Slashdot Mirror


User-Made Patch Lets Owners of Next-Gen CPUs Install Updates On Windows 7 & 8.1 (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: GitHub user Zeffy has created a patch that removes a limitation that Microsoft imposed on users of 7th generation processors, a limit that prevents users from receiving Windows updates if they still use Windows 7 and 8.1. This limitation was delivered through Windows Update KB4012218 (March 2017 Patch Tuesday) and has made many owners of Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Bristol Ridge CPUs very angry last week, as they weren't able to install any Windows updates. Microsoft's move was controversial, but the company did its due diligence, and warned customers of its intention since January 2016, giving users enough time to update to Windows 10, move to a new OS, or downgrade their CPU, if they needed to remain on Windows 7 or 8.1 for various reasons. When the April 2017 Patch Tuesday came around last week, GitHub user Zeffy finally had the chance to test four batch scripts he created in March, after the release of KB4012218. His scripts worked as intended by patching Windows DLL files, skipping the CPU version check, and delivering updates to Windows 7 and 8.1 computers running 7th generation CPUs.

218 comments

  1. hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    let me install a random patch from some dude named "zeffy"

    1. Re: hmmm, yes by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least it's not from Microsoft.

    2. Re:hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays one needs to select his malware vendor to be either Microsoft or some random dude. Both have equal track record of screwing things up.

    3. Re: hmmm, yes by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are you afraid of? That he'll install something which listens to every word you say? That it'll record every mouse click? That it will uninstall your applications? That it'll change your defaults in preference to it's own?

      Uh...I kinda forgot if I was talking about zeffy or MS.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re: hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL! Zeffy atleast has a better track record.

    5. Re:hmmm, yes by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me install a proprietary OS coded by some random Indian guys, packaged by Microsoft who have asked you to trust them when they say they will slurp and sell as much as your personal information that they can (you did click I AGREE after all), while whoring out your computer to serve ads.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re: hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be too hard to fix. It isn't the 1st thing not to work just because someone decided it should no longer work :/ I hate that kinda thing with a passion.
      Win XP removed the ability to run a tape drive off the floppy controller like the computer I was upgrading. After tossing a bunch of semi-random drivers (that seem to have something,anything, to do with floppies) I got it to work. No reason for it not to work except MS deciding it shouldn't and removing the driver from everything.

      And the same thing the other day from Verizon. Co-worker has a cellular hot spot for internet. The new gizmo doesn't work on her XP computer. Again, only because they won't give me a driver. The previous version did the same thing and worked fine but they actually removed the drivers from their site,even for the previous version, so no reusing that one either :/ Again, a similar driver worked fine.

      If only I wan't in an industry with the same mindset :/ Damned medical vendors are every bit as bad.

    7. Re:hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh.... Let the cognitive dissonance, and corporate blinding fester a little bit more! This is highly amusing!

    8. Re: hmmm, yes by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      "Windows 10 ain't done until Kaby Lake don't run".

      Wait, wasn't there something similar from Microsoft in the 1908s?

    9. Re: hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont feed em money then.

    10. Re: hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same reason PS3 controllers won't work with Windows. Microsoft purposefully made them not work.

    11. Re:hmmm, yes by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Zeffy needs to rename himself to John Huffington

    12. Re: hmmm, yes by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, Kaby Lake only runs Windows 10: it's Windows 7 or 8.1 that have problems on Kaby Lake. Or did until this patch. Microsoft is not trying to sabotage Kaby Lake: they just don't want to support the newest CPUs with an OS that they have stopped selling

    13. Re: hmmm, yes by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is a choice between the possibility of malware vs. the certainty of it.

      (The real right answer is "Linux," of course. And the other right answer is to avoid the newer Intel chips that are infected with the Intel Management Engine backdoor and the newer AMD chips that are infected with the Platform Security Processor backdoor to begin with.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re: hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would consider this an antitrust issue. I would also sue microsoft. But I don't have a new CPU so meh.

    15. Re:hmmm, yes by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I heard that some people were installing patches from some dude named "Microsoft" and that company got caught red-handed, writing and distributing malware. (They wrote Windows to work directly contrary to the interests of the user. For example, they went to extra trouble to make it not be installable on modern hardware.)

      Installing unaudited software written by people you don't know may sound crazy, but the vast majority of users routinely do something far worse: they install software written by people they do know, where they know that the author is the user's adversary.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    16. Re: hmmm, yes by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is a choice between the possibility of malware vs. the certainty of it.

      (The real right answer is "Linux," of course.

      The right answer is "install an OS that is not made by MS". There are far more of those than just Linux, and a Linux distro with systemd just... sucks if you have to do anything server like.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    17. Re: hmmm, yes by tailgunner_050 · · Score: 1

      Yes, just waiting for SteamOS to exit beta :P

    18. Re: hmmm, yes by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      As bad as major-corporation spyware is, spyware by a random hacker is much worse. If Microsoft does anything truly horrible, it has identifiable executives who can go to jail for it. A random hacker does not have the same disincentive.

    19. Re: hmmm, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should a company continue to program a hardware interface program for an operating system that's 16 years old? GTFO

  2. Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You hit an illegal instruction exception because some instruction selected by a
    compiler optimization or performance library doesn't exist on your CPU.

    1. Re:Neat--until... by RobKow · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is probably doing the opposite of what you're thinking--letting older software run on newer CPUs.

    2. Re:Neat--until... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Yeah, hardware compatibility is the problem. Not forcing people to upgrade - any which way they can. Funny how those newfangled CPU thingies can still run MS-DOS though.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re: Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cant run win 3.x though due to breaking changes in the 16 bit maths instructions (which look like a cpu bug intel chose not to fix). This includes in a VM as its hardware level backward incompatability. You can install a com file to autoexec.bat which hides the fpu but the days of backwards compatible hardware are ending. Looks like qemu or bochs will become necessary for that type of stuff.

    4. Re:Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, hardware compatibility is the problem.

      This has already been explained many times over, it really isn't that hard to understand:

      Windows 7 was designed nearly 10 years ago before any x86/x64 SOCs existed. For Windows 7 to run on any modern silicon, device drivers and firmware need to emulate Windows 7’s expectations for interrupt processing, bus support, and power states- which is challenging for WiFi, graphics, security, and more. As partners make customizations to legacy device drivers, services, and firmware settings, customers are likely to see regressions with Windows 7 ongoing servicing.
      https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/01/15/windows-10-embracing-silicon-innovation/#ZYl785vt4CGCYgvH.97

      What about that do you find so difficult to understand? Linux had similar problems with running on Skylake and newer processors on kernels earlier than around 4.2, and even 4.2 through 4.5 had many issues around power management and graphics functionality not working properly. You need to update your Linux kernel to be able to run these newer processors too. Or did the Linux kernel people intentionally put those problems in there to force people to upgrade their kernel too?

      Funny how those newfangled CPU thingies can still run MS-DOS though.

      Not really, MS-DOS is a *very* simple operating system that only requires the most basic of functionality.

    5. Re: Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of. Newer processors can also eliminate or replace instructions, requiring system software vendors to implement trap/exception handlers to simulate behavior. I don't know of any recent Intel cases, though.

      You also won't find BIOS vendors and Microsoft bundling microcode updates in older software. I see much hacking ahead.

    6. Re: Neat--until... by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      Though they weren't really relevant to PCs or Windows, the Coldfire chips are a good example of this kind of design change. Though they were marketed as having a m68k heritage, they basically took away most of the instructions and addressing modes that made the original 680x0 so incredibly convenient to program in assembly language.

      RISC processors were developed to be efficient and cheap. The m68k was developed to be convenient for assembly-language programmers. The 680x0 family indulged programmers in ways that would be almost *inconceivable* today (it even had a instructions for manipulating binary-coded decimal... they weren't terribly useful on computers like an Amiga, ST, or Mac, but apparently were a Very Big Deal(tm) back when programmers had to routinely deal with legacy BCD-encoded data from mainframes. Being able to directly manipulate BCD values meant not having to go through the trouble of converting them to and from 8/16/32-bit values first.

      Examples of things Coldfire took away:

      * the "decrement and branch conditionally" instructions. Sure, behind the scenes, they were basically two simpler instructions automatically glued together and executed back to back from a single opcode... but damn, they were nice to have.

      * most of the immediate addressing modes not involving a register as the source or destination. On a 680x0, you could stuff a specific byte value into an arbitrary memory location by doing something like, "MOVE.B #$69, $dff000" (storing hex 0x69 in address 0xdff000 in a single gulp). On a Coldfire, you have to load-then-store (load $69 into a data register, then store that register's value at the desired target address).

      * and of course, all the BCD-related instructions (ok, losing THEM didn't really bother me much, as you probably guessed... but I probably would have loved them if I'd been born about 10 years earlier).

    7. Re: Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking of the transition from 68030 to 68040 and 68060 on the Amiga when I wrote that. Libraries exist to handle traps generated by invalid instructions on the later processors.

      On a side note, mainframes and IBM platforms are far from dead. EBCDIC in various flavors is used daily around the world.

    8. Re: Neat--until... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Intel x86 and derivatives still have instructions for BCD manipulation. Never used them, myself, so I don't know how they compare to what m68k had.

    9. Re:Neat--until... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      I ran the 64-bit version of Windows 7, exclusively. My wife's laptop is still running it. You are as informative as the blank post-it note on my desk.

    10. Re:Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ran the 64bit version of Windows 7 too. Many millions of people did and probably still do. Not sure what your point is.

    11. Re: Neat--until... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Sort of. Newer processors can also eliminate or replace instructions,

      They Don't, Period. Intel goes through great lengths to make sure every later generation of X86 is fully backwards compatible with all the previous generations, all the way back to 80386.

    12. Re:Neat--until... by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Linux had similar problems with running on Skylake and newer processors on kernels earlier than around [....]

      Windows 7 and 8 have been running FINE (or reasonably well) on these Newer processors for over a Year; these operating systems are BARELY serviced anymore at all, Only occasional Defect updates come out for the latest bug in Internet Explorer, Flash, etc.

      Even though Windows 8 is still under its promised MAINSTREAM support period which includes New hardware enablement, they're getting cut off for new security patches too.

      The security updates Are not CPU-related. They work fine except for the arbitrary forced update disablement. MS is going out of their way to maliciously attack people who run Windows 7 and Windows 8 on newer hardware, that probably means they downgraded their OS and are running Windows 7 and 8 just fine, Because the old OSes will run on new CPUs just fine, and power management differences are not all that significant (And can be disabled, anyways).

    13. Re: Neat--until... by easyTree · · Score: 0

      Writing 'Period' doesn't make your stated position more believable or silence disagreement. Exclamation!

    14. Re: Neat--until... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It wasn't intended to make it believable or to silence disagreement. Writing "Period" means the same as "the end" as in there's nothing more to it than the sentence that preceded it. That is "Intel goes to great lengths,... Period" Not "when they feel like it", not "when they aren't doing something dodgy", not "when management tells them to" just period.

      Do you even English man?

