Latest Intel, AMD chips won't support Windows versions earlier than Windows 10

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/02/windows_intel_kaby_lake_amd_zen/

by infodroid • 10 years ago

180 210 10 years ago

theregister.co.uk

jcbeard• 10 years ago

Slightly mis-leading headline....bug it's direct from the register. tldr; the headline should read "Windows 10 is the only Windows OS that will support latest processors." Guess MS is tired of supporting 30 years of hardware with each OS release. Hopefully that'll free them up a bit to do more interesting stuff.

quonn• 10 years ago

Guess MS is tired of supporting 30 years of hardware with each OS release.

It seems they are supporting old hardware on each new OS. What they are not supporting is new hardware on an old OS.

flamedoge2• 10 years ago

I'm pretty sure new hardware can run old OS. It's just new features won't be utilized.

wvenable2• 10 years ago

Yeah, that's forwards compatibility not backwards compatibility.

In many cases, this situation is already here. My laptop came with Windows 8 and if I ran Windows 7 on it, it would work, but many of the newer power management and performance features wouldn't work.

infodroid3• 10 years ago

It is strange that most of the news sites currently covering the story have misleading or ambiguous headlines:

Microsoft made 'em do it: The latest Kaby Lake, Zen chips will support only Windows 10 (PCWorld)

Windows 10 Or Else? Intel's New 'Kaby Lake' Chip Won't Support Windows 7, 8 (Forbes)

Intel's Kaby Lake and AMD's Zen processors will only support Windows 10 (PC Gamer)

From this point forward, all Intel and AMD CPUs are Windows 10-only (ExtremeTech)

Intel's latest CPUs will only support Windows 10 (TechRadar)

keithbohler• 10 years ago

Gotta love the fact that "most" (not all) news outlets want to blow up a topic.

gfody• 10 years ago

It's like any time there's a non-story that any one of them spin into some controversial click-bait they all have to follow suit to avoid being scooped. Journalistic integrity for internet news sites seems to be at an all time low.

frik2• 10 years ago

Windows 10 isn't very popular, and that is good. No other operating system is as hostile to the users privacy, and certainly no desktop operating system where everyone stores many private files. And not just personal files, but think of all the doctors offices, lawyers - which makes Win10 illegal to use in many countries, as it transfers automatically your key strokes, microphone samples, screenshots, search history, application list, hardware configuration and what not else that god forbids to dozens of domains that have not even Microsoft in it's name. And the domains and IPs ate whitelisted in the signed 64-bit kernel mode part of Win10 network layer. Good night, no work around possible. Except you carry a hardware firewall around attached to your laptop. So it's good that the "free" (free to exchange for a Win7/8 license dongled to one mainboard) Win10 failed all expectations and got little uptake. Most companies are still on Win7 and all literated users too beside some foolished fanboys/early adopters/noobs. Many reverted back to Win7 after the got Win10 tricked "by accident". XBoxOne failed spectacular too being far far behind PS4 and even WiiU sales. And WinMobile/Phone 10 is dead too, with as little as 0.6% global market share. If I would be an investor, I would fire this failed CEO and some of his top managers incl PR department and restore and rebrand some of their former good products.

sverige• 10 years ago

I hate it when they do interesting stuff. That's how Windows 8 happened. What they need to do is useful stuff.

eyelidlessness• 10 years ago

Windows 8 was extremely useful. It just forced poor compromises on desktop users. Its UI/UX was fantastic for every other end-user device at the time that could run it.

jpalomaki• 10 years ago

Vista and Windows 8 are what you get when the goals are set high, but not enough time is given to achieve them.

frik2• 10 years ago

It's just a marketing strategy, to get more people on board of the Windows-as-a-service train, a train without exit doors.

Good that I hear about that, I will buy a current gen CPU than and install a Win7 for legacy applications for the next ten years. And will await Android for Desktop or Google Fuchsia. The Windows days are over, that's happens when a CEO favors short turn strategies and burns his platform.

MikusR3• 10 years ago

Got some proof of that?

ams61102• 10 years ago

I think it's less about wanting to drop support for old hardware than it is a panic-stricken move because Windows 10 is not compelling on its own.

IANAD• 10 years ago

> Microsoft loves Linux! Right?
Right.

