is nearly 14 years old man, hell it can't even take a full 3GB of RAM if you have a decent amount of VRAM on your GPU, if my GF's Pentium D can run Win 7 (slapped in an HD2400XT,cost a grand total of $9) then so can your PC.

A final bit of advice, go to Starmicro and pick up a dual core if that board will support it, hell I've had pretty decent luck getting AM2 boards to take the MOR Athlon 64 X2s even if the board's chiplist don't show one and their chips are cheap enough you can afford to take the chance. I've been buying from those guys for years, great bunch and they'll have a chip for just about any socket. You'd be surprised how little money it takes to turn your system into a pretty kicking Windows 7 machine, and the increased security and extra features are WELL worth the upgrade. When I use XP now I feel like I've gone back to Win95, how I lived without jumplists and breadcrumbs is beyond me. Well worth a few bucks friend.

Re:Except that is not hapening yet

[Zontar The Mindless]

Why would anyone buy a newer version of Windows if they can have XP forever. Microsoft could never compete against a free version of XP. Very few people would upgrade beyond it.

Exactly. This is why my Linux systems are all still running kernel 2.2.

Re:AMD botnet

[kthreadd]

Dude as someone that has to work on PCs six days a week let me make ONE thing clear, there is NOTHING extra you gotta do to pwn XP, that OS is oooolllllldddddd, okay? It has had 3 service packs, God knows how many patches, hell when it came out a decent PC was a 700Mhz P3 with 128MB of RAM!

Look I get wanting to save old gear okay? But XP wasn't great to start with and its practically ancient now, let it RIP okay?

There's nothing wrong with an old OS as long as it is supported. It's actually often a good thing since nothing is perfect and needs time to be proven.

Re:Over 8% of Gamers use XP on Steam

[kthreadd]

XP64 worked just fine as long as you ran it on supported hardware and used only supported software. It was never mainstream, but it sure wasn't a joke.

Re:AMD botnet

[hairyfeet]

Thank you and I do NOT sound like a damned 13 year old, watch any of those god damned reality shows featuring teens to see how they talk like fricking aliens.

And the P3 was EASILY the most popular CPU when XP was released by a long shot, at the time i stayed pretty damned close to the cutting edge and i had a P3 running at a blistering 1100MHz. The office boxes i was working on at the time were new enough they had WinME stickers on them (needless to say I got a LOT of work wiping ME for XP) and the average was between 650MHz to 900MHz depending on the OEM line and RAM was 128Mb pretty much across the board.

I know people were shocked as hell to see mine had a full 512Mb because that was practically unheard of at the time but I got lucky and knew a guy that could get me RAM at cost and it was still a pretty penny for 2 256Mb chips my friend.

Re:I like XP

[hairyfeet]

Hell you should have come to me bro, old Hairy would have set you straight.

You see the trick with AMD/ATI is knowing what the card is made for and sticking with that. Take my GF for example, she watches movies, does a little video chat, plays FB games, so any of the low end chips, the 24xx,34xx,43xx, those all work great, solid as a rock.

Now for your mor games that aren't gonna be filling the sky with splosions? The x5xx and x6xx cards really do well there, again you just can't crank the AA and AF and expect it to run smooth, its more for your WoW type players. finally if you want to play anything with plenty of bling? then x7xx and x8xx are the cards for you, hell I'm still gaming on an HD4850 and it just rocks, I had the bling cranked to 11 in Just Cause II and I NEVER dropped below 37FPS in the demo runs, not once. in the actual game it runs even better, I have filled the screen with so many fireballs and pieces of debris i couldn't even see where the road i was driving on was.

But while I can't comment on all of your games I have NOLF 1 and 2 and the youngest has Psyconauts and on these HD4850s? great, smooth as butter, and like I said look around, you can find those cards in the $35 range so its not like you have a real investment here. Good rule of thumb? stay a version or two behind, you'll save money while getting the most stable drivers. Like I said you can get the HD7750 for less than $80 at amazon, it beats the HD6850 cards in a lot of benches while pulling so little power that it can just run off the PCI-E bus, no external power required. I bet if you were to try one you'd see that all those games would just smoke, I've been selling them to customers for a couple of months now and nothing but happy results.

But if you got the HD4250 there is your problem, that was one of those "turbo-cache" cards that both ATI and Nvidia experimented with where they would put a shitty little amount of RAM on the card and supplement it with system RAM. There is a GOOD reason why neither makes those anymore, they found trying to keep two different RAMs running at different speeds synched equaled a crashy mess, which is what it sounds like you went through. if you are gonna be doing more than FB games I wouldn't recommend anything lower than an HD4650, but as i said with the HD4850 at $35 and the HD7750 at $75 there really is no point in getting any smaller than that.

Re:AMD botnet

[hairyfeet]

That would be true of Win 7, hell even Vista, but XP had a serious flaw you just can't easily fix, and that is the entire OS and ecosystem expecting you to be running as Admin 24/7/365 which is just BAD design friend.

With XP there are just too many programs, hell too many drivers, that expect admin and will choke and pitch a fit if not outright crash if you try to run as a limited user and even if you manage to get it working the number of permission pop ups will drive you nuts, it'll make Vista look quiet in comparison.

Look I get wanting to keep some of the old stuff, i really do, but XP is just waaaaay past its prime. its had patches on top of patches, 3 service packs, you can run a clean install for a week and then run something like CCleaner or Comodo system cleaner and find the registry already starting to pile up the orphan links and crap,its just not that good to begin with and now that hardware has passed it by (hell the $100 specials at a lot of places have more RAM than XP can handle without hacks) it really is time to let it go.

I mean for the love of Pete we are talking 14 fricking years by the time MSFT pulls the plug, in OS terms it might as well have come on 8-track.