    15. Re: Neat--until... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any recent Intel cases

      Implying you know of any cases? No really please name an x86 instruction (that was official and documented when the processor was released) that has been removed.

    16. Re: Neat--until... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There's no legitimate disagreeing viewpoint; It is a fact that Kaby Lake is backwards compatible all the way back to Nehalem with no dropped instructions, and no instructions modified in a way that introduces compatibility issues; they Kaby Lake processors are not "Designed for Windows 10" as MS would imply, And in fact, the differences between the 7th generation and 6th generation CPUs that are still supported are so miniscule as to be dismissed as mere footnotes, or
        minor tweaks, which have no affect on application compatibility....

    17. Re: Neat--until... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Maybe; maybe not - I'm not disagreeing - simply expressing that I am not inclined to check for myself.

      Use of the word 'Period' to indicate that the writer is interested in finalising the discussion after having made their point does little to persuade the reader, regardless of the truth of any assertion.

      It seems to me that a writer confident in their assertion would not seek additional pseudo-confirmation.

    18. Re: Neat--until... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Use of the word 'Period' to indicate that the writer is interested in finalising the discussion after having made their point

      Except that is not what it means. I don't know where you got that from. In fact it has nothing to do with persuasion at all. It is not an attempt at persuasion. It is not an attempt to end the discussion either. I can see how you might make that mistake if you based the meaning entirely on context, but you have been misunderstanding its meaning all these years. It's really just a form of emphasis I guess. Like a semantic form of italics. It is a way to convey meaning. Not to convince.You may not like it just as some people don't like the use of italics, but it's a perfectly valid form of communication.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    19. Re:Neat--until... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0

      Do you work for Microsoft? How much do they pay you to post this shit? This is not a different problem from every other OS release for the past 20-30 years.So let me see if I understand you correctly. What you are saying is that basically even though Windows 10 is a very very similar OS to Windows 7 and 8 under the hood except for some GUI changes (just for the sake of change) and lots of spyware and some retardo-features and a Windows Store it is not possible for people to write device drivers for almost exactly the same OS as Windows 10 because...SoCs didn't exist when Windows 7 was first made. Ok. Yeah I get it. Right...SoCs. Yeah because the GPU is now on the chip. Ok... I get it now. Thanks for explaining because that really makes all the difference. If the GPU were still discrete then we could continue to use Windows 7 then? It's only this SoC thing?

      What has really changed is that Microsoft has finally created such a piece of shit OS that even non-techies don't want to use it and so they feel the need to do everything they can to shove their new OS down people's throats. There has always been new hardware and new OS releases. There is nothing new about this 'problem'. What's new is Microsoft's strategy. Most software companies would be afraid to bend over their own customers and try to shove ever larger dildos up their asses, but not Microsoft.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    20. Re: Neat--until... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      In this case it's somewhat analogous to a thing they do in German, where words that have no literal meaning (e.g. "denn") are inserted for emphasis.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    21. Re:Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is perfectly possible for people to write drivers and make bugfixes for the older versions of Windows. Whether they *will* do that for newer hardware is the question here, the answer is no. This is the same with Linux and the same with Apple's OSX. They *could* backport fixes to older versions but instead the fixes come in newer versions and now Microsoft is taking the same approach to them.

    22. Re: Neat--until... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Meh, it seems a common 'misunderstanding':

      https://english.stackexchange....

      Period in the context that you are referring to is used as an idiom of sorts. It means there is no counter argument.

      For example, "Chuck Norris will kick anybody's butt, period."

      or

      "Abstinence from sex is the best STD prevention, period."

      There is usually a pause after the sentence and before the word "period".

      Another thing that Americans say instead of "period" is "end of story".

    23. Re: Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      x86/x64 CPUs never eliminate instructions. They improve them, but they always maintain backward compatibility. That is why x86 reigns supreme today, despite coming from an inferior base design.

    24. Re: Neat--until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're wrong, period.

  3. DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until they do something to break this?

    1. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > How long until they do something to break this?

      Don't worry, it's rando github scripts all the way down.

    2. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      At the moment it's probably just a "soft" lock but I can understand why microsoft has chosen this route.

      Microsoft actually foots a lot of the bill for system support. Most hardware vendors are pretty bad about driver support and Microsoft ends up being the de-facto supporter for a lot of end-user systems.

      They do this every time AMD and Intel release a new platform. There's actually a lot of under-the-hood changes and Microsoft likely isn't fond of expanding support for operating systems they plan to end-of-life in the near future. Take, for example, USB support. Every time a new USB version comes out it's ultimately Microsoft who writes the stack - Because the 3rd party USB stacks are shit and make Microsoft look bad. They complained loudly when both 2.0 and 3.0 were launched because it's many millions dollars that ultimately falls on their shoulders.

      Windows 7 is EOL in 2020 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet.

      Microsoft is kinda done with coddling users on old platforms weather you like it or or not. They've decided it's in their best interest to push users to windows 10 and I agree with them. They're in it to make money after all.

      This just just the start. Microsoft will be firmly in the "Want new hardware? Get new windows" camp from now on. If you don't like it you can install Linux.

    3. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly right. If you don't like the way your OS vendor treats you, then stop bitching and whining about it and find a vendor that gives you the service you want.

    4. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Microsoft's OSs were such festering heaps of dung, the hardware vendors wouldn't find it so hard to write good drivers for them. Microsoft brings it upon themselves.

    5. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Microsoft actually foots a lot of the bill for system support."
      No shit, it's their system. It's literally their responsibility. They sold it as being the most compatible.
      The problem isn't that updates don't work with these setups, the problem is they execute just fine up until the extra check for an unrelated piece of hardware. If Windows is already running on the machine then the updates are compatible. It's an arbitrary lock out. That CPU check code is bloat and just meant to inconvenience Windows 10 users who have new CPUs.
      This is MS saying, "Nice CPU you got there...surely you got money for us if you got money for that."

    6. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by guruevi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're in the business of making OS, it's kind of expected for them to make it work on any hardware. Linux and BSD maintainers have to do the same work as do some other proprietary OS and manage to support various architectures that are several decades old.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      "They're in the business of making OS, it's kind of expected for them to make it work on any hardware."

      you say this as though it's a fundamental property of an operating system. really, it's pretty damned unusual for a commercial OS to run on "any hardware" (even when you interpret that in the limited sense you're using it), and it's an expectation that Microsoft mostly established in the first place. this was not altruism, of course; it was a business decision to take over the PC market. since that's now basically impossible, at least for now, they are taking a different strategy. they're in the business of making an OS, so they're going to take the efforts which they think will maximize return. unsurprisingly, this does not include supporting their cost center legacy OS.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    8. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      ^5

    9. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's such a shame that the choice is between shit and shit and shit.

      Windows is locked down, but has large software library.

      Linux is open, but has a limited software library.

      Mac is the worst of both worlds, locked down and has a limited software library.

      It's too bad Remix OS doesn't support Nvidia GPUs or I would switch to that since Android is open and has a large software library.

    10. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and find a vendor that gives you the service you want.

      The vendors with the right service have the wrong product and the vendors with the right product have the wrong service.

    11. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Mac is the worst of both worlds, locked down and has a limited software library.

      Perhaps you should try running OSX.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      They're in the business of making OS, it's kind of expected for them to make it work on any hardware

      cf. MacOS

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you seriously just say if you don't like something, then don't complain about it? You sound like an idiot who hopes everything should stay as-is and never improve.

    14. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You are referencing DOS and Lotus? How long ago was that? 25, 30 years ago?

      Standard Microsoft whine, "Oh, Eeeevil M$, never trust them!!"

      - I can understand resenting Microsoft pushing Windows 10;
      - I can understand resenting Microsoft not supporting new processor lines, particularly when there are no serious architectural changes in those processors.

      What I cannot understand is dredging up 1980's history that does not apply, no matter how much you claim that it does apply. When you do this you only weaken your own argument. You sound like Rain Man, obsessed with trivia and ancient history. At least make a minimal effort to be relevant, OK?

    15. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Complaining is fine, but only if it's productive. If it's non-productive, then you're just an annoying whiner.

      If your complaining actually serves a purpose, such as getting someone to change, or getting people to choose another vendor, then great, complain away! For instance: "I bought a Chevy car, and the ignition key turned off while I was driving down the freeway, causing me to wreck. I almost died! Here's some links showing how Chevy knew about this design flaw and covered it up to save a little money, and a bunch of people really did die as a result. Don't buy Chevies!" That's useful and productive complaining, warning people away from a dangerous product or vendor.

      If your complaining just whines about the current state of affairs, but proposes no solutions and is basically tilting at windmills, and worse there are actual solutions but you refuse to pursue them, then you're just being an annoying whiner. This is generally the case with everyone who complains about Windows 10. They whine and whine and whine, but they keep using it. I'm sorry, if you're not going to do anything to change your situation, you're just like those stupid women who refuse to leave their abusive boyfriends and then even defend him, but then whine "why does he hit me? Why doesn't he love me the way I want to be loved?"

    16. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      At least that has been free. Microsoft wants you to pay $150 to upgrade to their latest point-release of NT5.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      "Any hardware" - it's an x86 processor. From Windows 7's point of view it has the same feature set as any prior processor. They don't have to do ANYTHING to make it work. They actually have to do work to make Windows 7 NOT work with recent hardware.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    18. Re: DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      obviously, the money to make Windows 7 not work is less than the money they think they'll save by supporting fewer Windows 7 users.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    19. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly right. If you don't like the way your OS vendor treats you, then stop bitching and whining about it and find a vendor that gives you the service you want.

      Sounds like a plan, only I have not been able to find another OS vendor that can give me what I need.

    20. Re:DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, complaining that you are suffering at the hands of Microsoft yet again is really self-inflicted at this point. This has been going on for near on 2 decades so unless you're willing to stop putting up with it and actually do something about it then just STFU.

  4. Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they didn't want to.

    Scumbags.
    They want to force Windows 10 on everyone.
    My Win 7 box will run until no more security updates come in 2020.

    Thanks to the guy that figured this out.

    1. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      My Guess is they don't want to validate the updates for the older OS on newer CPU hardware. At least that would be the 'engineering' reason....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re: Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are accepting updates? Pretty sure the writing on the wall is dry.

    3. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..no, they just want to put a gun to everyone's heads and force them to use Windows 10. Really, they do.

      Meanwhile a few of us will continue babying along Windows XP until we can get Linux running. Microsoft can go pound sand, I'm not playing anymore.

    4. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this was anyone but Microsoft, that may well be right.

      But this IS Microsoft, and they have been doing their absolute damnedest to shove Win10 down everyone's throat in every conceivable way possible.

      Further, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from releasing any necessary updates to support the newest processors, assuming updates are even necessary. They've done this plenty of times in the past. Windows XP was supported for, what? 15 years? No CPU problems there. Windows 7 has been around for 8 years, and up till now there hasn't been any issues with processor updates. There have been a whole lot of new CPUs released over the past 20 years, and yet suddenly NOW it's a problem? I don't think so.

      I don't understand how this is isn't class-action suit worthy. Microsoft has explicitly declared that they refuse to honour the contract that they would support Windows 7 until 2020.

