Windows 7/8.1 EOL
-
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
-
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
-
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
-
@IRJ said:
I know that this is a lot of information to digest, so please give me a call if you have any questions. Bottom line - if your company has any software that is incompatible to Windows 10 and you don't foresee yourself moving over to 10 by July 2017 - we should talk.
@Dashrender . Especially this last line.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
-
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
I wonder why that should be the delineating factor, though.
-
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
I wonder why that should be the delineating factor, though.
It does seem odd. I don't know if there is a technical reason or they just decided arbitrarily. Regardless we have the joy and, dare I say, pleasure, of dealing with the consequences...
-
@Kelly said:
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
I wonder why that should be the delineating factor, though.
It does seem odd. I don't know if there is a technical reason or they just decided arbitrarily. Regardless we have the joy and, dare I say, pleasure, of dealing with the consequences...
It seems like a push to get users to upgrade faster IMO. Another way of putting it is, "We're Microsoft and we do what we want. Screw you and you have no choice, but to grovel at our feet and meet our demands."
-
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
I wonder why that should be the delineating factor, though.
It does seem odd. I don't know if there is a technical reason or they just decided arbitrarily. Regardless we have the joy and, dare I say, pleasure, of dealing with the consequences...
It seems like a push to get users to upgrade faster IMO. Another way of putting it is, "We're Microsoft and we do what we want. Screw you and you have no choice, but to grovel at our feet and meet our demands."
Well, I will agree with the need to kick people in the ass to upgrade systems and not sit on the same thing for 15 years like XP. There are a LOT of Windows 7 users planning on it.
-
Maybe I am missing something but it doesn't seem odd at all to me. It sounds like they are not doing extra development to support new installs of old OSes on new hardware. I prefer that they do not, in fact, as it would be wasted development effort for systems that should not exist. I don't want the cost of Windows to go up to support people who want their no longer current systems to be being actively updated for new hardware.
-
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
I wonder why that should be the delineating factor, though.
It does seem odd. I don't know if there is a technical reason or they just decided arbitrarily. Regardless we have the joy and, dare I say, pleasure, of dealing with the consequences...
It seems like a push to get users to upgrade faster IMO. Another way of putting it is, "We're Microsoft and we do what we want. Screw you and you have no choice, but to grovel at our feet and meet our demands."
If that is the case, it seems very shortsighted of them. Their marketshare is getting encroached on from all sides.
-
@IRJ said:
It seems like a push to get users to upgrade faster IMO. Another way of putting it is, "We're Microsoft and we do what we want. Screw you and you have no choice, but to grovel at our feet and meet our demands."
That seems a bit drastic. I don't feel this way even slightly and I don't like Windows enough to run it. Supporting new hardware takes time and money and if it doesn't make sense, why would they commit to it? Software development is expensive.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Maybe I am missing something but it doesn't seem odd at all to me. It sounds like they are not doing extra development to support new installs of old OSes on new hardware. I prefer that they do not, in fact, as it would be wasted development effort for systems that should not exist. I don't want the cost of Windows to go up to support people who want their no longer current systems to be being actively updated for new hardware.
I disagree. The cost to maintain an OS is much less than the cost of making all the software vendors keep up. The prices for other software will go up as the development demands increase.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Maybe I am missing something but it doesn't seem odd at all to me. It sounds like they are not doing extra development to support new installs of old OSes on new hardware. I prefer that they do not, in fact, as it would be wasted development effort for systems that should not exist. I don't want the cost of Windows to go up to support people who want their no longer current systems to be being actively updated for new hardware.
They're doing the work for old hardware. Speaking with a level of ignorance here, but it doesn't seem that hard to do best effort for the newest hardware unless there are some revolutionary changes to hardware and architecture coming.
-
@Kelly said:
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@IRJ said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle#Supporting-the-latest-processor
So what though?
Assuming that the predecessor for Skylake comes out before July 2017, then MS should release support for it as well, though it's possible they won't. You'll have all the support you need for Skylake long before the 2017 deadline.
It's not like on the deadline they are going to roll out a patch that removes the support they have already created.
Skylake won't be getting any development at all from Intel, let alone MS, for over a year before this deadline. Heck, is Intel doing any development now with regards to Skylake? It's already made, being sold. It's in the pipe. I suppose they could make more chips different speeds based on the tech, and while doing so add in more features - but can they really? Would it be Skylake anymore if they add new features not already listed as part of Skylake?
