|
The Lord Bude posted:The point according to the article is that they are going to explicitly stop providing updates, including most security updates to people with newer CPUs even if the operating system is still within its support period. There is exactly one Windows version still in its mainstream support period (the period where they do more than just critical patches) by the time the announcement takes effect, and that's 8.1, and 8.1 is already in a weird curtailed place for support. In effect, absolutely nothing will change.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:The point according to the article is that they are going to explicitly stop providing updates, including most security updates to people with newer CPUs even if the operating system is still within its support period. According to the article they will still receive critical security updates. Windows 7 is not going to get many new features anyway. quote:After July 2017, the most critical Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 security updates will be addressed for these 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. via Windows Blogs
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is exactly one Windows version still in its mainstream support period (the period where they do more than just critical patches) by the time the announcement takes effect, and that's 8.1, and 8.1 is already in a weird curtailed place for support. In effect, absolutely nothing will change. They're not committing to continue with critical security patches either - that is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
dissss posted:They're not committing to continue with critical security patches either - that is the problem. They are though. They explicitly said nothing but critical security patches!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
That 'if' qualifier is important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
dissss posted:That 'if' qualifier is important. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm not sure what you think you're talking about. I assume this: quote:After July 2017, the most critical Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 security updates will be addressed for these 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. via Windows Blogs
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:I assume this: That's the sort of boilerplate you see a lot. It's hard to imagine a way you could actually patch a security flaw that runs correctly on CPU X and causes problems on CPUs Y, Q and E that were around 10 years ago or whatever. And then to further have it so that you did patch the security flaw on CPUs Y, Q and E and the patch doesn't work on new CPU X.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Regardless Microsoft is giving themselves an out
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
dissss posted:Regardless Microsoft is giving themselves an out It's the same out they've had since forever. Nothing's changing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It's the same out they've had since forever. Nothing's changing. It isn't though - this is the first time they've said something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
dissss posted:It isn't though - this is the first time they've said something like this. They've always had provisions that fixes won't happen if they'll break things on more computers than they fix on - basic cover-your-rear end lawyertalk. They've always dropped everything but critical security patches for older operating systems after a certain point - and incidentally by the time this announcement takes effect, everything but Windows 8.1 will have had all other updates beyond critical security long canceled. Essentially, what they've done is to revise the time that Windows 8.1 will be fully supported (i.e. Mainstream Support in Microsoft lingo) from the original plan of January 9, 2018 to August 1, 2017. Between August 1, 2017 and January 9, 2018 there might be a really weird bug that won't be fixed in 8.1 on some processors, but it owuldn't have been fixed anyway after January 9, 2018 under the original lifecycle plan. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
No one gives a drat about mainstream support (or Windows 8.1 for that matter), the important bit is extended support end for Windows 7 which has essentially been pushed back two years for new hardware. This is not the usual 'basic cover-your-rear end lawyertalk' at all - it is an attempt to get more corporate customers onto 10
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
you'd think there would be a nonzero amount of money in up-porting software drivers for scientific equipment that requires the use of operating systems whose extended support period has passed 10 years ago do the people that designed those things all commit ritual suicide or something? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
dissss posted:No one gives a drat about mainstream support (or Windows 8.1 for that matter), the important bit is extended support end for Windows 7 which has essentially been pushed back two years for new hardware. It has not been pushed back, what don't you get here? Microsoft is sticking to the same schedule for Windows 7 updates they always have! Mainstream support is already over, it's already on critical security patches only, and they already avoid releasing patches that only work on certain CPUs and not others. The only OS that actually has a change is 8.1,which very few corporate customers or any customers in general are on. And it really only scoots up the end of mainstream support by 6 months or so. Anime Schoolgirl posted:you'd think there would be a nonzero amount of money in up-porting software drivers for scientific equipment that requires the use of operating systems whose extended support period has passed 10 years ago With scientific hardware, the problem is usually lack of drivers for some ancient but important piece of hardware, rather than the regular software.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:you'd think there would be a nonzero amount of money in up-porting software drivers for scientific equipment that requires the use of operating systems whose extended support period has passed 10 years ago They'd rather get even more money for selling you a new million-dollar piece of hardware with drivers that OS authors time-bomb for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:you'd think there would be a nonzero amount of money in up-porting software drivers for scientific equipment that requires the use of operating systems whose extended support period has passed 10 years ago No one ever updates EOL mission-critical systems. You just come up with ghetto ways to interface them with modern systems and then firewall the gently caress out of them to make sure their 500 known vulnerabilities are never exposed to the world at large. It's cheaper that way, you see  You can literally buy LGA1150 motherboards with ISA slots (introduced 1981) on them, and that's the entire reason why. Sometimes people don't even go as far as updating the socket/processor, because they're illogically afraid of processor incompatibility. They just buy ancient hardware on eBay and run it until it dies. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Mainstream support is already over, it's already on critical security patches only, and they already avoid releasing patches that only work on certain CPUs and not others. They haven't explicitly said this before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
