Slashdot Mirror
New Intel and AMD Chips Will Only Support Windows 10 (pcworld.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Buried in the announcement of the new Kaby Lake (seventh-generation) processors and a rash of incoming notebooks set to use them is the confirmation that they will have a Windows 10 future. Microsoft has been warning people for ages that Kaby Lake will not run on anything older than Windows 10, and it looks like AMD's upcoming Zen chip will be going the same way. Microsoft said, "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." "We are committed to working with Microsoft and our ecosystem partners to help ensure a smooth transition given these changes to Microsoft's Windows support policy," an Intel spokesperson said. "No, Intel will not be updating Win 7/8 drivers for 7th Gen Intel Core [Kaby Lake] per Microsoft's support policy change." An AMD representative was equally neutral. "AMD's processor roadmap is fully aligned with Microsoft's software strategy," AMD chief technical officer Mark Papermaster said, via a company spokeswoman. Slashdot reader MojoKid via HotHardware has some more details on Intel's Kaby Lake 7th Gen Core Series Processors for those yearning to learn more.
Hello Linux
I wonder if they are tracking this. I think they need to be reminded of this - all three of them.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
"Windows 10 will be the only Microsoft OS to support new Intel and AMD chips"
Little to see here, moving on.
It will be illegal to run any other version than Windows 10.
It doesn't matter. I would imagine 95% of all Windows licenses are sold with hardware, anyway. We are going to keep buying refurb machines with Windows 7 licenses, because that's the OS we need. The hardware really hasn't mattered for workstations for a decade or so, anyway.
I don't respond to AC's.
Soon all our machines will be totally infected with spyware sponsored by our own tax dollars.
Wow, Microsoft must be paying a fuckton of money to AMD. Windows 7 is still 47% (down only about 5% from Q1 2016 and probably not moving any farther now that free upgrades are over). If my competitor stood up and said "we are walking away from half of the market" my response would be "We are committed to supporting the half of the market our competitor just abandoned."
Is AMD independently wealthy enough to also ignore half of the market, or is Microsoft making them wealthy enough to do so? Stockholders ought to be asking that question right now, especially given the weak position that AMD is in.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I expect UEFI lock down will soon prevent Linux from being installed.
Linux is already supported by UEFI. The major Linux distros have paid the one-time US$99 fee to be able to get their code on the UEFI supported list.
Intel chips still support Windows XP. Funny how all of a sudden Windows 7 will be such a pain to support for future architecture.
When dealing with Some aspects of the m$ ecosystem, wine is completely inadequate; start with a good single malt Scotch and work from there...
Summary says, "Kaby Lake will not run on anything older than Windows 10".
In the past, operating systems ran on CPUs, not the other way around. So this is truly revolutionary!
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
This thing needs to be pulled apart and examined from a slightly higher level.
First of all, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that these chips do not support Windows 7 or 8 outright. Intel and AMD, despite their apparent lobotomy, will only shoot themselves in the foot if they start making x86 architecture backwards-incompatible. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that this is the one thing they bring to market that ensures their dominance. Additionally the processor itself is unlikely to be able to specifically lock on to Windows 7 or 8 and refuse to run because of that.
Furthermore, Windows 7 or 8 out of the box CANNOT recognize these new chipsets and CANNOT refuse to install because of them. If someone sucks down all the updates Microsoft throws at them, there may well be a Win 7 update that deliberately bricks it somewhere down the line. But if you keep updates off Windows 7 will not commit suicide on behalf of Microsoft, at least not in this manner.
What is more likely is that things like the chipset drivers are not going to be backported. Does this mean inherent incompatibility? The answer for that is unclear. It is likely, IMO, that it will run, but with degraded performance, e.g. a lot of the onboard goodies may not work. I doubt that it is so obsessed with specific drivers that everything will be disabled. For instance, I imagine USB 2.0 will work but 3.1 might not. It is also possible that there may be attempts by users to backport the drivers, which may or may not be successful. In terms of the need for a next-generation kernel, if the chipsets are so incompatible that they REQUIRE new drivers to operate, and there is no way around that, even by using legacy protocols and drivers, then yes, only a next-generation kernel will run on it. However, that strikes me as unlikely (although it's possible, at least in theory).
Now, is any of this absolutely for certain? No, not really; the only way to test that out is to actually attempt to install it.
In terms of virtualization, unless Intel has put in some kind of anti-virtualization sabotage to shoot down Windows 7 (which again would be difficult for the processor to detect), it is unlikely that it will work.
In terms of Secure Boot, that IS a problem, but it is an entirely separate problem that, in theory, applies to all recent UEFI machines. It may very well cause serious problems for Linux installations. I've heard some references to a signed version of GRUB, but I think that there is a serious danger of Microsoft cooking up ridiculous reasons for refusing to sign binaries for anything they dislike. Additionally I recall hearing on at least one occasion about needing everything in the boot loader's chain to be signed (e.g. drivers). I do not know how they would manage that once the kernel is running, but if that is the case then that is a significant problem, and any machine which Secure Boot cannot be disabled on is as such essentially Microsoft-owned hardware.
Ultimately what this boils down to is part sabotage and part FUD with Intel and AMD being willing co-conspirators with Microsoft, and essentially participating in collusion. I'm not sure why Intel and AMD are so loyal to Microsoft, though; Microsoft has demonstrated it has no loyalty to x86, and has done so repeatedly over the years (see: Windows Phone, Windows NT for Alpha, etc.).
> Wine is often sufficient.
No, it stands for Wine Is Nearly Enough