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

pbz• 10 years ago

Your sensor is indeed properly calibrated; carry on.

ngold• 10 years ago

So loading win 7 ahould be no problem, it just won't be supported any longer?

vidyesh2• 10 years ago

From the article

Microsoft holding back support is the xHCI USB controller in sixth-generation Skylake and seventh-generation Kaby Lake: Windows 7 doesn't support that USB hardware, so installing the operating system from a USB stick using those chips is tricky. Intel provides xHCI drivers for Windows 7 once it's up and running.

kijin• 10 years ago

AFAIK, consumer editions of Windows 7 never even officially came in a "USB stick" form factor. It has always been on a DVD.

So the more salient question would be: is it possible to plug in a USB external ODD to a Kaby Lake laptop, pop the Windows 7 DVD in it, and install from it? Or is it just as "tricky" as installing from a USB stick?

creshal6• 10 years ago

Several motherboard vendors provide tools to patch Windows 7 ISOs to include Skylake USB3 drivers, and you can include them by hand if you need to.

ASRock's tool for my Skylake mainboard worked fine, could install off its USB3.1 port.

delish• 10 years ago

In HN, the headline currently reads:

     Latest Intel, AMD chips will only run Windows 10 and Linux, BSD, OS X

But on thereg it reads:

    Latest Intel, AMD chips will only run Windows 10... and Linux, BSD, OS X

The ellipsis implies that Intel's and AMD's chips run other OSes too. In fact, according to thereg, they'll run "homebrew kernels", which I'm glad for. I don't want to be limited to Windows and Unix-derivatives. I agree with commenter jcbeard that the headline should be changed to "Windows 10 is the only Windows OS that will support latest processors", or something similar.

random55643• 10 years ago

Lol, the ellipsis means... pause.

theossuary• 10 years ago

Lol, the ellipsis can also mean... information is left out.

mythz• 10 years ago

Why is Microsoft doing this?
Windows 10 must succeed at all costs. It's Windows 10 or bust. If you're buying a flash new machine, what a superb way for Microsoft to shoehorn its latest operating system onto it; that'll really help inflate its usage numbers.

ivanca• 10 years ago

Fuck Microsoft, I been using Windows all my life but if I could jump to any other operative system with games and software support I would do it in a heartbeat.

dingo_bat4• 10 years ago

After having used windows 10 for about a year, I feel confident in saying that if you don't want to use Windows 10, it is better to switch to Linux or something else you like, than using clearly inferior versions of windows. Most people want to stick with 7 just because of nostalgia, and it's good that intel is cutting them off.

hobs• 10 years ago

Well isn't that nice that you have decided that for everyone else.

We want to stick with 7 because 8 was atrocious, and 10 doesnt offer enough improvements for the standard user to change the UI in useless ways.

lsiebert• 10 years ago

Meh I would have updated to 10 on my dual boot Window Linux Mint machine, but you need to have the latest updates on windows 7 to be able to even get 10, and even with the generous three days leeway I gave myself to back up, update, and roll back, I couldn't get updates working in time. I really don't see what reason there is to run windows for me, other then gaming, and even then, most of what I want to play I can get on os x or linux.

SquareWheel2• 10 years ago

What was wrong with 8? I found the UI a significant improvement, even better than 10. The only qualm I had was the removal of the power button, but that was resolved in the 8.1 update.

dingo_bat4• 10 years ago

I haven't decided for anyone. I'm just saying that it's more effective if you vote with your wallet and move to a non Microsoft OS. Otherwise you're harming yourself by using an unsupported OS.

OSButler4• 10 years ago

I have a unix based system for work and am using a Windows 10 PC solely for gaming purposes. Win10 makes it incredibly difficult to try and trim down your Windows installation to its bare minimum, so that the disk, cpu, and network activity won't affect your gaming experience.

Then there's the forced update system, which allows you to define a time interval where it won't automatically install updates, but it can't be set to more than a 12hs window. It just feels like an OS that thinks it knows what's best for you, but it actually results in an inferior experience compared to the previous versions due to its limited configurability.

