Microsoft Forces Owners of Recent CPU Architectures to Use Windows 10

[phaZed]

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14085
That says 10 years. Which matches what their Product life cycle table says. I really don't care that they said a year ago that they didn't plan to do it. It is contradicting the policy they have published.

Well, OK, but that document is the embodiment of the "New Deal" of 10 years for current products that you're speaking of. Not of the product released in 2009 (W7).
That document plainly says, "applies to most products currently available through retail purchase or volume licensing" - Windows 7 is not and has not been available for retail or volume licensing, therefore this document does not apply.
Rather, you should refer to the document I poster earlier, HERE, which plainly says in the properties of the document:

Article ID: 13853 - Last Review: Feb 14, 2017 - Revision: 37

Applies to
Windows 10, Windows 7, Windows 8.1

Whereas yours does not.

Also only about 1/10th of all drivers are WHCP. Plenty of companies produce drivers that have not been certified.

Not true at all. Absolutely EVERY OEM computer sold is comprised of WHQL tested hardware or they can't be an OEM, that's OEM 101 stuff. Every product that has the Windows Logo "For Windows XXX" is WHQL tested. Every product. When was the last time you got a motherboard, videocard, soundcard, etc that didn't have the Windows Logo? Chinese fleebay and off-brand crap need not apply to the argument, please. NVIDIA has periodic "Game Ready Drivers" which are generally NOT WHQL, instead, they offer the newest WHQL drivers for download concurrently... the main deal is that a WHQL driver exists at product launch.
WHQL = Stickers on CPU's and Print on boxes =

You show me a reputable article or reference that backs your 1/10th claim and I will happily recant. I'm only arguing for 'reputable hardware'.
I would challenge you to find ONE name-brand product that requires a driver, is designed for Windows (Not Apple/Linux only, for example) and has no WHQL certification.

And if Microsoft finds a non-certified driver is insecure they are free to block it.

Not true in the context of Windows 7. Only half-way true in the context of Windows 8 and 10.

First, the issue for WHQL testing wasn't / isn't necessarily focused on security/insecurity but rather buggy/not buggy and works/doesn't work. This was Microsoft's response to Bluescreens and other mal-behaviors caused by 3rd parties in the late 90's and early 2000's. They didn't want their operating system blamed for buggy coding on the part of others.

Secondly, Windows 7 was always automatically set to deny the install of unsigned drivers, by default. How often do you have to Start>Run and type "bcdedit /set nointegritychecks OFF" when installing drivers? But that's not really Microsoft "Blocking Drivers" like they can in 8 and 10, where 'updates' can be pushed as a service. Windows 8 and 10 have "Driver Signature Enforcement" in which you must run Win10 in 'Test Mode' to install and run unsigned drivers. Once you leave test mode, the drivers unload and fail on next boot.

And the few times that hardware drivers have had security issues it also has been the hardware maker who fixes it.

Again, not really about security as it is best practices in coding, bug testing and hardware compatibility across a wide range of hardware that is the focus of WHQL testing. The author of the driver is expected to fix their own sh*t, yes. So what?

The premises that Microsoft is somehow saving money by not supporting new hardware is full of crap because this policy doesn't affect old hardware that will get the same patches.

Your argument makes no sense and is patently false. "Supporting" means that there is a team of people testing and developing software for Windows 7. These people do get paid and departments have overhead. The reason this doesn't affect 'old hardware' is because, obviously, that software is already written and working. It's new silicon that needs new software that is the problem - so I don't get how your argument is valid..
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsex...acing-silicon-innovation/#WipQoLdEJcw3vGT2.97

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......
.......Redesigning Windows 7 subsystems to embrace new generations of silicon would introduce churn into the Windows 7 code base, and would break this commitment.

Yes, that is a logical and valid point from Microsoft.

And there is already talk, in this thread, of registry hacks that will allow the patches to be installed anyway.
So if they can be and they will work then why block it other than a bogus reason to force end users to go to Windows 10.

So what? You could registry hack XP to continue to get patches too, but it did often cause instability and other problems. Just because you can, doesn't mean it's going to work. A little early to call anything "bogus" as nothing has happened yet. Time will tell.

And here is the other POS part of this deal. If you purchase the extended support hotfixes, you get the block patches anyway.

BS. You get to show where it says that.

Consider the following:
Extended Hotfix Support

Premier Support customers can purchase Extended Hotfix Support as an add-on program for an annual program fee plus an additional fee for each non-security hotfix provided. Customers must enroll in the program within the first 90 days of the Extended Support phase.

NON-SECURITY HOTFIX. So what blocked security patches are EHS subscribers getting again?

and EHS only HAD a 90 day window for sign-up in 2015 - that pre-dates Skylake and Kaby Lake, so those customers surely WILL continue to get updates... your full of it, dude.

 

[GTP]

Users of new CPU architectures will not receive Windows 7 and 8.1 updates anymore, according to a Microsoft support topic published last week. This means that if you've purchased one of those super-expensive 7th generation CPU models in the past few months, you'll have to update to Windows 10 if you want to receive any security updates. Currently, Windows 7 and 8.1 users will receive the following error when scanning or attempting to download Windows updates. Unsupported Hardware Your PC uses a processor that isn’t supported on this version of Windows and you won’t receive updates. Microsoft says that sometimes, an alternative error message also appears. Windows could not search for new updates An error occurred while checking for new updates for your computer. Error(s) found: Code 80240037 Windows Update encountered an unknown error. Owners of the following 7th generation CPU models are known to be affected: Intel seventh generation processors (Intel Core ix 7xxx), AMD “Bristol Ridge,” and Qualcomm “8996." Users can still install Windows 7 or 8.1 on these CPU architectures and CPU drivers will continue to work. The only difference is that they won't receive security updates, leaving workstations exposed to malware and exploits.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...f-recent-cpu-architectures-to-use-windows-10/

Thank God (or Linus) for Linux!

 

[Markverhyden]

Thank God (or Linus) for Linux!

Yep. Apple started this type of stuff a while ago. Of course you would expect some of it because they went from PPC to Intel. But they are pretty militant about it. It's not like you can install older OS's on newer hardware and just have driver/update issues. They outright block it.

 

[NviGate Systems]

I feel like it's a union.

We the union "group" have to give something up every time when we want change or improvement.

First we gave up high prices and high reliability to give us cheaper prices.

Now we give up the ability to use software which many of us legally own.

When will it end? I've seen the movie. Everyone dies.

#deathtocomputing