    5. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is pretty much exactly it. Intel agreed to foot the bill for the 6th Gen Core series, so those are supported, but the rest aren't. Presumably AMD could make a similar deal.

      Considering Windows 7 has been on extended support for some time now, and is scheduled only to get security updates, people don't have much of a leg to stand on getting upset. Not that it will stop plenty of people who think Microsoft should support their favorite version of Windows until the end of time -- or at least until they decide to move on -- free of charge naturally. It also won't stop them from coming up with all manner of creative conspiracy theories for why Microsoft won't support their favorite Windows version indefinitely, all of which will ignore basic economics.

      Windows 8.1, however, is another story, since it's still within that first support period where Microsoft will potentially add new features, so it's a bit of a dick move there, but I guess they figured the user base on 8.1 is so small the money saved on validation efforts is worth the PR hit.

    6. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      My Win 7 box will run until no more security updates come in 2020.

      By then you should be pretty good at reinstalling your system from a clean image and having your data backed up, for that odd time when your box DOES get pwned. Which you really have to try hard to do nowadays - gone are the days of some random worm taking over your box just because you hooked it up to the internet.

      And besides, hopefully Flash will be totally dead by 2020 and a major security threat will be gone.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extended support. New processor and architecture support is technically a new feature.

    8. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass Surveillance.

    9. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one expects MS to provide support for new processor or platform features.

      We do expect the exact same files for OS security patches to be made available to all since the files don't care what the underlying processor is.
      In the very rare case that some bug pops up on new processors but not old processors, then it's errata time, along with a BIOS/UEFI/microcode patch to fix it without Windows even knowing about it.

    10. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by sexconker · · Score: 0

      My Win 7 box will run until no more security updates come in 2020.

      By then you should be pretty good at reinstalling your system from a clean image and having your data backed up, for that odd time when your box DOES get pwned. Which you really have to try hard to do nowadays - gone are the days of some random worm taking over your box just because you hooked it up to the internet.

      And besides, hopefully Flash will be totally dead by 2020 and a major security threat will be gone.

      My main Windows 7 box has been going strong on its original install since I built it about 6 years ago.
      Meanwhile, every big Windows 10 update results in my receiving a hilarious text message from a friend, complete with a picture of some fuck up or the installation screen.

    11. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I'm still waiting for Microsoft to provide *technical* justification for their action. So far there has been none.

      I discussed the situation with Woody Leonard and Gigabyte on Twitter, where I asked Gigabyte what their stance was. They very eloquently "dodged" it by simply stating "We'll continue to provide Windows 7 drivers {for Kaby Lake motherboards}". In other words: even motherboard manufacturers don't want to get involved in this situation. Nobody is taking a stand against it. Class-action honestly seems like the only viable course of action, otherwise abandoning Windows altogether and going with Linux or FreeBSD.

      The reason I care: I've used an i7-2600K + Ivy Bridge (Z77) system for about 5 years now, using Windows 7 x64 SP1. In the past year a couple onboard components have failed (Atheros NIC, and at one point very weird issues with onboard sound), I've had very odd issues with its USB 3.0 ports, and some of the games I've begun to play really don't perform well on a 2nd-gen CPU. Rather than continuing exhaust PCI and PCIe slots, I felt it was time to buy a new MB + CPU + RAM and migrate/upgrade. At the time (Feburary 2017) 7th-gen Intel CPUs and Kaby Lake motherboards (Z270) were actually cheaper than 6th-gen / Skylake (Z170) by about US$50 or more: vendors jacked up prices of 6th-gen / Skylake stuff simply because they could. Economically it made no sense to buy 6th-gen or Skylake. I bought all the components (plus a new case + PSU), put the system together, and did burn-in tests (found bad RAM, which took another week to replace). At about that time I began installing W7, but not migrating to the system yet. A few days later, Microsoft pulled this shenanigan.

      The timing couldn't have been worse. That new system I've bought has sat on my dining room table doing nothing but collecting dust since. I'm still using my Ivy Bridge workstation because I feel my options are limited (either accepting the atrocity that is Windows 10 and it's phone-home privacy invasion that can't be avoided 100% (maybe 80% at best), or switching to Linux or FreeBSD). I honestly feel like I just threw US$1000 in the toilet.

      While Zeffy's workaround I understand, there are two major problems with it: 1) the next time Microsoft updates wuaueng.dll the workaround stops working (i.e. there is no sane way of managing this situation, instead becoming an indefinite cat-and-mouse situation), and 2) SFC /SCANNOW will certainly fail/flag this as a problem.

    12. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Supporting a backwards-compatible architecture requires no work so it is not a new feature. No one is asking Microsoft to take advantage of Kaby Lake's new video decoding hardware in Windows 7.

    13. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tiny flaw with that argument: While they were at it, they also deliberately crippled WU on Win8.1. That's still in Mainstream support until 2018.

    14. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Why are they scumbags?

      Like, philosophically? I guess because if there aren't vile antagonists, humans would have little to strive against.

      Do you mean, practically? Presumably because they think it lines up with their business model, and they have no intention of serving their paying customers if they can get away with not doing that thing.

      Or do you mean, why does THIS particular thing exemplify their scumbaggery? Well, that should be obvious: if you have a Windows 7 license, nothing on that box states or implies that the software will be broken by design on Intel chips past a certain date, for no reason except to invalidate the value of your purchase.

      > Are you going to pay them extra to keep supporting Win7 on new hardware like that?

      If you bought a Windows license, you already did. Nothing about it says "works with these exact chips: beyond that, we can guarantee nothing".

      Much more relevantly, testing security and even functional patches on chips which jump through every hoop in the universe to be backwards binary compatible with THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES is no great effort. Not supporting OLD hardware is reasonable for OSes, assuming they don't screw over too many people. Not supporting NEW chips which are backwards compatible is UNPRECEDENTED in the industry. It's just a stupid cash grab to try to force everyone onto that supernaturally awful Windows 10.

    15. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by exomondo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ..no, they just want to put a gun to everyone's heads and force them to use Windows 10. Really, they do.

      Oh don't be so melodramatic.. We've had viable alternatives in macOS and Linux (which of course you also need to run newer versions of if you want to run these newer processor architectures) for many many years now and if you're only just realizing "oh maybe Microsoft doesn't have my best interests in mind" then that's your own fault. Even if you really really need to run that program and it's Windows only? Run it in a sanitized VM, again a solved problem for many many years.

    16. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      >Nothing about it says "works with these exact chips: beyond that, we can guarantee nothing".

      They also never advertised that it would work on all future computer hardware. Making an OS work on newer hardware requires some amount of work, and that isn't free. They sold you an OS license for the hardware it was pre-installed on, and that's it. They haven't taken that away from you. If you want to run newer hardware, you need to buy a new license for the version of Windows that's designed to run on that hardware.

      >Much more relevantly, testing security and even functional patches on chips which jump through every hoop in the universe to be backwards binary compatible with THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES is no great effort.

      According to you. But it's still some effort. Why should they lift a finger to support an old, obsolete OS that they don't want people to keep using?

      Most important is the fact that this is *their* OS. They can manage it however they like. If you don't like Windows 10, that's your problem; it's not their job to make you happy. If you don't like Windows 10, don't use it. If you're not happy that some ancient version of Windows doesn't work on new hardware, too bad; it's not your OS in the first place. So either stop your whining and start using Windows 10, or find an OS that aligns better with your preferences.

      Microsoft's job is to make money for their shareholders, and that's it, not to make people happy. Pushing people into using Windows 10 is the best way for them to do that. This means less money wasted on supporting an ancient, obsolete OS version, and more profits from advertising and spyware baked into the new OS version. You're free to either buy from this vendor and support their business plan, or refuse and find another vendor.

    17. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Altrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linux and Mac are only viable if:
      - You can stand their interfaces. Linux is configurable enough that its probably OK but macOS is a bloody nightmare to use when you're used to Windows.

      - You can configure it. Applies mostly to Linux in order to deal with #1 since Apple's UI design motto is basically "do it our way or fuck you." This is not really an easy chore and requires some fairly strong computer skills if you want anything beyond the defaults.

      - You don't require any software that runs only on Windows. Yeah VMs work but they start getting into the previous point of requiring computer skills. Plus they're typically a pain in the ass and always at least a little bit slower compared to running applications natively. Never mind if you're into games that don't have Mac ports (and Linux gaming is still barely worth talking about..)

      - And even if you set up the VM, all you've done is push the problem from the hardware to the virtual hardware -- you're still running Windows on that VM and unless you're running a clean image every time you start the VM, you've got all of the same problems (and of course doing the clean image plan has its own massive problems in terms of convenience.)

      - And then forgetting all of that, you have to rely on your replacement OS to not be just as bad. Looking at macOS in particular for this point. Apple may be crusading to avoid having to give your data to the government, but they sure as hell aren't taking the "just don't collect it in the first place" route.

    18. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Linux and Mac are only viable if:
      - You can stand their interfaces. Linux is configurable enough that its probably OK but macOS is a bloody nightmare to use when you're used to Windows.

      - You can configure it. Applies mostly to Linux in order to deal with #1 since Apple's UI design motto is basically "do it our way or fuck you." This is not really an easy chore and requires some fairly strong computer skills if you want anything beyond the defaults.

      If you'd rather suffer lack of security updates because you can't cope with any non-Windows GUI then - aside from being a pretty lame attempt at an excuse - you're only stuck because you choose to be.

      - You don't require any software that runs only on Windows. Yeah VMs work but they start getting into the previous point of requiring computer skills. Plus they're typically a pain in the ass and always at least a little bit slower compared to running applications natively.

      They're typically not a pain in the ass, in fact they're typically VERY VERY easy and with modern virtualization they tend to offer near-native performance, but most people that have some program that only runs on Windows can cope with a minor performance hit as a tradeoff to running Windows 10 natively wrt privacy. So what specifically do you find so difficult about VMs?

      Never mind if you're into games that don't have Mac ports (and Linux gaming is still barely worth talking about..)

      If you really need those games then dual boot into Windows 10 just for games and nothing else.

      - And even if you set up the VM, all you've done is push the problem from the hardware to the virtual hardware -- you're still running Windows on that VM and unless you're running a clean image every time you start the VM, you've got all of the same problems (and of course doing the clean image plan has its own massive problems in terms of convenience.)

      What specific problem are you talking about that has been "pushed"? I specifically said a "sanitized VM" give it only access to things it absolutely needs and only do the things you absolutely need Windows for, that eliminates almost all of the issues.

      - And then forgetting all of that, you have to rely on your replacement OS to not be just as bad.

      Yes you do seem to be making every effort to come up with excuses as to why it's all just completely hopeless and everybody should just do what Microsoft says and dutifully upgrade to Windows 10. I'm providing solutions, you're making excuses, if you want to just knuckle under and do whatever Microsoft tells you then go ahead. I'm not trying to stop you, my advice is predicated on a willingness to go to even the slightest effort to mitigate some of the bad things in Windows.