I haven't played around with the registry and internals that much since Win'95, just because it adds all this unneeded overhead without any option to remove it from within its own settings.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly works and I'm getting used to all its new features and changes, but Win10 makes it really hard to optimize it to your specific needs for seemingly unnecessary reasons, so I can understand why people want to stick to their Win7 or even Win8 installs.

dingo_bat4• 10 years ago

Rather than fight Microsoft, just ditch windows. That's what I meant. Using years old software which is unsupported is foolish. This sort of behavior leads to IE6. I'm glad Microsoft is ending the cycle here. The people who like 10 will stay, the people who don't (the reasons are definitely valid) should move to Linux or OSX. Why use something that the manufacturer is not ready to support? Vote with your wallet and demand an Ubuntu PC.

biktor_gj• 10 years ago

You're forgetting the tiny little switch that made me loose my nerves so much that I've even started to find a new virtualization platform for all my work servers and substitutes for most of the vms...

Windows defender cannot be disabled. Well, you can, but it will turn itself back on, no matter what you tell it to, and it even tells you that in settings. Like, as you don't know what you're doing, we're deciding for you. I mean, if you're going to decide what's best for me,in my machine, why bother making a setting?

Then there's all privacy checks auto enabling with each update, though at this point given what they've done with the 'upgrade experience', that was foreseeable...

sireat• 10 years ago

Are there quality guides to customize Windows 10?

The inability to minimize and customize Windows 10 is really starting to grate on me.

Win 10 keeps making decisions for me and does not let me choose.

I have had to configure Windows 7 and Windows 8 Embedded for work so I am used to being able to configure Windows to minute detail.

I wonder if MSFT will even release Win 10 embedded.

eropple3• 10 years ago

Win10 makes it incredibly difficult to try and trim down your Windows installation to its bare minimum, so that the disk, cpu, and network activity won't affect your gaming experience.

You are laboring under some really weird assumptions from the jump. Namely that you have to "trim down" anything at all. My Windows desktop is almost exclusively for games (occasionally a little C#). The only changes from the default settings I made is to use a local account instead of a Microsoft account, fiddle with the times for Windows Update

When I am idle, the machine is idle. There is no unnecessary disk activity (there is indexing, but I want that and the switch is in the exact same place it's been since XP). There is negligible CPU usage. There is no network activity unless Steam decides to do something in the background.

This is the future. We're in it. And if you are buying reasonably new hardware, stuff really just works.

Mithaldu• 10 years ago

forced update system

Those are forced only on Windows Home.

tdicola• 10 years ago

Some people have serious and valid concerns with the telemetry collection and 'spying' in Windows 10 vs. earlier versions.

kristofferR• 10 years ago

Sure, but they are only trying to delay the inevitable - they can't stay on an ancient version of the OS forever. They'll have to switch someday.

I think upgrading to Windows 10 and blocking the telemetry with something like Spybot’s Anti-Beacon is a better option than getting stuck in the past.

dingo_bat4• 10 years ago

I know the reasons are valid. That's why I'm urging people to move to Linux or OSX, that's better than using win 7 which is soon going to go out of support.

wruza4• 10 years ago

Most people want to stick with 7 just because of nostalgia

"There it is generation has grown up". Most people want to stick with 7 because it was last windows. Ugly, inconvenient in comparison with past versions, but still windows. Nostalgia is when you stick with 95-2000.

vidyesh2• 10 years ago

Fix the title please, lets not bring clickbaits on HN.

Newest Intel & AMD chips will not work with any Windows version below 10.

tomsmeding• 10 years ago

It's practically the title of the actual article.

kyriakos3• 10 years ago

but even that title is not correct. it will work, just won't receive support for it.

jxy• 10 years ago

    Microsoft chooses not to support new Intel & AMD chips in Windows versions earlier than 10.

The title makes it the fault of chip makers. Isn't it just a software problem?

infodroid3• 10 years ago

What I understand is that Intel and AMD decided not to work on drivers for their new chips to support older Windows, aligning themselves with the new Microsoft support policy... Intel said: "Intel will not be updating Win 7/8 drivers for 7th Gen Intel Core per Microsoft's support policy change". AMD said: "AMD's processor roadmap is fully aligned with Microsoft’s software strategy". Microsoft are also holding back, for example by not supporting 7th gen xHCI USB controller on older versions of Windows.

So it doesn't seem like it is Microsoft's choice alone. I think the current title (Latest Intel & AMD chips won't support Windows versions earlier than Windows 10) is not pointing blame at anyone, just saying that the chips are not going to be officially supported.

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-ma...

Sylos3• 10 years ago

Rationally speaking, yeah, it doesn't mean much more than that they won't work with it, independent of who's to blame, but I did initially still read it as if it was Intel's and AMD's fault, and I'm obviously not alone with that either.

Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8"

Then it's completely open why that is and the reader can make up their own mind.

rbanffy• 10 years ago

One of the great things that would come out of a market where no single proprietary OS is dominant is that hardware makers would be free to pursue enhancement of their offerings while not being tied up to the marketing strategies of third party.

I remember reading e-mail and browsing the web (and developing software) on a 64-bit multi-processor machine years before AMD64 appeared. Actually, even before Itanium was announced.

omarforgotpwd• 10 years ago

What a pain in the ass for people doing OS compatibility testing

cwyers• 10 years ago

Use a VM.

LeoPanthera• 10 years ago

Would this work? Doesn't a VM pass the CPU directly through to the client OS?

cm21878• 10 years ago

But new x86 chips are backward compatible. What will happen if I install windows 7? Will Microsoft introduce a kill switch or am I just not going to take advantage of the new features?

kyriakos3• 10 years ago

it will work just fine, you just won't get support from Microsoft and it Windows 7 will not use any of the newer processor features.

cm21878• 10 years ago

Reading another article I wonder if the chipset won't be more of a problem. Like USB drivers.

TazeTSchnitzel2• 10 years ago

But new x86 chips are backward compatible.

Broadly-speaking, yes, but older OSes may not support newer CPU and other hardware features, and at some point those features become essential to working at all. Plus, CPUs actually do drop features sometimes.

In the case of Skylake, Windows 7 doesn't support xHCI, the new USB controller interface. Without USB, you won't have much luck doing anything.

sandworm101• 10 years ago

When microsoft is done shooting off its own feet, I've got a bridge to sell them.

But I'm all for win10 atm. I just bought a new dirt-cheap netbook. The push for Win10 meant that even the cheapest of netbooks requires the muscle to run win10. The fact that mine never even booted into that OS is beside the point. Rather than a machine that runs win10 poorly, I've now got a very nice little linux mint box ... and a pile of Win10-related stickers.

phire• 10 years ago

Windows 7 is now in extended support. Microsoft are 100% within their rights to not support the new CPUs on it.

But not adding Zen and Kaby Lake support to windows 8.1 is a little weird, it still has 16 months of mainstream support.

dnlrn• 10 years ago

I don't get what the big deal is. Does Linux add support for newer Intel and AMD chips in old kernels? No. Does Apple add support for newer Intel and AMD chips in older versions of Mac OS? I'm sure no. So why does Microsoft have to do something the other companies aren't doing either? I mean it's not like they actively prevent older Windows versions on running on these chips, it's just that they don't add support for the newest chip features.

Sometimes when I see these newspapers bashing Microsoft I question whether they even think about what they are writing before pressing the publish button. Headline: Microsoft is doing what all other OS companies are doing too.

ekianjo• 10 years ago

Sometimes doing something different is expected when you are the market leader.

Sylos3• 10 years ago

Especially also when your market lead causes a lot of exclusivity like it does in the software world.

I.e. many people have to run Windows to do their job and often even have to run Windows 7 specifically, but might still need new hardware in the future.

criddell2• 10 years ago

I think it's notable too because maintaining compatibility is something that Microsoft seemed to value and spend significant resources on.

Are there any Windows APIs that have been actually dropped and not just deprecated?

rwmj• 10 years ago

Red Hat does "hardware enablement" for newer chipsets in older versions of RHEL, by backporting the necessary changes to the older kernel.

However your point is still correct: RHEL 6 which will support these new chips was released a year after Windows 7. RHEL 5, released two years before Win7 is no longer getting hardware enablement, only security fixes and other critical stuff.

https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata

Sylos3• 10 years ago

However your point is still correct: RHEL 6 which will support these new chips was released a year after Windows 7. RHEL 5, released two years before Win7 is no longer getting hardware enablement, only security fixes and other critical stuff.

How does that make his point correct? There's still Windows 8, which neither gets support, and which was released two years after RHEL 6.

Windows 8.1 was technically also its own version and released 3 years after RHEL 6, but I'd even be okay with ignoring that one.

clevernickname• 10 years ago

The best Linux analogue I can think of is systemd. It's not about resisting minor changes or sticking to an obsolete OS and expecting the vendor to support you indefinitely. It's about the rug being pulled out from under your feet and completely fucking over everything you liked about the platform, while all the people you hoped would take a stand, bow their heads and step meekly into line.