dissss posted:They haven't explicitly said this before. They've also never explicitly said "oh yeah we'll support any CPU that comes out for any OS we have". And as things turns out, they haven't done so, even without saying so. So I have no idea why you think they ever did, which is what would be required for this to change anything besides the one thing it does change: moving up the timeline that Windows 8.1 becomes minimally supported by about 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
If nothing has changed then what exactly does the last bullet point mean?quote:
If it means nothing (as you say) then why include it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
dissss posted:If nothing has changed then what exactly does the last bullet point mean? It means that even if a security patch is desperately needed, if making it work on Skylake/HBM makes it not work on older chips, it's going to be made for the older chips and in Microsoft's collective mind you deserve what you get for not pushing your Skylake/HBM box to 10 already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:It means that even if a security patch is desperately needed, if making it work on Skylake/HBM makes it not work on older chips, it's going to be made for the older chips and in Microsoft's collective mind you deserve what you get for not pushing your Skylake/HBM box to 10 already. Exactly, this is a new thing not business as usual as fishmech suggested
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
What most companies need is just a swift kick, then they might be draggable into the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
dissss posted:Exactly, this is a new thing not business as usual as fishmech suggested This is not a new thing. They've never ever guaranteed patches will work on all generations of CPUs! Why aren't you getting this? All they've done is made explicit a policy they already had. The only time they guarantee such things are for companies who sign massively expensive support contracts, where Microsoft will set aside workers just to backport relevant patches from supported operating systems and work on unique patches for problems only in old and otherwise unsupported OSes. And that's not taken away by this announcement either. Sir Unimaginative posted:It means that even if a security patch is desperately needed, if making it work on Skylake/HBM makes it not work on older chips, it's going to be made for the older chips and in Microsoft's collective mind you deserve what you get for not pushing your Skylake/HBM box to 10 already. And I'll note that it seems extremely unlikely that any such patch would ever exist, because the processors simply haven't changed that much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is not a new thing. They've never ever guaranteed patches will work on all generations of CPUs! Why aren't you getting this? All they've done is made explicit a policy they already had. It's you that isn't getting it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
dissss posted:It's you that isn't getting it. Show where they ever in the past declared they would support all CPUs released until the extended support period ends then. This should be easy if they were making a real change besides moving up the end of mainstream support for 8.1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Show where they ever in the past declared they would support all CPUs released until the extended support period ends then. Show me where they've ever said otherwise Fact is Microsoft said you should move off 7 early if you're on a Skylake system
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
dissss posted:Show me where they've ever said otherwise Neither XP nor Vista got AVX and XOP support despite XP being in extended support and Vista being in mainstream support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
dissss posted:Fact is Microsoft said you should move off 7 early if you're on a Skylake system This is true regardless of your CPU and chipset, especially for consumers. I started at my last job at the first of year in 2014. They were STILL an XP / Novell shop and planning a desktop migration for 2015 to WIndows 7. I was adamant going to Windows 8.1 Update 1 instead because 7 went out of mainstream support in 1/13/2015 so they'd be moving from one dead system to a dying one. Since I had just migrated the company to Office 365, we already had challenges with the versions of Outlook working properly on XP (2010 barely worked and was the last supported version), and through a lot of convincing, I finally got my wish because MS only supports the 2 most recent versions of desktop office for O365. Other things like SSL/TLS security features won't be updated outside of mainstream support, and will cause serious issues down the road. I work for a web service company and we are on the threshold of cutting off XP support simply for the reason that it won't support the certificate levels necessary to be PCI compliant anymore, and there is nothing we can do about that other than encourage our customers to upgrade their computers, or use the mobile app because the risk of keeping the old certificates is too great. The point to all of this is that we will NEVER see an OS have a viable life like XP ever again because it was a victim of circumstance. The world has moved to annual and rolling updates, so you need to get with the program or be left behind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:The point to all of this is that we will NEVER see an OS have a viable life like XP ever again because it was a victim of circumstance. The world has moved to annual and rolling updates, so you need to get with the program or be left behind. What do you mean by this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What do you mean by this? Microsoft dun hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What do you mean by this? Basically MS made it clear that (I think) starting with Vista/7, they were going to be more aggressive about rolling updates and releasing new OS versions. We won't see anything like in the 95/98/XP days where an OS is supported for a decade or more and can handle whatever hardware or software happens to be new and exciting at the time. I mean if you think about it, MS has released 3 major OS revisions since July 2009 when Windows 7 first came out, versus when XP came out in 2001 and the next OS was Vista in 2007. I'm still in the same boat as others wondering what exactly has changed so much that MS made this decision? Is it a hardware thing? Stuff like XP came out and worked through several processor, chipset and memory configurations, is it just too difficult for them to code patches for newer tech or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