    19. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Altrag · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you'd rather suffer lack of security updates because you can't cope with any non-Windows GUI then - aside from being a pretty lame attempt at an excuse - you're only stuck because you choose to be.

      Yes. New interfaces can be learned. Its just a pain in the ass and requires a hell of a lot of time, patience and retraining. I've run on Linux before. It was alright, but I do too much non-Linux stuff to make it worth the effort. MacOS kills me though.

      They're typically not a pain in the ass ... So what specifically do you find so difficult about VMs?

      Having to start them up every time you want to do something is a pain in the ass. Think "annoying" more than "difficult." Well, unless you need to do something non-standard and then they can be difficult depending on what you need to do.

      If you really need those games then dual boot into Windows 10 just for games and nothing else.

      Again, a right pain in the ass. And assumes you know how to setup a dual boot system (I personally do, but there's a vast majority of the population who wouldn't even know what the term means never mind how to make it happen.)

      What specific problem are you talking about that has been "pushed"?

      The fact that you're running Windows. Windows is still Windows, even in a VM, and has all of the same issues that Windows on hardware has.

      I specifically said a "sanitized VM" give it only access to things it absolutely needs and only do the things you absolutely need Windows for, that eliminates almost all of the issues.

      Except all of the other issues I've mentioned about this being annoying as fuck to deal with and not exactly easy for a layperson to setup in the first place.

      all just completely hopeless and everybody should just do what Microsoft says

      No.. I'm just saying that there are costs to the alternatives as well. Its not just "MS evil everyone else good!" Apple in particular I don't trust any more than I trust Microsoft -- even ignoring the other issues like their horrid UI. Hell even with Linux you have to know and trust your distro a good amount before you can claim with any conviction that they aren't also doing similar things.

      I'm providing solutions, you're making excuses

      You've only provided one solution -- "just use something else" without any regard to the potential downsides of switching. I have no problem with people switching away from Windows (well, to Linux at least) but I do have a problem if they decide to switch without considering both the positive AND negative consequences.

      my advice is predicated on a willingness to go to even the slightest effort to mitigate some of the bad things in Windows.

      No, your advice is predicated on a blind hatred for MS without regard to the fact that the alternatives also have negatives and almost all companies are going to screw you if you let them, not just MS.

    20. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      At this point it's still less work to run one of those "Windows 10 fixer" apps to disable/block the advertising and malware then it is to switch over to Linux.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      What specific problem are you talking about that has been "pushed"?

      The fact that you're running Windows. Windows is still Windows, even in a VM, and has all of the same issues that Windows on hardware has.

      Why do you consider running Windows to be a problem?
      Isolating it in a VM away from things like your personal data, browsing information, etc ... mitigates (in a very big way) the privacy concerns around it.

      Except all of the other issues I've mentioned about this being annoying as fuck to deal with and not exactly easy for a layperson to setup in the first place.

      If it's too hard for you then don't do it, again if you're not willing to resolve the problem then you can opt to just live with the problem. Or maybe you don't consider it a problem to begin with in which case this is all irrelevant to you anyway. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

      No.. I'm just saying that there are costs to the alternatives as well.

      Oh really? Solving a problem requires actually doing something? Who would have guessed?!

      Its not just "MS evil everyone else good!"

      I never said or implied that at all, you're just making things up.

      You've only provided one solution -- "just use something else" without any regard to the potential downsides of switching.

      Actually I provided multiple options:

      >Run an alternative operating system exclusively.
      >Run an alternative operating system with Windows in a VM for Windows-specific things.
      >Run an alternative operating system with Windows as a dual-boot option for use cases where a VM is insufficient.

      And these are only solutions if you consider these other 2 options of running Windows 10 exclusively to be a problem or if you consider running older versions of Windows on newer hardware such that you don't get security updates to be a problem.

      Hell even with Linux you have to know and trust your distro a good amount before you can claim with any conviction that they aren't also doing similar things.

      No actually I can see what network traffic it is sending and it obeys the HOSTS file, from my router I can see that Windows 10 doesn't obey the hosts file and sends encrypted packets out to Microsoft servers. So yes I can pretty easily see that my Linux distro isn't sending off data to other people. Is telemetry data a concern for me? Not really, but if it is for you then you probably want to limit your use of Windows (possibly macOS too but you can opt out of telemetry on macOS).

      No, your advice is predicated on a blind hatred for MS without regard to the fact that the alternatives also have negatives and almost all companies are going to screw you if you let them, not just MS.

      What "blind hatred of MS" are you talking about? Could you cite what exactly you think implies that? It seems you are confused.

      What problem do you think I'm providing solutions for? And what is your proposed solution to the problem?

    22. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's UI design motto is basically "do it our way or fuck you."

      So is Microsoft's. You can install an alternative shell in Windows or OSX if you *really* want to.

      Apple may be crusading to avoid having to give your data to the government, but they sure as hell aren't taking the "just don't collect it in the first place" route.

      The data they are keeping from the government is the data you give them to store on iCloud. With Apple you have to specifically opt-in to Telemetry and you can opt-out at any time unlike Windows 10.

      A huge amount of Mac users run Windows in a VM like Parallels or run it with Boot Camp. It is really easy to do that if you want to move to a Mac but still have some dependencies on Windows so you can easily have the best of both worlds. VMWare's latest offering for both Mac and Windows now has OpenGL 3.2 hardware acceleration so graphics applications can use the host's GPU as well which makes VMs even *more* effective solutions.

    23. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the choice is between MS Spydows 10 and the minor inconvenience of a vm/dualboot solution then id be inclined to choose the latter.

    24. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use win 7 + classic start + disable all the stupid shit with tweaktools.

      7 is vastly better than xp. Just takes some cleaning to get there.

    25. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah who cares if we can't run 95% of the software on the planet.

    26. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am writing this on a machine sold to me with Windows 10 preinstalled. It was never booted to W10. My old linux box died and I needed a new mobo or psu or whatever. Who knows where the smoke came from. The bigger HD was just a bonus from the cheapest box I could find. I put the most hard core linux I know on it. Everything worked out of the box from the install CD. I do *NOT* suggest anyone out there try Slackware 64 bit as the first linux. I can hardly install anything on here that did not come with the original. You need to compile it yourself or install binary compatible images.
      The point is, the easy linuxes are great now. Jump in the pool and have fun. Even the hardest of the hard are bearable.
      MB
      By the way, no hope in hell of getting a trojan or virus to run on this sucker. Ha ha.

    27. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wound up using (if that's indeed what I was doing) win10 for the first time the other weekend. What a weird experience. Never before have I used an OS where it felt like I was being "allowed" to perform certain actions. It felt like a restricted kiosk system that you made requests to and hope they were permitted.

      Is this what Mac users are used to?

    28. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

      so lazy and not learn? That sounds interesting..

    29. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I prefer OSX look and feel to Windows 7 and 8. Simple, minimalistic, no ribbons, no gloss, no extra junk to get in your way.

    30. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well any decent company would support past customers just for the sake of keeping customers. Whether it's a new feature or not it make sense to support it.

    31. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A bloody nightmare" if you're too lazy to read a few help files or tutorials.
      The only thing MacOS is missing out of the box is window snapping, but there are ways to fix that....

    32. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      And what's wrong the customers with that viewpoint? Why should a company treat past loyal customers like scum just because they like an older version? Even if it's a pain in the ass to maintain, it's a huge PR hit to dismiss most of your installed base that way. There's a big shift away from their core loyal base of office workers towards home users who were already migrating away from PCs. If they want customers to upgrade then they should make upgrading attractive to the customers, rather than a ho-hum release with no value to most customers that's coupled with a heavy adware campaign and dirty tricks.

      Seriously, there is no reason to upgrade if Windows 7 is working and supported because upgrading provides little value, and what value it has is easily offset by the drawbacks. So their marketing response is not to improve the product but rather to browbeat the users and degrade the older versions. Any other company would fade to obscurity with tricks like that, and since Microsoft is rapidly losing its monopoly it's a rather bad business move to treat customers that way.

    33. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      The only thing MacOS is missing out of the box is window snapping, but there are ways to fix that....

      (I'm wondering off topic a bit, but...)
      1. focus follows mouse and window menu bars within the window (need the latter for the former to work).
      2. legal/supported hackintosh.

      If Apple had made their OS generally available in the same way Windows is, and I could do focus follows mouse, I would have had it running on at least one of my machines, and I suspect that would have grown into most of them.

      For those coming from Windows, and buying new hardware, it really shouldn't be a big deal. Sure, everything underneath is different, as is the way everything looks, but it all ends up working pretty much the same. The change isn't significantly more drastic than going from Windows 7 to Windows 10.

    34. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah VMs work but they start getting into the previous point of requiring computer skills.

      So we just accept that most computer users are just too stupid to be able to have privacy so dont bother trying to help them?

      And even if you set up the VM, all you've done is push the problem from the hardware to the virtual hardware

      The problem here is privacy. If Win10 is run in a VM then it is isolated from the rest of the user's system where they would keep their private data so it can be kept from Win10's prying.

      Continuing to evangelize convenience over privacy is a very poor choice especially when the tools and technology to do things like run a virtual machine or run multiple operating systems has made it so easy to do.

    35. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux and Mac are only viable if:
      - You can stand their interfaces. Linux is configurable enough that its probably OK but macOS is a bloody nightmare to use when you're used to Windows.

      Ironically, as a long-time Windows user, I'd rather stand LXDE than new Windowses' interfaces.

    36. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They sold you an OS license for the hardware it was pre-installed on

      Wong assumption. Rest of argument null and void.

    37. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No one expects MS to provide support for new processor or platform features.

      I expect support for new processors. I don't expect support or even use of platform features, but I damn well expect support for processors.

      Windows 7 and 8.1 are designed for x86. I expect Microsoft to provide support for their versions regardless on which x86 processor I attempt to run it on for the duration of their support agreements. I'm not even talking extended support. Windows 8.1 is in the ____(1) mainstream support period and they are refusing to support it even though you are running it on a current x86 compatible processor which has all the instructions required to run the OS.

      (1) insert expletive of choice here.

    38. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A bloody nightmare" if you're too lazy to read a few help files or tutorials.

      Also known as 99% of people.

    39. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      They also never advertised that it would work on all future computer hardware.

      But it does work on future hardware. This is the bit where your analogy fails miserably. The newer processors are 100% platform compatible with their predecessors. There is no reason why the new processors should not be supported especially given that one of the OSes in question is still in the middle of it's mainstream support period.

      So to summarise:
      1. You have a current OS designed for x86 hardware in its mainstream support period.
      2. You have a current CPU with an x86 instruction set with feature complete backwards compatibility.
      3. You have the OS vendor choosing to arbitrarily voiding their support agreement because you are running current compatible hardware during the support period.

      Why should they lift a finger to support an old, obsolete OS that they don't want people to keep using?

      There's this thing call support agreements. Fucking Windows 8.1 old and obsolete? Get the fuck of Slashdot.

    40. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I think that it has more with Microsoft wanting to avoid a repeat of the Windows XP support debacle, where people were installing fresh copies of it just a few months before it was about to go End Of Life.