With Linux, you can still install an alternative distro that doesn't use systemd. Or you could switch to a BSD. With Windows, you could keep using 7, up until now. Now you will eventually have no choice. It's as if systemd were completely embedded in the kernel and every alternative distro and *NIX nuked from orbit. Only, rather than mostly affecting sysadmins, this affects hundreds of millions of ordinary users.

morganvachon3• 10 years ago

The best Linux analogue I can think of is systemd. It's not about resisting minor changes or sticking to an obsolete OS and expecting the vendor to support you indefinitely. It's about the rug being pulled out from under your feet and completely fucking over everything you liked about the platform, while all the people you hoped would take a stand, bow their heads and step meekly into line.

I'm not a fan of systemd, but I think you're way off base. First, this is more of a hardware support issue than a revamped init rapidly growing into a full OS like a cancer. Second, this is the way it's been done since the early days of Windows; it's only in the headlines because Windows 10 is a good punching bag.

With Windows, you could keep using 7, up until now.

Bullshit. You can keep using Windows 7 until the day your computer dies. There's no magical switch being flipped that suddenly renders your existing Windows 7 installation inoperable the day a Kaby Lake CPU hits the local reseller's shelves. You're being deliberately disingenuous here.

It's as if systemd were completely embedded in the kernel and every alternative distro and ∗NIX nuked from orbit.

No, no it isn't. Again, this is a hardware support/driver thing, and has nothing to do with what's going on in Linux land. For that matter, who exactly is going to "nuke every alternative distro and ∗NIX from orbit"? While systemd has taken over most of the major Linux distros, there will always be some like Slackware and Alpine that run perfectly fine without it, and no one from the systemd cabal will care. I'd certainly love to know how you think the BSDs will be wiped out by the spread of systemd too, considering that Poettering and Sievers intend for systemd to remain Linux-only.

cm21878• 10 years ago

They will actively refuse to issue new Windows 7 licenses to OEM on these new chips. They are kind of actively preventing older Windows versions running on these chips, yes.

martin-adams• 10 years ago

I guess a more expensive workaround then would be to buy Windows 7 retail if it's true it will still work, just wont use the new features of the chip.

gruez3• 10 years ago

That kind of makes sense. Why would they issue licenses for hardware that they know won't work?

criddell2• 10 years ago

I think you can just install a pirated version, run the Windows Genuine Advantage check (or whatever it's called). It will report that it's a bootleg version then give you an offer to pay for the license to make it legal.

morganvachon3• 10 years ago

It's actually not a big deal but with the issues Microsoft has had with Windows 10 over the past year, it makes for good media fodder to stir up the masses. When this first hit the tech news sites earlier this year, my answer to anyone shouting "OMG I can't have my Win7 on my Skylake, die Micro$oft!" was to politely ask them to attempt to install Windows 98 on a Core i-series machine. You could see the gears turning in their skulls and revelation would dawn upon them that yes, this has happened before, many times, and is a perfectly normal progression.

It's not even limited to Microsoft; you can't install Mac OS X 10.7+ on anything older than a 2nd generation Core2 Duo, and with good reason. OS X 10.6 ran like crap on the first gen Core Duo and Core2 Duo machines, despite being fully supported by Apple.

There comes a time when the software exceeds the capabilities of the hardware, and this is no exception.

mSparks• 10 years ago

You seem to have this the wrong way round.

->There comes a time when the software exceeds the capabilities of the hardware, and this is no exception.

This is not "new software on old hardware". OK, It's happened before with other companies. For example Sony saying PS3 games will run on the PS4. But that kind of nonesense is why you don't buy Sony hardware, and their stock price is trundling along at record lows..

My advice is more specific. Anyone holding AMD or Intel stock. Sell now.

TheOtherHobbes2• 10 years ago

No, that's nonsense.

No one liked Win 98, and it was comprehensively EOL'd by Win XP - which always ran fine on iX machines.

Now, many people still prefer Win 7 to the creeping user-hostile horror that is Win 10 - if only because it's possible to use Win 7 with relative confidence that an update won't suddenly kill your machine, or your webcam, or your Kindle, or whatever else MS manages to screw up in the next year or two.

That's not a trivial difference. MS+Intel are attempting to force users towards an OS that is inherently broken, and - given the level of competence on display in the Windows division at the moment - is unlikely to ever work reliably.

dao-2• 10 years ago

There comes a time when the software exceeds the capabilities of the hardware, and this is no exception.

