I think of this like sticking with RHEL 5 (still supported/updated but barely) and expecting to have full support for modern hardware--don't count on it, and don't expect it to work forever.
I'm no expert if CPU internals (only the general architecture) and I'm puzzled. Maybe somebody can help to understand this issue.
Assuming that the instruction set is backward compatible as always has been, how's possible that an older Windows doesn't work with those new CPUs? Timing issues, assumptions on behaviors of the CPU that won't be true anymore, other?
Other popular OSes running on those CPUs (OSX, Linux) will stop running properly and need a special build or CPU detection and per CPU paths?
Misleading headline; MSFT simply isn't going to continue any development on previous releases and won't support their use on new hardware platforms. Doesn't mean they won't stop working, just that Redmond won't do anything about incompatibilities.
I believe the problem isn't the CPU itself, but drivers for the rest of the platform. Windows 7 doesn't have support for USB 3, I2C, secure boot, I2S audio, and lots of other new technologies. Keeping drivers and BIOS maintained (for what is likely a small number of users) is the problem.
That's correct however in the past Microsoft has taken upon themselves to write Bluetooth, USB, and other drivers because what was out there was crap. They're not going to do this for new hardware, they're just going to say "that's unsupported please upgrade or contact your OEM for the necessary drivers."
> Assuming that the instruction set is backward compatible as always has been, how's possible that an older Windows doesn't work with those new CPUs?
That's easy to answer -- because of the increasing interdependence between hardware and software, because of the tightly interwoven nature of the overall desktop/laptop experience, and because of the skill level of the average computer user, everything has to work almost perfectly in order to work at all.
There's also the security issue. So many black-hat hackers are attacking Windows now that a version that's no longer updated and maintained, quickly becomes a playground for criminals instead of a platform for users.
Someone else has mentioned the conspicuous-consumption angle, and I agree -- a computing device that's five years old is approaching end-of-life, no longer able to offer meaningful services for multiple reasons, not least of which is a manufacturer's eagerness to sell you something newer.
Does anyone else find the trend of accelerating forced obolescence very unpleasant? With recent hardware only getting more locked-down and user-hostile (often in the name of "security"), and hardware from the last few years being more than sufficient for most uses, I can see the impetus to upgrade has decreased significantly. Windows XP was supported by MS for a long time, and even after that, is still in quite widespread use today. I suspect 7 will last even longer, as it's effectively the last version of Windows that is still relatively featureful and not a "service".
A lot of users don't care about "latest and greatest" --- they just want to keep doing what they were, with what they have. Lack of support from MS doesn't matter, as the community will form its own to provide unofficial fixes for various things that don't work (and a lot of other things will keep working.) Windows 9x, many years unsupported by MS, still has quite a lively community:
Offering 5 years of support seems to be the new standard and has been largely the trend outside of Microsoft for the last 10-15 years with the Linux Kernel being one of the few exceptions. Distros like Ubuntu have LTS versions that are supported for 5 years or less. Apple updates OSX annually and only supports back 5 versions or less. Windows XP is almost 15 years old and it was a burden for Microsoft to support it.
Support for legacy software doesn't include back porting of new features or taking advantage of new hardware. So having a large % of users on legacy systems will effectively hold back the industry.
Microsoft is trying to avoid this by putting more realistic support terms in place. They aren't saying legacy software won't run on new systems, just that they won't support it.
So having a large % of users on legacy systems will effectively hold back the industry.
I have a feeling that's what everyone outside "the industry" wants --- while they're paying for newer hardware and software, the actual benefit of each new upgrade is diminishing (especially when features users have relied on are being removed.) More people are realising this and stepping off the upgrade treadmill. Hence the aggressive deprecation and built-in obolescence strategies companies are employing.
Current OS X runs on Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros from 2007. For a five year old 2011 model, the only likely disadvantages are a lack of Retina display, and probably the lack of an SSD unless upgraded.
I'm pretty sure Apple hasn't make any computers obsolete since the release of 10.8 in 2013, when they stopped support for many earlier GPUs. If you were using Ubuntu or Mint on a Core 2 Duo you would have careful choice between Gnome, Cinnamon, MATE, too because of the graphics. I'm also pretty sure that 10.7 is still getting security updates, which would make it like 2012 LTS.
This is click bait. Old versions of Windows will work just fine, they simply just won't be optimized for the new architecture features.
Enterprise customers are the ones who will be affected the most. It sounds like Microsoft is saying that they won't provide support for issues if you're running an old architecture. Regular users really won't be affected by this at all.