      These people then started screaming that couldn't get security patches for their 13 year old operating system, even though they probably shouldn't have installed it that new PC to begin with.

      Even now, there are still a ton of unpatched Windows XP systems out in the field running as information kiosk systems and POS terminals. That's not good for anyone, because they're just waiting for someone to turn them into a botnet the first some some dumb IT guy accidently connects to them to the Internet.

    41. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..no, they just want to put a gun to everyone's heads and force them to use Windows 10. Really, they do.

      Meanwhile a few of us will continue babying along Windows XP until we can get Linux running. Microsoft can go pound sand, I'm not playing anymore.

      I hope your XP install has no connection to the internet. All those Day 1 vulnerabilities that the recently leaked NSA tools take advantage of won't have a fix in XP.

    42. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had viable alternatives in macOS and Linux (which of course you also need to run newer versions of if you want to run these newer processor architectures) for many many years now and if you're only just realizing "oh maybe Microsoft doesn't have my best interests in mind" then that's your own fault.

      Unfortunately Apple has been dragging their feet and do not currently have any models running on current processor architectures despite their availability on the market for some time now... This means that even going Hackintosh, you will be better off going with older Skylake than trying to get Kaby Lake working.

    43. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      It's not just processors but chipsets. You can't expect support for new SATA, USB, thunderbolt and other types of controllers. You can't expect new wifi drivers or support for the latest GPU. That's just not reasonable.

      I think it's a dick move for microsoft to put in this patch, but from there perspective a user running an old windows version where it runs poorly, overheats or just has a bad experience will blame them for that too. It kind of makes sense from that perspective.

      You guys are looking at this as end users of windows. Most of Microsoft's customers are actually OEMs who want to sell new PCs.

      Further, looking at it as an OS vendor, I completely understand why they don't want to support old versions. It is a lot of work.

    44. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I read this last night, was hoping to come back to some more nonsense, but i think he realized that he was just talking in circles about his laziness and lack of aspiration. You made a bunch of very good points about alternatives i hope some people take it to heed.

    45. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Microsoft's job is to make money for their shareholders, and that's it, not to make people happy

      No it is not. Their job has nothing to do with their shareholders. Their shareholders can go fuck themselves. They don't matter. Their actual job is to deliver a quality product that gets better with each release instead of worse and which is beneficial to their customers instead of actively being harmful to them. If Microsoft did not essentially have monopoly power in their market segment they would have been out of business a long time ago. They are probably the most inept software company in the world. A company's job is in fact to make their customers happy...with their product. Microsoft is clearly not doing that. Otherwise they would not have to pull stunts like this to try to force people to use their newer and crappier versions that almost everyone hates.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    46. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Windows is only viable if:

      • You can trust it -- and you can't. Period.

      In other words, if you can't deal with Mac OS or Linux, there is no "viable" OS anymore.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    47. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      It's not just processors but chipsets. You can't expect support for new SATA, USB, thunderbolt and other types of controllers. You can't expect new wifi drivers or support for the latest GPU. That's just not reasonable.

      Why isn't it reasonable? Linux can do it. There are definitely programmers out there who can right the code to support the hardware. You know who hires such people? Motherboard manufacturers like Asus, Gigabyte, AsRock, and MSI. They do it because they believe in helping people. They do it purely out of kindness...oh wait. Actually they do it because a lot of potential customers are running older and much better operating systems and don't want to have to upgrade just to buy a new motherboard. They do it because they want to make money selling their newest motherboards to people who may not otherwise buy them. It's called capitalism. It's called competition. If an Asus motherboard has drivers for Windows 7 but Gigabyte does not guess which brand I'm going to buy if I am running Windows7 and don't want to downgrade to malware which is inferior in almost every way?

      Actually I am still waiting to see if Microsoft can really convince all the Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers to *not* write drivers that the market clearly wants so very badly. I guess it's just a matter of money though. If Microsoft pays them enough not to write them then maybe they won't. It's just so fucked that Microsoft really is that evil. This is a form of market failure btw. This is one example of capitalism failing to efficiently allocate resources. In a free market Microsoft should have died off or gone niche a long time ago. Why are these retards even still around?

      I'm generally a laissez faire kind of guy when it comes to government involvement in the market but this seems like a clear example of collusion and monopolistic abuse of power to me. I wish some government would step in and tell them they can't do this sort of thing and spank them at least a little if they continue anyway. I really think we'd all be much better off if someone just nuked the whole Redmond campus. Maybe from orbit. Just to be sure. If I were king of the planet I would just put them out of business and that would be that. Corporate Death Penalty for their crimes against humanity. Let someone competent who actually cares about the quality of their product step into the vacuum to replace them. I mean is there some absolute requirement that all large corporations must be led by sociopaths? If there is at least most aren't quite so evil or useless.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    48. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is configurable enough that it will do exactly what you want. Seriously if you are even semi-competent using linux you can create something that makes windows (and mac) look like the junk it is.

    49. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you be willing to do all the validation work for free? That's not a trick question, and I'm guessing your answer would be no. Who would want to take on a full-time job (and probably then some) without getting paid for it? So, this is where the "basic economics" comes in. If Microsoft isn't bringing in new revenue from the sale of Windows 7/8.1, then how can they continue paying you, and/or someone else, indefinitely to do all the validation work on new CPUs? Sooner or later, the coffers will be empty. Yes, yes, I know they have other revenue sources, but my point still stands. Any money they spend paying someone to do validation work on updates is essentially lost, as opposed to money spent working on new products that might bring in more revenue. Again, basic economics.

      You might say that they could announce that they will continue providing updates for as long as continue supporting the OS, but they won't guarantee it will work on 7th Gen Intel and AMD Ryzen chips without issue. You and I might be willing to take our chances with that, but it would invariably result in a lawsuit. There's ALWAYS someone out there who will sue over the stupidest things and a lawyer willing to cash that person's checks, knowing full well they'll never win. It's not a coincidence that those EULAs and product safety guides cover completely ridiculous things like not using a toaster in the bathtub. There's almost always a lawsuit at the origin if you trace the history.

      Finally, Microsoft supports their operating systems for 10-years; longer than pretty much anyone else. Apple has no defined support period, but it's usually in the 5-year range for macOS. FreeBSD looks to be 1-3 years. Looking at kernel.org, LTS Linux kernels are about 5-6 years, with the caveat (according to kernel.org), that the older the branch the more infrequent the updates. Microsoft already offers the longest support period of anyone outside of commercial Unix vendors, yet that doesn't seem to be good enough for many people. You can dislike Microsoft and/or Windows, but let's at least accept basic realities and give credit where it's due.

    50. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      At no point has Microsoft *ever* been responsible for supporting all those drivers. Ever. They may throw some base-level drivers for common well known hardware, but when something new comes out, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to put out new drivers.

      This has been true for every single piece of hardware in existence, whether it's a PCI winmodem, a printer, a graphics card, or a motherboard chipset. If you've ever done a clean install of Windows, you would know that there are a cavalcade of drivers you need to install, including drivers specific to processors, and chipsets.

      So this isn't the issue. The issue is that Microsoft refuses to be responsible for THEIR software, for completely nebulous reasons that have never been a problem in the past. This is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to push people to Windows 10, for the exact same reason that they tried to prove in court that IE was inseparable from the OS during their browser monopoly trial: For their own self-serving interest, nothing more, nothing less.

    51. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by djrobxx · · Score: 1

      Yep. Apple is much worse in this respect. My 2006 Mac Pro had processing power and memory that is still on par, or better than, the current Mac mini once you upgrade the video card. But Apple stopped supporting new OS versions on it, which quickly renders the whole Apple ecosystem defunct. You can't update iTunes, so then you can't sync a new iPhone, for example. And finding compatible browsers starts to be an issue too, as new software for OSX tends to just not run on older OSes. I had to resort to end-user hacks to load the modern OS on it, but when I did, it worked very nicely.

      The irony is that the most straightforward solution to the iTunes problem is to install Windows on it. Even Windows 10 is perfectly fine with the older hardware, and happily runs the newest version of iTunes.

       

    52. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ^^^

      There is a difference between
      A. Not supporting newer Hardware. Basically not testing for it etc.
      B. Saying you don't support it via a message on the computer.
      C. Actively checking and refusing updates.

      In my book A and B are ok. C is not. I have the same bitch about IOS 10 and Linux with photos. Too many breaks on too many updates seems to be intentional rather than accidental. I don't expect Apple nor Microsoft to support things they don't have to. I do expect they don't take an active role to stop those against legit customers and use.

    53. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Mint XFCE (or probably Xubuntu) by default ends up giving you pretty much the equivalent of the de-crapified 7-and-earlier Windows interface. It even does snap-to-edge now out of the box :)

      The theming engine is split into two different pieces, somewhat oddly, but that's when you're getting into customizing it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    54. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can have 10 linux boxes ready to go in the time it takes to install windows 10 on one. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

    55. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You can't expect support for new SATA, USB, thunderbolt and other types of controllers.

      From Microsoft? I don't. I also never have. On top of that they never did. Hell before Windows 8 I hadn't even seen a version of Windows that detected my HDDs during install or booted with my display at anything other than garbage resolution followed by a warning saying it's not "optimal".

      Microsoft should support their OS with security patches.
      Vendors should support their hardware with drivers.

      The only thing that has changed here is that Microsoft has arbitrarily decided not to provide *security patches* for versions of Windows which don't actually have a problem running on the hardware in the first place.

      a user running an old windows version where it runs poorly, overheats or just has a bad experience

      Pure, unsubstantiated conjecture.

      Most of Microsoft's customers are actually OEMs

      Actually most of Microsoft's customers are volume licencors. Some of those customers are big enough that Microsoft even provides custom builds for them. But even if they were OEMs it doesn't change the equation one bit. Why would an OEM want to arbitrarily offer less choice to potential customers in the form of system builds? The OEMs' themselves have already voiced their pissedoffness that they can no longer sell Windows 7 licenses despite customers still wanting them. OEMs have nothing to gain from this and more to lose than end users.

      Further, looking at it as an OS vendor, I completely understand why they don't want to support old versions. It is a lot of work.

      Then maybe they shouldn't have listed an agreed support period for their OSes that goes for 10 years.

    56. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Yes that's right, they would need to update their OS (and probably would only do the most recent one like Microsoft are doing) to take advantage of the newer processors. I'm more just suggesting there are alternatives to Windows 10 since it seems many people are averse to that operating system.

    57. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Thankyou, I'm glad there are at least some people that see there is benefit in expending the minimal effort to get what they want. Indeed many people don't see the privacy implications of Windows 10 to be an issue and that's fine but if you are opposed to Windows 10 then while it may be a little less convenient it's not all "gun to your head" hopeless, there are ways around it.

    58. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is a stupid and idiotic post. No, their job is not to deliver a quality product; where do you get that crazy idea?