Are you saying that Windows 7 / 8 / 8.1 exceed the capabilities of latest Intel and AMD chips?

userbinator6• 10 years ago

my answer to anyone shouting "OMG I can't have my Win7 on my Skylake, die Micro$oft!" was to politely ask them to attempt to install Windows 98 on a Core i-series machine

Done that, and it works (as well as Win98 can, in any case.) Other apps from around that time will work too. Of course it can only use one core, but it's interesting to see just how ridiculously fast even a single core can be after 10 years of hardware improvement if the software hasn't "grown to fill the space".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOWzorOD-II (not me)

That's the opposite situation; newer software on older hardware.

yuhong• 10 years ago

AFAIK the requirement for 10.7 is just 64-bit support, the requirements for 10.8 are higher.

justsaysmthng• 10 years ago

The two OSes you mentioned are used by less than 10% of the market - 6,49%, according to the link below. Windows 10 is used by 23% of users.

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share...

There are many people who consider the older OS versions to be "better" than the latest Windows X. What "better" means is quite subjective - familiarity, stability, privacy, compatibility, etc. I really don't know, because I haven't used Windows in many years.

Finally, there's the "pirates" - hundreds of millions of people who run older versions of Windows, which are easier to crack because they're not as 'cloud-enabled' as Windows X.

But all in all, I agree that it's not such a big of a deal..

gruez3• 10 years ago

Finally, there's the "pirates" - hundreds of millions of people who run older versions of Windows, which are easier to crack because they're not as 'cloud-enabled' as Windows X.

Windows 10 is just as easy to crack as windows 8.1. Just install a local KMS server and you're good to go.

geezerjay2• 10 years ago

Forced obsolescence is kind of a big deal.

creshal6• 10 years ago

Does Linux add support for newer Intel and AMD chips in old kernels? No.

Yes. All big distributions backport drivers to older kernels they still support. And Microsoft still supports Windows 7 and 8, and has to do so until 2020/2023 or heads will roll, no matter what their marketing wants people to think.

gruez3• 10 years ago

small nitpick: the 2020/2023 dates are for extended support, where they only provide security patches. But you're right in that windows 8.1 at least is still in mainstream support, so they will accept feature requests (until 2018).

kyberias• 10 years ago

Microsoft supporting Windows 7 and 8 does not mean implementing support for all future HW. They had HW requirements on launch and Microsoft supports that set of HW.

skriticos2• 10 years ago

Windows 8 has almost no corporate adoption, so the interesting data point is 2020 and 7, which is just a bit more than three years away. Migration targets should be somewhere around 2019 (last minute really), but procurement for new machines with Windows 10 builds might start being rolled out in the first half of 2019 with most corps, which is practically just 2 years away. Factor in that the next generation chips still need some time to get to marked and you have a rather narrow gap, especially with corps that have a more conservative hardware policy. I don't see the issue here. I just hope that the Windows 10 rolling update will reduce the enterprise upgrade anxiety.

astrodust• 10 years ago

Supporting Windows 7 on hardware from that era and making it forward compatible are two different things.

If Windows 7 came with your machine you're covered. If you're looking to build or buy a new system you need to go Windows 10. If you don't like that, you have other non-Windows options.

GunboatDiplomat• 10 years ago

Does Linux add support for newer Intel and AMD chips in old kernels?

The kernel devs may not, but distros backport new stuff to old kernels constantly. For example, RHEL/CentOS 6 is kernel 2.6.32, release 7 years ago. But it supports modern CPUs.

runeks• 10 years ago

More succinctly: Linux doesn't have this problem at all because it's open source. You can stitch together the kernel in any way you want, and layer any user space on top of that to get an OS.

digi_owl• 10 years ago

Dunno. With Linux being a loosely coupled collection of parts, it is quite possible to upgrade the kernel without disrupting userspace.

And with Apple, you are dealing with one vendor support a small set of their own products. The only way to get into this issue would be with a hackintosh rig.

amluto• 10 years ago

Linux lets you run new kernels on old distros, though.

flamedoge2• 10 years ago

yea but you are on your own if you use newer stuff than what distro provides. distros and microsoft probably picked stable versions that they tested and know that they work.

cptskippy2• 10 years ago

It's not what Microsoft is doing, it's what they have decided not to do, which is support their older operating systems. Apple doesn't have this problem because their supported hardware is very narrow in scope, usually only works for a small range of OS releases, and no one tries to install Leopard on their brand new Macbooks.