Nothing will make me go to windows 10. I wholeheartedly disagree with the business model behind it, and the only reason I'm on windows is for games; but linux has a lot on it now, so the reasoning is going away. I paid for a windows 7 license, i'm going to ride it for as long as I can, which will be at least a few years. After that, I'll jump to linux for gaming, and by then the state of gaming on Linux will have gotten even better.
Except Microsoft don't make processors, or have the clout to tell Intel what to do, so how the heck would they swing that? Might as well speculate on "if Microsoft made Linux illegal".
They've already made installing Linux as inconvenient as they can arrange without attracting another anti-trust suit, through the use of "Secure Boot".
From the blog article: "After July 2017, the most critical Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 security updates will be addressed for these [Skylake] configurations, and will be released if the update does not risk the reliability or compatibility of the Windows 7/8.1 platform on other devices." I think this only refers to driver updates and the like, right?
It's actually just the reverse of what the title makes you think.
1) Windows 7&8 will work on new processors, just like windows XP and 1.0 will. They just won't be updated to use, say, a new instruction set.
2) Windows 10 will in fact get these updates.
3) This won't apply to enterprise customers for 18 months
The article does NOT say:
That future intel processors will only run windows, or only windows 10, or anything remotely of that nature. This is microsoft doing something, not intel and/or AMD.
26 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 66.1 ms ] threadAssuming that the instruction set is backward compatible as always has been, how's possible that an older Windows doesn't work with those new CPUs? Timing issues, assumptions on behaviors of the CPU that won't be true anymore, other?
Other popular OSes running on those CPUs (OSX, Linux) will stop running properly and need a special build or CPU detection and per CPU paths?
That's easy to answer -- because of the increasing interdependence between hardware and software, because of the tightly interwoven nature of the overall desktop/laptop experience, and because of the skill level of the average computer user, everything has to work almost perfectly in order to work at all.
There's also the security issue. So many black-hat hackers are attacking Windows now that a version that's no longer updated and maintained, quickly becomes a playground for criminals instead of a platform for users.
Someone else has mentioned the conspicuous-consumption angle, and I agree -- a computing device that's five years old is approaching end-of-life, no longer able to offer meaningful services for multiple reasons, not least of which is a manufacturer's eagerness to sell you something newer.
A lot of users don't care about "latest and greatest" --- they just want to keep doing what they were, with what they have. Lack of support from MS doesn't matter, as the community will form its own to provide unofficial fixes for various things that don't work (and a lot of other things will keep working.) Windows 9x, many years unsupported by MS, still has quite a lively community:
http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/8-windows-9x-me/
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/
(There are also surprisingly many videos on YouTube of new hardware running old software.)
XP too:
http://www.msfn.org/board/forum/34-windows-xp/
Support for legacy software doesn't include back porting of new features or taking advantage of new hardware. So having a large % of users on legacy systems will effectively hold back the industry.
Microsoft is trying to avoid this by putting more realistic support terms in place. They aren't saying legacy software won't run on new systems, just that they won't support it.
I have a feeling that's what everyone outside "the industry" wants --- while they're paying for newer hardware and software, the actual benefit of each new upgrade is diminishing (especially when features users have relied on are being removed.) More people are realising this and stepping off the upgrade treadmill. Hence the aggressive deprecation and built-in obolescence strategies companies are employing.
I'm pretty sure Apple hasn't make any computers obsolete since the release of 10.8 in 2013, when they stopped support for many earlier GPUs. If you were using Ubuntu or Mint on a Core 2 Duo you would have careful choice between Gnome, Cinnamon, MATE, too because of the graphics. I'm also pretty sure that 10.7 is still getting security updates, which would make it like 2012 LTS.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10074484
Enterprise customers are the ones who will be affected the most. It sounds like Microsoft is saying that they won't provide support for issues if you're running an old architecture. Regular users really won't be affected by this at all.
They've already made installing Linux as inconvenient as they can arrange without attracting another anti-trust suit, through the use of "Secure Boot".
WTF?! They're using some sort of hardware DRM lockdown to kill Linux, FreeBSD, etc? The nerve!
Oh wait, that's not what it said. It said windows 7/8 wouldn't be supported. Stupid link bait title.
1) Windows 7&8 will work on new processors, just like windows XP and 1.0 will. They just won't be updated to use, say, a new instruction set.
2) Windows 10 will in fact get these updates.
3) This won't apply to enterprise customers for 18 months
The article does NOT say:
That future intel processors will only run windows, or only windows 10, or anything remotely of that nature. This is microsoft doing something, not intel and/or AMD.
2. Linux is not Windows 10.
3. Therefore, new processors will not work with Linux. QED.
Except that is incorrect.
(Besides the fact that the processors with work with 7/8 too.)