      Moreover, if you really think that's their job, then obviously they're failing at it. So, what are you going to do about it? You're going to keep using their products, and sending them money, right? That means they're succeeding at their job, because they're still "working" and still getting paid. People who fail at their job get fired. If you don't get fired, you must be doing a good enough job for your employer to keep you around. So if you're failing in your job as "employer" (customer actually) to "fire" this poor performing, and actually destructive "employee", then you're the one who's really to blame for being such a terrible employer.

      But anyway, you're just completely wrong about what a company's job is. It's to make money, and that's it. If you don't like the company's products, then don't buy them. That's the only power you have over them to do the job you think they should be doing, which is keeping you happy.

    59. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Linux doesn't do it. Third parties back port some things from newer kernels, but at the end of the day, old kernels like say 2.6.18 aren't getting updated with new hardware support now.

      Motherboard manufacturers do not put out updated drivers. They don't make chipsets. In fact, often times they won't even tell you which realtek, broadcom or intel chip they used. Asus won't even fix secure boot on their motherboards so that you can boot an OS that isn't windows or linux with it disabled on gpt volumes for some of their boards.

    60. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has QA'd drivers as part of the US and also as part of windows update. WHQL drivers I believe. They have to test those in several hardware configurations or have the vendors follow a process. Either way, it's a pain in the butt. Being one of the big 3 operating systems, they at least get some drivers of course.

      Microsoft isn't taking windows away from anyone who is still running a beater PC from 7 years ago. You can still use your crappy windows 7 OS, just not on a modern system. I fail to see what they've taken away from you. it's not legal to transfer a license from an OEM system to another one and few people have retail copies of windows.

    61. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      OEMs love to refuse choice to their customers. Just look at how many sell systems with Linux preloaded. Look at how many will support a system running another OS.

      Microsoft still supports their OS on beater hardware from 10 years ago. They won't support modern hardware that didn't even exist when they made the agreement. I fail to see the problem.

      As for the hardware statement above that I made, let me give a more concrete example. Most SSDs now are at least 4k sectors. If you format your drive poorly (not 4k aligned) or you use an old OS that doesn't handle 4k alignment, it will wear out the SSD much sooner. Older versions of windows can't handle 4k drives well. Some did weird alignments when formatting. While some of this was patched in windows 7 service packs and newer OSes, it's still a problem when setting up. So if someone used stock windows 7 media or say vista and tried to install on a new SSD, it would cause physical harm to their device by wearing it out much more quickly. Should microsoft be responsible for that?

    62. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      OEMs love to refuse choice to their customers.

      Yes I'm sure refusing to sell the latest and greatest and most expensive hardware is right up there on their list.

      Sorry I didn't read the rest of your post. Not after you open with such a stupid line.

    63. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Apologies for my previous post. I was actually curious at how many other brain dead stupid things you would write so I did read them. Let's go through the list:

      OEMs love to refuse choice to their customers.

      OEMs sell hardware that makes money. Right now they can't sell the most expensive hardware on the market to any customer with a locked in eco-system (i.e. most of the customers of Dell and HP). Your comment is stupid.

      They won't support modern hardware that didn't even exist when they made the agreement.

      No one is asking them to support hardware. It is their job to support software. The hardware vendors will support their hardware. Why will Windows 7 run just fine on Ryzen but you will no longer get an update to fix a security hole in Internet Explorer?

      As for the hardware statement above that I made, let me give a more concrete example. Most SSDs now are at least 4k sectors. If you format your drive poorly (not 4k aligned) or you use an old OS that doesn't handle 4k alignment, it will wear out the SSD much sooner. Older versions of windows can't handle 4k drives well. Some did weird alignments when formatting. While some of this was patched in windows 7 service packs and newer OSes, it's still a problem when setting up. So if someone used stock windows 7 media or say vista and tried to install on a new SSD, it would cause physical harm to their device by wearing it out much more quickly. Should microsoft be responsible for that?

      No and they never weren't. Windows XP even works just fine on SSDs and VENDORS released tools to perform partition sector alignment. Quite critically when Windows is installed in an out of alignment partition on an SSD Microsoft continues to provide software updates. Your example is stupid because it is a software problem fixed by vendors that has nothing to do with Microsoft and sure as fuck has nothing to do with not providing Windows Updates on an installed and working system.

      I fail to see the problem.

      You should get that printed on a shirt so people know what to expect from you up front.

    64. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > They also never advertised that it would work on all future computer hardware

      Conveniently, I actually have the Windows 7 box and disc that I purchased right in front of me!
      The top requirement is: "1 GHz or faster 32 bit (x86) or 64 bit (x64) processor".

      But even if I didn't have a stupid box, and even if I had one of the licenses that is sold with physical hardware like some kind of savage, failing to issue SECURITY UPDATES to processors that are FULLY BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE is totally ludicrous, and completely unprecedented in industry. When Intel releases a new processor, no one asks "will it be backwards compatible with Microsoft Word?", because ensuring that is the case is ENTIRE POINT of Intel's business model. There's NO justification for Microsoft's actions where it polls the processor and tries to search for an exact match: in fact, I bet a few motherboard guys right now are poking around with a firmware setting just in case this trend takes off, to force a chip to identify as another chip. The CPUID instruction isn't implemented by Intel and AMD for the purpose of breaking the ability of customers to upgrade, nor does it exist to help Microsoft's bottom line. It's unprecedented, irrational, and unreasonable, and it shits on everyone else in tech, from the kid opening up a new laptop as a gift to the CEO of Intel.

      > Microsoft's job is to make money for their shareholders

      That's every company's job, but notice how plenty of them manage to do that without taking actions that are "just barely legal" or non-monopolist in nature.

      Also, none of the OSes you describe are "ancient" or "obsolete". Both of them are supported right now. Both of them are generally superior than Windows 10 for a variety of tasks.

      There's no apologizing for Microsoft here. This is a dick move, and just on the edge of what is allowed. At the end of the day, a lot more people need to be punishing Microsoft instead of feebly trying to apologize for them. Sadly, Windows users appear to be willing to put up with anything, because the cost of switching to anything else can be so unreasonable. Even this overtly consumer-hostile set of policies has only pushed Apple percent by a few, and while it has nearly doubled Linux usage, it is still a drop in the bucket as a Windows desktop replacement.

    65. Re: Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I can very easily customize the Windows install and take care of an hour of reconfiguration that would need to be done on each Linux install.

    66. Re: Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Are you worried about being ratted out to authorities?
      2. Has Microsoft already ratted you out to authorities?
      3. Has Microsoft ever released any of your information publicly?

      Really bad people do really bad shit on their Windows machines every day. I don't hear of Microsoft sending in lists of their activity to law enforcement. Where are all these privacy violations occurring?

    67. Re: Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out guys, we've got an Internet bad ass.

    68. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      >That's every company's job, but notice how plenty of them manage to do that without taking actions that are "just barely legal" or non-monopolist in nature.

      Sure, but that's because their customers will actually leave them if they become too dickish.

      But there's LOTS of companies that are just as bad as MS, and people still flock to buy their products. John Deere is one that's come up a lot lately in the tech news. Oracle is another. And there's various other "enterprise" software makers that are generally regarded as making horribly overpriced crap.

      >Also, none of the OSes you describe are "ancient" or "obsolete". Both of them are supported right now.

      The older Windows versions are nearing EOL. You can go buy a 20-year-old used car and it's still "supported" by the manufacturer, but that doesn't mean they're doing new development on them, or that they're going to help you retrofit a new lane-keeping feature in them from their newest model.

      >There's no apologizing for Microsoft here. This is a dick move, and just on the edge of what is allowed.

      It *is* a dick move. What I don't understand is why this is some kind of revelation. MS has been doing dickish stuff for as long as I can remember, and really all the way back to their founding 40+ years ago. Don't you remember "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run"? But people keep flocking to buy their stuff. So why shouldn't they be dicks?

      >At the end of the day, a lot more people need to be punishing Microsoft instead of feebly trying to apologize for them.

      I'm not apologizing for them, I'm explaining how their behavior is perfectly rational and sensible. Very few people seem to grasp this. It's like people not understanding why wild tigers and Grizzly bears aren't nice, friendly, cuddly creatures, and instead will viciously kill you if you get too close to them.

      >Sadly, Windows users appear to be willing to put up with anything

      That's exactly the problem.

      >because the cost of switching to anything else can be so unreasonable.

      No, for many it's because they're lazy and refuse to investigate alternatives. Most home users are in this boat. But the same goes for many large companies; they could adopt a custom Linux build if they really wanted, the way some city governments in Europe did, but they just don't want to bother.

    69. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      You like Windows 10? Fine. You don't mind not having control of your machine? That's your choice. I despise it. But our personal OS preferences are irrelevant to the discussion.

      You're assuming that the number of non-OEM installs are an insignificant number. They are not. Between retail copies, Volume License copies, and people who have simply exercised their right upgrade to Windows 7 from Windows 10, this is still a very sizeable number. This is also irrelevant to the discussion.

      What IS relevant is that they are breaking their contractual agreement to provide support for Windows based on a very narrow and completely arbitrary criteria, for no other purpose than pushing people to Windows 10.

      Mainstream support for Windows 7 only ended last week. Windows 8.1 mainstream support doesn't end until *next year*. Kaby Lake and Rizen processors have been around since last year, and Windows 10 was working *just fine* with those new processors. You could buy computers and they would run Windows 7 and 8.1. And now suddenly, they've decided they're going to arbitrarily hold back security updates if the machine has one of these newer processors? Again, these are *security updates* only. If they said that they were going to withhold new features on newer processors, that would be one thing, but not providing security updates is entirely different.

      And THAT is the issue here. Microsoft has pulled a Darth Vader and altered the agreement, and you have to pray that they don't alter it further.

    70. Re:Microsoft...why couldn't they do this? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I find OSX full of a bunch of "gee whiz" effects and puts usability behind looking shiny. Windows 8 (and to a lesser extent, Windows 10) is actually fairly minimalist, and got rid of a bunch of transparency and other "gee whiz" type effects from Vista/7. However, it lost a lot of consistency, and it's clear Microsoft didn't put a lot of thought into making it actually usable.

      If you want a simple, minimalist, no nonsense, no gloss or extra junk interface while still being usable, something like XFCE on Linux is what you want.

  5. Dilligence? by Luthair · · Score: 2

    I thought MS caved and said they wouldn't support new CPU features on old OSes?

    1. Re:Dilligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only was there indications that the lack of support just means only the latest OS would take full advantage of new CPUs, but Windows 8.1 is still under mainstream support. To claim the earlier notification should be considered due diligence when it still contradicted the stated lifecycle policy is just pure double talk. If Microsoft is willing to lie about the degree to which Windows 8.1 is still being providing mainstream support, it is likely they are willing to lie about Windows 10 being the "last version" that you will ever need as well.

    2. Re:Dilligence? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I thought MS caved and said they wouldn't support new CPU features on old OSes?

      Everyone thought this because the alternative was just too stupid to comprehend even coming from a company like Microsoft. No they actually meant it when they said they won't support windows. Despite the version of windows being within the mainstream support period and running on compatible hardware. It wasn't a typo which every sane person in the world assumed.

      https://support.microsoft.com/...