As I've said before, the issue is with the removal of legacy hardware. Intel removed EHCI support for USB in it's chips with Skylake in favor of xHCI. This has been a long time coming and not a malicious or insidious act. Windows 7 doesn't natively have xHCI support and Microsoft isn't adding features to Windows 7. So, on Skylake, you can't install Windows 7 via USB and you can't use a USB keyboard or mouse during installation because the USB drivers are incompatible.

pixl97• 10 years ago

That said you can probably make your own slipstream iso with the drivers installed and setup windows 7 that way.

immigrantsheep3• 10 years ago

This! Exactly this. When Apple is doing it that's fine but when Microsoft does it then they are awful. And yet you still get to use tons of old software on w10. I still remember when El capitan came out last year and xcode stopped suddenly working. We all had to update everything. No explanations and no choice in what you gonna run.

intopieces2• 10 years ago

So why does Microsoft have to do something other companies aren't doing either?

The bigger the market share, the bigger commitment to users. Microsoft doesn't "have" to ensure their older OSes work on newer chips. That sentiment is just another way of indicating that the userbase may take action (like choose to keep systems even longer, leading to MSFT having to support Win7 even further into legacy than they did for XP).

As well, consider the enterprise customers who are entrenched in Win7 but absolutely need new machines for expansion, but can't commit to replacing all machines. What was simply buying new machines now turns into supporting a new OS in addition.

WhoBeI• 10 years ago

I agree, this feels like Microsoft bashing.

All they're saying is that if you go buy a new computer (which will probably have Win10 pre-installed anyways) you need to make sure you have software versions supported on those chipsets/CPUs.

And they did offer free upgrades.

xbmcuser• 10 years ago

It is the other way around Microsoft wont support Windows 8.1 and older on newer processors.

milesf2• 10 years ago

Won't happen. Microsoft has made threats like this before, and backed off at the last minute.

rincebrain• 10 years ago

I wouldn't take that bet this time. Microsoft's shown an aggressive willingness to break anything that gets in the way of Windows 10.

milesf2• 10 years ago

No, they are too beholden to large corporations who will not be railroaded into using an OS they don't need or cannot use for compatibility reasons. It may take some time, but eventually Microsoft will capitulate. They always capitulate. There's no sane business reason not to.

static_noise2• 10 years ago

Does this mean

a) older Windows versions will not run at all on those chips?

b) older Windows versions will still run but cause some problems?

c) older Windows versions will run without problems or performance impediment compared to old chips but some new features are not supported?

d) everything will work just as well but when problems occur Microsoft won't provide official support?

lagadu5• 10 years ago

It means it's untested. In reality it should be option d) but they're saying that if a) to c) eventually happen then you were warned. Also don't ever expect chipset drivers for those OSs.

pavlov4• 10 years ago

When the AMD Opteron came out in 2003, did Windows 95 run on it? I don't think so.

Windows 7 is seven years old. It's just a reality that commercial software that old doesn't get support, unless you're an enterprise customer willing to pay for the privilege.

static_noise2• 10 years ago

Then should we consider Windows or other commerical software for anything designed to outlast a 5 year period?

lagadu5• 10 years ago

What's the alternative? Old MacOS versions also don't support newer hardware, old Linux kernels neither. By your reasoning, no operating system should ever be considered for anything designed to outlast a 7 year period (which is windows' 7 age).

pavlov4• 10 years ago

Probably not? I'd be perfectly happy to see BSD deployed more regularly in these kinds of environments.

creshal6• 10 years ago

When the AMD Opteron came out in 2003, did Windows 95 run on it? I don't think so.

It did. That was the whole point of AMD64, as opposed to Itanium: It runs all the legacy crap you could possibly wish to.

pavlov4• 10 years ago

I have a feeling (but no facts at hand) that Win95 wouldn't boot on an Opteron. Even though x86 was more or less constant, BIOS and associated base drivers did change over time.

For comparison, PC-DOS 2.1 wouldn't be expected to boot on a Pentium either. It's not a reasonable expectation even in compatibility-obsessed traditional Wintel land.

hsivonen• 10 years ago

To get an idea of what kind of grief arises from a legacy kernel on significantly newer hardware: XP doesn't know how to save and restore AVX register state across context switches. The cpuid instruction doesn't look at the OS, so AVX is detected as being available, but it doesn't work right. (This has been an actual problem for crypto code in Firefox.)

