Ahh Fudge MS is becoming the new Crapintosh

[Shadow Lord]

If this article is correct MS and CPU makers are ting their products together so that old versions of Windows will not run on new HW. At first I thought MS will simply not support old OSes on new HW but how is that different from what is going on now? i.e. When MS ends support for an OS they don't care what HW it is running on...

I hope this is wrong - one thing I have always hated about the Macs is that you can't just run any version of the OS on any mac (i.e my Mid 2012 Mac Pro will not run/boot w/ OS X 10.6). This of course is the by product of a closed eco system and lack of competition forcing you to upgrade HW and OS at the same time. This is a far cry from the PC world where I can still (w/ some effort) boot DOS 3.3 (haven't tried earlier) on the latest machine.

Aside for the vintage hobby/market implications this will also increase the TCO of PCs IMHO.

 

[KC9UDX]

Do hobbyists care if Microsoft supports them?

I'm awfully glad that Microsoft doesn't support my Commodores.

In any case, I think "PC" hardware is finally going the way it should have 25 years ago, with a new "BIOS" that isn't so "BIOS"y. So, old OSs aren't likely to run anyway.

 

[SquallStrife]

Few problems with this.

If this article is correct MS and CPU makers are ting their products together so that old versions of Windows will not run on new HW. At first I thought MS will simply not support old OSes on new HW but how is that different from what is going on now? i.e. When MS ends support for an OS they don't care what HW it is running on...

What you originally thought is correct. Windows 7's mainstream support ended in January 2015, at no point after this date would Microsoft have ever added functionality to their OS, including support for xHCI USB on the installation media. Any suggestion of a conspiracy between Intel and MS is just that, a suggestion. EHCI was always going to go away at some point, just like UHCI and OHCI before it.

I hope this is wrong - one thing I have always hated about the Macs is that you can't just run any version of the OS on any mac (i.e my Mid 2012 Mac Pro will not run/boot w/ OS X 10.6). This of course is the by product of a closed eco system and lack of competition forcing you to upgrade HW and OS at the same time.

How is this any different from what's unfolding here with Windows 7? The Intel platform dropped EHCI, and Windows 7 doesn't support xHCI out-of-the-box. Newer Macs need drivers that aren't part of 10.6 (also, I think there's something in there to do with 32-bit vs 64-bit UEFI that changed from 10.6 to 10.7).

This is a far cry from the PC world where I can still (w/ some effort) boot DOS 3.3 (haven't tried earlier) on the latest machine.

Only because the motherboard manufacturers are still implementing a superset of IBM's PC BIOS from 1981 (or have an emulation of it). Soon that will go away too, as there is no point now.

tl;dr Storm in a teacup. New hardware needs effort to run old OS'es. News at 11.

Do hobbyists care if Microsoft supports them?

I'm awfully glad that Microsoft doesn't support my Commodores.

"Support" in this context means provision of patches and updates. Not "technical support" like ringing up asking for help.

 

[Tor]

From the article: "your employer will have to embrace the latest version of Windows if it wants shiny new gear."

I'm not sure if MS understands how companies operate at all. The last thing they want to do (or can afford) is to start a test/update/validation phase all over again just because they have to buy some new PCs. Not to mention then having to operate different OS versions. Or do MS really imagine that if a company needs to buy one new PC then they will happily replace all their existing PCs so that they can still use a single version of the OS internally? Even my company, which runs all of their engineering departments on Linux, prefer to maintain a single version. With a little slack. Absolutely no slack in the other department where they have Windows systems.

 

[Scali]

From the article: "your employer will have to embrace the latest version of Windows if it wants shiny new gear."

I'm not sure if MS understands how companies operate at all. The last thing they want to do (or can afford) is to start a test/update/validation phase all over again just because they have to buy some new PCs. Not to mention then having to operate different OS versions. Or do MS really imagine that if a company needs to buy one new PC then they will happily replace all their existing PCs so that they can still use a single version of the OS internally? Even my company, which runs all of their engineering departments on Linux, prefer to maintain a single version. With a little slack. Absolutely no slack in the other department where they have Windows systems.

I think that logic is backwards.
From a technical perspective, it shouldn't matter that you are operating different OS versions. So there should be no reason for a company to want this, and paint themselves into a corner they way they have been for the past decades (yes, all OSes need to be replaced/upgraded eventually, software and hardware don't live forever. It's a lot more painful if you have to upgrade everything at once).
And that seems to be exactly the transition that Microsoft is going through. From 'monolithic' OS releases to more of a 'rolling update' scheme... And at the same time also integrating multiple platforms into a single OS family (desktops, servers, workstations, Xbox, tablets, smartphones and embedded).