  6. How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Bomarc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taking bets; M$ will release a 'patch' that has one intent: to deliberately break this 'fix'; so M$ can say "told you it wouldn't work". The bigger problem is: We won't know which "patch" M$ will 'break' to induce this problem.

    BTW: It is no big effort for M$ to continue to test this as almost all testing by M$ is automated. There is an alter-motive behind this. Which I knew what it was.

    1. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      There is an alter-motive behind this.

      The word you're looking for is, "ulterior."

    2. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be deja-vu:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Since December 1991 a pre-release version of Windows 3.1 was designed to return a non-fatal error message if it detected a non-Microsoft DOS.[6] This check came to be known as the AARD code.[9] With the detection code disabled, Windows ran perfectly under DR DOS and its successor Novell DOS. The code was present but disabled in the released version of Windows 3.1.[10]

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    3. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The motive is simple: Force Win10 on everyone so they can force the Windows Store on everyone so they can get everyone's money.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm half convinced that money is only part of what they're after. Windows 10 gives them more or less complete control over the computer; they can use your computer for whatever they want, and you have no say about it unless you yank the plug out of the wall or wipe the drive and install something else.

    5. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Bomarc · · Score: 0

      I'll stick with "alter":
      alter
      ôltr/
      verb
      change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.
      "Eliot was persuaded to alter the passage"
      synonyms: change, make changes to, make different, make alterations to, adjust, make adjustments to, adapt, amend, modify, revise, revamp, rework, redo, refine, vary, transform

      "Users were persuaded to alter their operating system/CPU"

    6. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      "alter-motive" isn't a word you idiot. You made it even worse by trying to pretend you aren't ignorant.

      You will now forever be known here as Bomarc the Moron.

    7. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      You probably get asked this a lot; but what do agencies created by Bush Jr and Truman have to do with Obama?

    8. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm half convinced that money is only part of what they're after. Windows 10 gives them more or less complete control over the computer; they can use your computer for whatever they want, and you have no say about it unless you yank the plug out of the wall or wipe the drive and install something else.

      It also means they can put anything they want on your computer or remove anything, and they can sell this ability to the US government (and/or the highest bidder) in exchange for continuing to turn a blind eye to MS's shenanigans.

      With Win10, using parallel construction to discredit/destroy/imprison government whistle-blowers, political/ideological enemies, or other "inconvenient people" is as easy as point-and-click. Ah, progress!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, once people have the Windows store all they do is click click click away buying apps left and right like app buying zombies. That's exactly what happens. You've got a feel for this man. Maybe run for Pres?

    10. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definition is one thing, but grammar is also important. A "verb-noun" compound like "watch-tower" means a tower for watching. A "motive for altering" is not what you're looking for.

    11. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Definition is one thing, but grammar is also important. A "verb-noun" compound like "watch-tower" means a tower for watching. A "motive for altering" is not what you're looking for.

      Uh, "watch-tower" is "noun-verb". It's when a watch is really big and towers over something, duh.

    12. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious tin foil hat time pal. You may want to install foil around your house too.

    13. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that is precisely what he is looking for. Microsoft has a motive to alter the code. Pray that they do not alter it further.

    14. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by mea2214 · · Score: 1

      you have no say about it unless you yank the plug out of the wall or wipe the drive and install something else.

      It doesn't have to be that drastic. Whitelist IP ranges you need on your Windows box at an external firewall. Do most all your browsing/networking in a VM. The Windows 10 side will never be able to phone home again. No telemetry, no forced updates, and you have reigned in the beast.

    15. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I've heard that, much like other malware, it's got umpteen ways to 'phone home', and it's like an endless game of whack-a-mole trying to keep it from doing so.

      No matter. Job forced (literally!) Win10 on my work computer, and I've 'sanitized' it as much as I possibly can, but I'm still on XP at home, and the Sandybridge system sitting on a phone book next to that has Linux Mint on it. Switch over as soon as I get the kinks worked out of it.

    16. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a solution until the day that Windows 10 updates with a new "always on" feature that requires windows to be able to open whatever ports and connect to any IP in the world in order to let you log in to your own damn PC. MS saw how successful Apple has been with the walled garden, the problem is they are building a damn prison, complete with the rubber hose and regular guard beatings...

      The other problem with your approach even now, is how many people using Windows will be able to set that up? The vast majority of windows users barely know how to install software on their PC let alone how to create a white-list of IPs and properly configure a firewall.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    17. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We won't know which "patch" M$ will 'break' to induce this problem.

      The keywords you are looking for here are: "Overall improvements to system stability."

      Any gamer will tell you what that means: Patches to fix the latest security exploit that allows code exec, with absolutely nothing else to justify the update beyond making the new version required for online.

      The fortunate fact for Windows 7 users is: MS lacks the hardware lockout that makes this a one way process with no other option. Secure Boot is an attempt at that, (and Windows 10 is more of the same), but it's not tightly integrated into most PCs. So you can roll back those "updates" manually or just "downgrade" by reinstalling Win 7 from it's install media and blacklisting the bad updates. Or you can install a different OS. There are options for Win 7 users.

      Of course this is not a permanent fix, but hopefully if the articles we've been getting about MS lately are any indication, MS is going to implode eventually. (Locking out your competition, and attempting to directly control a market, rent seeking, is nothing short of desperation.)

    18. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      Obviously, circumventing the decision MS made to dictate which cpu you can use with their OS is a grave security risk, and will be addressed in the monthly megapatch as soon as possible. From their point of view, moving to the new patching model was a good decision.

    19. Re: How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be watch-towerer?

    20. Re: How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I'll stick with "alter"

      Thank your ego for me; that was funny.

    21. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Serious tin foil hat time pal. You may want to install foil around your house too.

      I guess you missed the whole Snowden/NSA thing, and all the other revelations about US domestic spying/mass-data collection and analysis, "parallel construction", "Stingray" IMSI-catchers, etc etc, huh?

      Sorry AC, but now all but the most "fringe" people who used to be labeled tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-theorists regarding the lengths the US government has gone and is willing to go to monitor the domestic populace are now labeled "prescient" and are running around shouting "See!? I *told* you so!!"

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    22. Re: How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww, you posted as an AC to defend yourself, how adorable!

    23. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The bigger problem is: We won't know which "patch" M$ will 'break' to induce this problem.

      I thought we weren't going to be getting individual patches anymore anyway? They're rolled up into weekly or monthly packages now.

      A.K.A. riders A.K.A. how the legislature perverts the bill you wants to pass to force you to give them unrelated stuff they want

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    24. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't also out to get you.

      see below

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    25. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because it shows a windows store, you feel oblige to buy stuff??? Wow, talk about the REAL serious issues here

    26. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How obtuse do you have to be to think it's a good idea to copy your username into the body of your post. This is 2017, not 1994.

      Strat

    27. Re:How Long Until M$ deliberately breaks this... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How obtuse do you have to be to think it's a good idea to copy your username into the body of your post.

      You use this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Besides, I'm so old you're lucky I didn't sign it using hieroglyphs and sent it using RFC 2549.

      My lawn, off it you'll get!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  7. Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ONLY apps can app apps! Anyone who installs this LUDDITE patch instead of apping appy Appdows 10 Cloud is a filthy LUDDITE!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secconker, this whole 'apps' riff of yours is SO Last Thursday, either up your game or STFU and GTFO.

    2. Re:Found the LUDDITE! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Sorry duder. You got my name wrong and you're accusing the wrong person. I'm not the apps!/ LUDDITE guy (though I do respect his work).

      In fact, I don't post as AC to troll/spam at all. I've also been falsely accused of being the moo! guy because I posted it on some stories that hadn't been hit by it yet, and people assumed I was the original troll and had forgotten to post as AC. Nope.

      In closing: Happy Tuesday from the Golden Girls!

    3. Re:Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read every word of that in the Space Core's voice.

    4. Re:Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the moo cow guy. Don't try to deny it. You got busted posting it red handed when you forgot to tick post anonymously once.

    5. Re:Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also been falsely accused of being the moo! guy because I posted it on some stories that hadn't been hit by it yet, and people assumed I was the original troll and had forgotten to post as AC. Nope.

      Cool story, bro!

  8. Moving to Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After using Windows since 3.1 I can't stand it anymore and I think Apple is just as bad. My move to Linux has already started and I have to say it's really easy. Still playing around with Ubuntu and Mint but I either one seems fine for now.

    1. Re:Moving to Linux by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Because systemd is completely trouble free and not a huge pile of shit just waiting for the right fan.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Moving to Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately there are still a few sysV init Linux distros around. There's also the BSDs.

    3. Re:Moving to Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To avoid systemd, I'm taking my time, building a Funtoo kernel image based on OpenRC (which Gentoo/Funtoo officially supports); with all the right chipset and graphics drivers to use on my various systems, which I can then clone to each as I require them. With VirtualBox I can have a token Win7 VM for when I need it. It's Linux from now on.. any new systems will need to have demonstrated stable Linux support before I buy them.

    4. Re:Moving to Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because systemd is completely trouble free and not a huge pile of shit just waiting for the right fan.

      Meh. Works just fine for most of us. Didn't even notice I had it until I wanted to look at the bootlog (for intertest, not problem resolution) and had to spend *at least 5 seconds* googling the syntax (journalctl -b0 SYSLOG_PID=1) to show INIT process messages from the last boot. Ooo, that was scary!

    5. Re:Moving to Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife knows nothing about systemd, neither do my daughters. They've never been happier installing Mint, since Windows 10 came out. They love that they aren't forced to reboot every other day. Systemd means nothing to an end user. They don't manage the services running. They don't care about the services running. As long as their internet works, their bluetooth works, their wi-fi works(*Windows 10 would always shut off my wife's wi-fi, if she didn't reboot for an forced update.) They don't care what's under the hood.

    6. Re:Moving to Linux by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Meh. Works just fine for most of us.

      Until it doesn't, and you find out you can't read the logs to figure out why.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  9. XT compatible by ReneR · · Score: 1

    It is so ridiculous. We have this overly complex and backward compatible x86 ISA that still runs all 8086 (https://t2-project.org/architectures/x86/) real mode crap, probably DOS 1.0 and Windows 1, and M$ artificially limits booting based on a switch(cupid) or so, ... What a stupid world.

  10. Why Update? by rewardian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most Windows Updates involve rarely utilized components that are exploitable only if not protected through other measures (specifically firewalls). I haven't seen anything come down the pipe that increased performance.

    I hope to not require Windows in the future but Windows Update is disabled on my Win7 machine and everything's in its right place.

  11. Thanks, but no thanks by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Thanks for thinking of people who won't run Windows > 7, but no thanks. I've got enough machine to run the Windows software I've got now, and except for very cheap games (of the sort which have already been released now, or older) I'm unlikely to ever give a crap again.

    The next machine I build with a more advanced architecture than this FX-8350 will just have to run Linux.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Thanks, but no thanks by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Windows 10, M$'s 'a bridge to far'(or would that be a probe to far). What is mind boggling, they can see the reaction but the still emphatically push it (phone sales or the extreme lack there of), in a giant fuck you to their customers. When they push it that hard, it starts to look extremely nefarious, when establishment governments remain silent about those levels of consumer abuse, it looks even worse.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  12. I need the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have a patch that makes my computer look like a Ryzen?
    It might be the only reliable way to disable Microsoft sponsored malware.