TazeTSchnitzel2• 10 years ago

XP doesn't natively support hard disks with non-512-byte sectors, leading to performance degradation (and possibly more wear?) on modern, higher-capacity hard drives which use 4096-byte sectors and have to emulate 512-byte sectors for Windows XP's sake.

brassic• 10 years ago

Vanilla Windows 7 doesn't support 4K sectors either.

I discovered this when I unthinkingly replaced my laptop's failing disk with a 4K disk. Windows 7 installed itself from the recovery DVD, but would blue screen on the first reboot.

userbinator6• 10 years ago

If I remember correctly, Intel CPUs had support in hardware for automatically saving and restoring the CPU state (doing a task switch) since the 386, and there was a way to query the CPU for how big that state needs to be. That would've enabled automatic forward-compatibility, but I have a feeling that feature got broken sometime around the AMD64 timeframe (by AMD, not Intel.)

JoeAltmaier• 10 years ago

Yeah but nobody used it - the task state segment was slow to write and read - so it was faster to push/pop registers. Pity - because this forward-compatibility argument might have convinced folks back then.

snorrah• 10 years ago

Bit of a tangent, but that was a surprisingly readable article for TheRegister. They seemed very clickbaity with CAPITAL LETTER WORDS scattered around not so long ago. Are they now back to this more reasonable style in general or was this a fluke ?

ihsw• 10 years ago

Will the next Intel & AMD chips support Windows 10, or will we see a similar planned-obsolescence dance again?

I'm asking to see whether this is part of a larger trend where compatibility is falling by the wayside or whether this is an isolated incident to kick the world up to modernity, and I am fully aware that it is difficult to predict the future.

IMO Windows 10 really is an atrocious piece of software and forcing it onto people could backfire.

graycat• 10 years ago

And what about Windows Server?

jsolson• 10 years ago

Seems like there's a market for a tiny hypervisor.

userbinator6• 10 years ago

One example of Microsoft holding back support is the xHCI USB controller in sixth-generation Skylake and seventh-generation Kaby Lake: Windows 7 doesn't support that USB hardware, so installing the operating system from a USB stick using those chips is tricky. Intel provides xHCI drivers for Windows 7 once it's up and running.

As far as I know, the xHCI spec is freely available, and so are the DDKs that let you write your own drivers (or perhaps port them from Linux), so I don't see anything stopping the enthusiast community from doing that, besides maybe (currently trivially circumventable, but who knows...) driver signing, and if my past predictions are any indication, that will likely happen.

Ironically, there are already xHCI drivers for DOS: http://www.georgpotthast.de/usb/

eximius2• 10 years ago

All I want is an operating system to game on that doesn't spy on me and advertise to me and force me to do things or disallow me to do what I want. I sure hope WINE has gotten better in the past couple years because I refuse to put up with this Windows 10 bullshit.

immigrantsheep3• 10 years ago

Wine and linux drivers will never be good enough to play games. You might as well install windows 7 in a vritual machine. And this whole thing about spying... you can install O&O ShutUp10 which helps a lot but on the other hand, if you're on the internet, chances are everything is spying on everything. Google is spying on you, facebook is spying on you. Unless you're only using TOR and chat clients with end to end encryption, if someone wants to spy on you, they will. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone Microsoft for this (hence the o&o comment) just that there are other players here as well.

On the other hand, being a user of all three OSes I could complain about all three of them.

eximius2• 10 years ago

I'll look into that.

I minimize the usage of my windows machine usage to steam and gmail and a handful of gaming websites. Nothing out of the ordinary is spying on me. But I'm far more concerned by my OS spying on me than whatever details some JS can pick up. Hell, I have my ext4 fs mounted on windows. In Windows 10, that means it can index and beam that info back to the mothership.

charonn0• 10 years ago

All I'm reading is that my next upgrade will see me move to Linux full time.

CommanderData• 10 years ago

Cortana will force herself inside your hardware whether your willing or unwilling.

This is an interesting move and I wonder if these companies will back track under pressure from corporate. Is this just a matter of a few drivers built by AMD, Intel or Microsoft? I don't know.

Latest Intel, AMD chips won't support Windows versions earlier than Windows 10

Related Stories