I'm stating that the vendor isn't stating anything incorrect. They're not lying. This is what Microsoft is actually stating. In effect Microsoft is stating that they will not release security patches for non Win10 versions that are running on the listed processors. Yes, your computer will not cease working, but you will not be patched.
I suppose, as Scott loves to point out, and I lead to in one of my earlier posts, they are skirting as close to the edge with their information as possible.
I'm genuinely curious - when was the last time that MS released a security update for a chipset/processor? And even when they do, how often does that really happen? And lastly, how often does it happen after the processor is 1+ years old?
It sounds like you have some misunderstanding about their article. They will not be releasing OS patches for older operating systems in hardware that runs specific processors or newer. The processor isn't what is being patched. It is the delineating factor in whether or not they will be patching the OS.
I wonder why that should be the delineating factor, though.
It does seem odd. I don't know if there is a technical reason or they just decided arbitrarily. Regardless we have the joy and, dare I say, pleasure, of dealing with the consequences...
It seems like a push to get users to upgrade faster IMO. Another way of putting it is, "We're Microsoft and we do what we want. Screw you and you have no choice, but to grovel at our feet and meet our demands."
If that is the case, it seems very shortsighted of them. Their marketshare is getting encroached on from all sides.
So lower cost, more focused support is likely in their favour. Linux does the "support everything everywhere" thing. That's not Microsoft's game.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Maybe I am missing something but it doesn't seem odd at all to me. It sounds like they are not doing extra development to support new installs of old OSes on new hardware. I prefer that they do not, in fact, as it would be wasted development effort for systems that should not exist. I don't want the cost of Windows to go up to support people who want their no longer current systems to be being actively updated for new hardware.
They're doing the work for old hardware. Speaking with a level of ignorance here, but it doesn't seem that hard to do best effort for the newest hardware unless there are some revolutionary changes to hardware and architecture coming.
MS doesn't get to do "best effort." It has to be 100%. If they do best effort, which they might, they have to call it "unsupported." The announcement that you saw IS the announcement for best effort.
-
@IRJ said:
I disagree. The cost to maintain an OS is much less than the cost of making all the software vendors keep up. The prices for other software will go up as the development demands increase.
But exclusively of software that makes the Microsoft ecosystem look bad. All of those vendors are vendors that hurt MS in the long run. Those other vendors, if they were doing even a crappy job, would not need to do anything to keep up. It is exclusively vendors not writing software as MS has told them to do so safely that would have an issue of any magnitude. MS goes dramatically out of their way to handhold vendors to make sure no software has issues like that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I disagree. The cost to maintain an OS is much less than the cost of making all the software vendors keep up. The prices for other software will go up as the development demands increase.
But exclusively of software that makes the Microsoft ecosystem look bad. All of those vendors are vendors that hurt MS in the long run. Those other vendors, if they were doing even a crappy job, would not need to do anything to keep up. It is exclusively vendors not writing software as MS has told them to do so safely that would have an issue of any magnitude. MS goes dramatically out of their way to handhold vendors to make sure no software has issues like that.
In a dreamworld, all vendor software is up to date, but in reality it doesn't work that way. Changing software that is the backbone of your business isn't easy and there is no guarantee that the vendor you switch to will be any better in the long run.
-
@IRJ said:
In a dreamworld, all vendor software is up to date, but in reality it doesn't work that way. Changing software that is the backbone of your business isn't easy and there is no guarantee that the vendor you switch to will be any better in the long run.
I totally understand that. But your point was that MS isn't doing the right thing by not supporting bad software because it costs everyone too much. But businesses choose that software and choose to support those vendors and it is those vendors, not MS, that are screwing those customers and creating cost, not MS. You can argue the value of old software that needs special support, but there is no way to hoist the blame for that cost on to MS. MS has made it easy for those issues to never exist. Blame the vendors at fault, it's not MS' fault. It's the vendors and customers faults that they make software that way and are okay with paying for software made that way. If it costs extra to support, that's their decision and has nothing to do with MS.
-
Remember on the flipside, companies that DO run software from vendors that don't do this would not be happy if MS spent money supporting those other businesses. Microsoft has to choose who to cater to - those who make good software or those that make bad. Guess which makes the most sense to support.