  13. 10 can be 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can fix up windows 10 to remove all telemetry and cruft. But then... drum-roll please... the updates don't install.

  14. or phones or the internet or cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows is like taxes. You don't like it and someone else makes you do it anyway. Adobe Suite, Cad software, specialized programs... they are a thing.

    1. Re:or phones or the internet or cars by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Troll

      No one's forcing you to use those things. And you're free to complain loudly to those other vendors too. If everyone refused to buy from those vendors until they supported another OS they liked better, then those vendors would make software versions for OSes other than Windows. So, in short, you (plural, meaning all of you who buy from those vendors) have done this to yourselves. I have no sympathy.

  15. We'll see by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not doing this unless it can screw up my windows 7 installs with the same Microsoft quality updates that bitch up my Windows 10 installs.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  16. You aren't paying attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They broke XT/AT compatibility somewhere between '06 and '09 on both AMD and Intel. The breakage happened with the floppy controller, ISA interrupt controller, and something else.

    Point being: Backwards compatibility older than Vista has been broken for almost 10 years now for ACTUAL legacy OSes (userspace may be different), and many other bigs have been broken on processors in the past 5 years, in regards to TLB operation and other bits and pieces needed for 16/32 bit compatibility to still operate correctly. You plebs just haven't noticed because you're on the upgrade treadmill and never bother to try old software with new hardware (or vice versa!)

    1. Re:You aren't paying attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point being: Backwards compatibility older than Vista has been broken for almost 10 years now

      A Ivy Bridge EP happily running Win2k here disagrees.

  17. Found the Microsoft shill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, Windows 7 won't be "unstable" on Skylake / Kaby Lake / Ryzen. The only reason MS is pushing this is because they want that juicy 30% cut of garbage apps on the Windows 10 Store.

    1. Re:Found the Microsoft shill! by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      You say this, but let's share your credentials for kernel development.

    2. Re:Found the Microsoft shill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need any support for a new x86 processor. They are by design backwards compatible.
      The old software won't use any of the new instructions of the cpu but the old ones are still there and working fine.

      The chipset, various controllers, gpu, yes that will only run in it's fallback mode or not at all if there is no driver. But those have been traditionally supplied by their manufacturers.

      One point is maybe that they don't want to risk accidentally making some new kaby lake feature like that uhd drm stuff work on windows 7 because some code for that slipped in in a bugfix backport.

  18. If you didn't want corporations to win ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you shouldn't have voted for Trump. On the whole, liberals are more compatible with liberty than conservatives.

    Recent changes re: privacy can easily be extended to warranties and anything else that benefits consumers. States' rights certainly don't matter. Look at Sessions's comments on marijuana, for example.

  19. The solution is simpler than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of downloading this patch that allows Misrosoft to continue to install their shitware crippleOS on your computer, why not point your browser, if you even have one on your computer that WORKS, at a website from which you can download a REAL operating system, such as www.linuxmint.org, where you can get a copy of GNU/Linux with either MATE, or Cinnamon, (desktop environments, one of which is a fork of the venerable old Gnome, before they ruined it,) and the other is similar, but still a bit of a twist? GNU/Linux has a feature set that is UNMATCHED by any of the garbage from Redmond, Washington's worst blight to hit the planet Earth.

    For example: GNU/Linux can run on more different hardware! It takes far less of your system resources to do THE SAME EXACT JOB, since it doesn't have to consume a lot of processor time decrypting itself, which is an anti-piracy measure, by the way, which means when you run a piece of shitware from the miserable shits at Misroshit, you are letting them use memory and processor clock-cycles on YOUR computer, to pad THEIR bottom line, which just like the shitware itself, COSTS YOU MONEY. Further, just like when MiscreantSoft forces you to pay OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN for what is essentially the same malware delivery platform masquerading as an "operating system," (hahaha,) all the extra time and electricity you have to sacrifice just to help FuckroSoft pad their owners' bank accounts ALSO costs you money. Forcing you into "upgrading" a perfectly good computer because your current, again, perfectly good computer, which you ALREADY spent money on, can't run the newest turd to be squeezed through their corporate sphincters, Windows FU, or whatever they called the latest abomination, COSTS YOU MORE MONEY. Having to relearn their stupid shitty "operating system," (hahaha) every time they decide to fucking rearrange everything, and hide shit, COSTS YOU MORE TIME, which for many people means MONEY. GNU/Linux has the power to do whatever MicroPenisCo's software can do, BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER, and does it WITHOUT spamming you with ADS!

    'Linux,' (as it's commonly known, though that only actually refers to the kernel,) has, yes, a bit of a learning curve, like any UNIX or UNIX-like operating system, but here's another crucial difference. "Windows," (which was FAR from the first goddamned graphical user interface, or "GUI,") started out as a GUI slapped on top of a pile of shitware called, "DOS," which started off as "QDOS," from (IMS,) SeattleSoft, which stood for "quick and dirty operating system," which was a stripped-down, handicapped, short-bus-riding version of CP/M, which in turn was a retarded, low memory, low bandwidth, low capability, (etc., etc., etc.,) alternative to... UNIX, which those early computers weren't capable of running. Every version of DOS, and later Win/DOS, and then WinNT, and all the wet, sloppy turds that followed, like a river of diarrhea out of Redmond, shittiest town in Washington State, (because of MisroFuck, I'm sure it's a lovely place otherwise, but they have to take SOME responsibility for the Frankensteinian monster that grew there, don't they?) had to be compatible with previous versions, which meant more and more bloat. This required more processor and memory power (and hard drive space!) required to do the same thing, trapping poor, unfortunate users into an endless cycle of upgrading software, then hardware, then software, then hardware again, mostly just to get the same shit done, and of course paying over and over again every time the old version of the application software (the programs people use that are the whole POINT of owning a computer in the first place,) gets updated to run on the new pile of pigshit from FuckYouSoft, which again, costs even MORE money.

    Ever find yourself wondering what Bill Goddamned Fucking Asshole Pile of Thieving Shit Gates, The Turd, DID to EARN close to a tenth of a TRILLION dollars as his personal fortune, to say nothing of the ill-gotten gains that found their way into a lot of other shiftl

  20. Professional Delivery of Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both have equal track record of screwing things up.

    What!! Ha! That's deeply offensive to Microsoft! Microsoft is professional at delivering evil. Random dudes are not nearly as good. What random dude could do this: Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made.

    "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."

  21. Don't break the EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is obviously highly illegal. I hope Microsoft sues.

    1. Re:Don't break the EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm... yeah not likely going to happen. And MS has got one class action over the force win 10 updates. Why not two.

    2. Re:Don't break the EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide proof. What would be the claim for Microsoft's lawsuit? Keep in mind, all those Win[insert version] tweak sites would be liable as well. Please provide reliable proof for your accusations.

  22. Sandbox it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have an install of Win8 on my laptop in case I have to run something that can't execute in wine.
    But my virtualbox VM is also isolated from the 'net with a virtual unplugged cable and boots from an image which I regularly remake from the install I archived years ago.
    The only Issue I have is that latest Directx drivers do not support the virtualbox virtual video to GLX adapter driver, but that is just for gaming in my experience.

  23. Patch? Crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other circles this is called a "crack", not a "patch".

    1. Re:Patch? Crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, on terminology. "Patch" is less nefarious.

  24. Shouldn't be a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually bypassing the blocker Windows update is the easy part. But this doesn't address CPU's not getting support drivers to take advantage of all features the CPU has. While I think Microsoft made the wrong choice in blocking these CPU's in the first place on Win 7 and 8,1. I do think people fail to understand that just because you can make these new CPU's work. Doesn't mean they work as designed.

  25. Get rid of MS Windows by creepysir · · Score: 1

    Well, Micro$oft uses such nasty way to force us to upgrade to Windows 10, I think it is the high time to get rid of M$ Windows, and Linux is a good alternative.

  26. Re:I'm sorry but this is a bad idea by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to use Windows 10, there are always alternatives.

    Yes. The best being Windows 7. The second best being Windows XP if your motherboard and other hardware has drivers for it. If you meant Linux well surely you were already dual booting that. The only point of running Windows is for software that does not have a viable Linux equivalent and there are lots unfortunately.

    Microsoft has been evil and inept for a long time, but they are reaching new levels of both pure evil and ineptitude with Windows 10. I won't downgrade to that piece of shit while I am still breathing. It is unfortunate that Microsoft wants to penalize me for using their own software just because it isn't their newest and shiniest version. Well it would be their newest and shiniest version if they weren't such stupid incompetent and evil fuckwits who make their software worse with every version instead of better. I am hoping that sanity will eventually prevail over there at Retard Central and eventually a XP or Windows 7 equivalent will be released at some point, but I fear that this may be the time when those cunts never return from their journey into Retardoland. A massive software company entirely run by and for sociopaths with Downs syndrome. Fuck you Microsoft. I will wait for some version of Windows that at least tries to serve the needs of the user rather than be some uber-cynical money grab.

    Really the lack of updates isn't a major problem anyway. You should really be doing whatever you can with Linux or OS X if you care so much about security. For software you need to run that is Windows only just keep using 7 (or 8 I guess) until defeated by a lack of drivers. Drivers, particularly motherboard chipset drivers, are the real problem and Microsoft has colluded with Intel and possibly even AMD to try to prevent hardware manufacturers from writing drivers that support Windows 7. This is despite the fact that Windows 7 support does not end until 2020 three long years from now. So there is no excuse except that Microsoft thinks they will make more money this way.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  27. Re:I'm sorry but this is a bad idea by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has deprecated old versions of Windows on this hardware for a reason

    Yes and we all know what that reason is. No one wants to run Windows 10. Almost everyone hates it. Probably has something to do with the fact that it is very badly designed malware disguised as an OS, but who knows. For whatever reason it is the new Windows ME. The difference is this time Microsoft wants to try to force people to use it and apparently are willing to spend millions of dollars to try to make that happen. I mean fuck they can't even give it away for free. How are they ever going to get end users to pay for their steaming pile of shite? They could have tried this with ME too but I guess the management at the time were not as cynical or evil as they are now. I can't think of a company off hand with as much contempt for their own customers as Microsoft.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  28. Is this a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure this is a TOS violation. Is it it criminal? To patch it? To download it? To make it? To talk about it? To think about me? Thought-crime is so insidious.

  29. Re:THIS IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ Exactly, running Windows any version, is CPU abuse. Stop the abuse, NOW!

  30. And yet...... by BellyJelly · · Score: 1

    I bet FreeDOS and ReactOS will run just fine.

  31. Ummm. What happens when... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    What happens when an update that works only on newer CPUs is run on a Zeffy-hacked Win 7 system?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  32. Why is no one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A stupid and basic question - Why is no one suing Microsoft for changes after purchase (I bought it, now you won't update my chip) AND outright information Theft.?