dissss posted:Show me where they've ever said otherwise Uh, dude, you need to show where they said otherwise, to show that what they're doing is changing things. Windows 7 is already in extended support and has been since January 2015. That means it already only gets critical security patches, so the announcement changed nothing for Windows 7. And it's hardly "early" to move off Windows 7, 8 years after it came out, when the new directive takes effect! Ozz81 posted:Basically MS made it clear that (I think) starting with Vista/7, they were going to be more aggressive about rolling updates and releasing new OS versions. We won't see anything like in the 95/98/XP days where an OS is supported for a decade or more and can handle whatever hardware or software happens to be new and exciting at the time. I mean if you think about it, MS has released 3 major OS revisions since July 2009 when Windows 7 first came out, versus when XP came out in 2001 and the next OS was Vista in 2007. Do keep in mind that XP was never meant to last that long. Microsoft originally wanted Vista to come out in 2004, when XP SP2 came out in actuality. But they kinda hosed up their process for Vista and had to pull a bunch of people off of Vista to work on all the changes needed to patch XP SP0/SP1's many security issues. Also XP didn't exactly handle new hardware that well. 32 bit XP obviously couldn't handle 64 bit processors or a lot of RAM. And 64 bit x86-64 XP was a rushjob based off of the Windows Server 2003 SP1 64 bit release, and limited compatibility with many things. Remember that Microsoft's original plan for 64 bit XP for the non-server market was Itanium processors  Microsoft had a fairly steady 2 to 3 year release cycle before XP for consumer-facing OSes: 1985 Windows 1.0 1987 Windows 2.0 1990 Windows 3.0 1992 Windows 3.1 1995 Windows 95 1998 Windows 98 2000 Windows ME (though that was a stop-gap) 2001 Windows XP And then: 2006 Windows Vista 2009 Windows 7 2012 Windows 8 2015 Windows 10 Also for what changed? Nothing changed. They have never promised full support for every CPU that happens to be released before they cut off all updates to an OS, unless you had a hefty millions of dollars contract with them to explicitly support it! Really the only OS that's meaningfully affected by this is 8.1 due to having its period of mainstream support shortened by 6 months, effectively. But even that would rely on the weird circumstance of a routine patch for earlier processors for some reason not running on newer ones, which would be pretty unprecedented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Ozz81 posted:Basically MS made it clear that (I think) starting with Vista/7, they were going to be more aggressive about rolling updates and releasing new OS versions. We won't see anything like in the 95/98/XP days where an OS is supported for a decade or more and can handle whatever hardware or software happens to be new and exciting at the time. I mean if you think about it, MS has released 3 major OS revisions since July 2009 when Windows 7 first came out, versus when XP came out in 2001 and the next OS was Vista in 2007.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:What do you mean by this? The road to Vista was long and hard. With Vista SP1 though, it was a really good OS on good hardware. Problem was that Intel kinda forced Microsoft to lower the minimum requirements for Vista which gave a lovely experience to practically everyone who bought a lower end computer. Couple that with the majority of BSOD's in the first year or so of Vista release was due to graphics drivers as AMD and Nvidia were getting their poo poo together with the new graphics and driver layers. Printer and sound drivers were also an issue, and a lot of printers never got updated drivers. Windows 7 is for all intents and purposes Vista SP2 with a different name because it was so toxic that people thought it was suck without ever using the OS. MS even ran ads about the "Mojave Experiment" proving that people were predisposed to hate Vista on name alone
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
also the unfolding shell menu from windows 95 is iconic to Windows at this point despite how marketing insisted it's solely for "power users" and the several attempts made to try to kill/neuter it and imitate osx (very poorly) are nothing short of hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
So about amd... Looks like if they can get Polaris out and have a combined push with zen for say a cheaper but competitive platform they can regain market and profit share A combo zen Polaris apu with hbm2 onboard could make for an excellent mini itx box or even smaller with a m2 ssd and outboard psu
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
bonus if you can get the HBM2 recognized and used as system ram in any OS at all then we're cooking with live ammunition
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Uh, dude, you need to show where they said otherwise, to show that what they're doing is changing things. They're abandoning their commitment to even that where new architectures are concerned. Doesn't mean they're directly spiting environments involving new architectures and old versions of Windows, but if it's just a new architecture issue, or if fixing the new architecture issue means compromising the OS for old architectures, upgrade or deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 16, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:They're abandoning their commitment to even that where new architectures are concerned. Doesn't mean they're directly spiting environments involving new architectures and old versions of Windows, but if it's just a new architecture issue, or if fixing the new architecture issue means compromising the OS for old architectures, upgrade or deal with it. The thing is, again, they've never explicitly supported all future CPUs during the period updates are available in Windows in the past. All they're doing is making their existing policy clearer. Like again, there's all sorts of stuff that's barely supported in XP when it got up to around 2009/2010, which would be a similar time period for Windows 7 when this stuff goes into place in 2017.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:52
|
|