 

[SquallStrife]

From the article: "your employer will have to embrace the latest version of Windows if it wants shiny new gear."

The article is sensational clickbait.

It should read like this:

"your employer will have to embrace the latest version of Windows if it wants shiny new gear*"

* If your employer is awful at IT and doesn't know how to use Microsoft's WIM deployment tools too add drivers to the image.

 

[KC9UDX]

"Support" in this context means provision of patches and updates. Not "technical support" like ringing up asking for help.

I'm aware of that. As a hobbyist, I have no use for Microsoft and it's forced patches and updates.

As a hobbyist, I and other hobbyists usually have better solutions to any OS shortcomings.

But it's probably just me. Too many years between Amiga 3.1 and AmigaOS 3.9.

 

[Agent Orange]

I think the problem is simpler than all of that. If there are no retro drivers available for the older hardware; i.e, video, sound, various adapters, etc., then the point is moot. I can certainly run W95/w98/NT on an Asus 990FX motherboard, but without qualified drivers. I'm fortunate that the 990 still supports XP. Why would you want to splurge on a new Skylake CPU with the X170 chipset only to stuff yesterday's OS into it? BTW, I've come around a little bit on W10, it runs my stuff pretty good, and it was free. As a matter of fact, going back to the release of 8/8.1, I've spent a total of $30 on OS's. It's kind of like when you've driving an automatic for a long time and suddenly you're forced into a stick shift.

 

[commodorejohn]

From a technical perspective, it shouldn't matter that you are operating different OS versions.

However, from a practical perspective, it frequently does. At my job, we support a specialized practice-management suite, the developers of which have already had to issue a bulletin alerting users not to upgrade to Windows 10 because the software frequently has issues running on it. (Of course, the users inevitably do this anyway, and then call us to complain when it doesn't work...luckily there's a rollback facility.) Knowing their release cycle, this should be fixed sometime within...oh, possibly the next three years or so? Maybe? They still haven't added USB support for label printers (so most users wind up having to purchase USB-to-RS232 adapters...and even those won't work if they don't have the right chipset.) So it would be foolish for our clients to just blindly upgrade "because it's there." (Though, again, that certainly doesn't stop them.)

It's very easy to say "well, everybody should just be using the latest version!" but that completely ignores the fact that backwards compatibility is often necessary and never perfect.

 

[Scali]

However, from a practical perspective, it frequently does.

Note the part where Microsoft is currently working on bending that around, with Windows 10.
Obviously you won't be seeing the results of that yet, especially not if you're still stuck on Windows 7 or *shudder* even older.

It's very easy to say "well, everybody should just be using the latest version!" but that completely ignores the fact that backwards compatibility is often necessary and never perfect.

By incrementally updating the OS, it is much easier to control backwards compatibility. And a big part is just in rehabilitating all the uselessly incapable software developers out there, who created most of the compatibility issues in the first place.
Forcing them to use newer OSes also means they will spot issues in their code sooner, and will lead to better quality software in the end.
Because as only good software developers know: working code is not bugfree code.
Too often have I had to take someone behind the shed and shoot them in the back because they said: "But the code used to work on the old system!".

They still haven't added USB support for label printers (so most users wind up having to purchase USB-to-RS232 adapters...and even those won't work if they don't have the right chipset.)

You realize that "they" are the manufacturers of these label printers, not Microsoft?
Or are you one of those ignorant people who think that Microsoft writes drivers for each and every device out there?

 

[commodorejohn]

Note the part where Microsoft is currently working on bending that around, with Windows 10.

Yes, probably they are working on fixing backwards compatibility. They're always working on fixing backwards compatibility. And yet these issues still happen. It's always been that way, and there's no reason to suspect that it won't continue to be that way.

By incrementally updating the OS, it is much easier to control backwards compatibility. And a big part is just in rehabilitating all the uselessly incapable software developers out there, who created most of the compatibility issues in the first place.
Forcing them to use newer OSes also means they will spot issues in their code sooner, and will lead to better quality software in the end.

Whether this is true or not, note that "in the end" is not the same thing as "now." Clients need their software to work now. They freak out if the system goes down for two hours; they sure as hell can't wait around weeks or months for all the requisite fixes to get written, tested, and rolled out.

You realize that "they" are the manufacturers of these label printers, not Microsoft?

Yes, I realize that. (Though it's actually the developers of the software at fault, not the printer manufacturer.) What I'm saying is, from an end-user perspective, it doesn't matter. Nobody cares whose fault it is; what they want (what they need) is for things to work. And if upgrading causes issues with that, no matter where the fault may lie, that's a problem.

 

[Scali]

Yes, probably they are working on fixing backwards compatibility. They're always working on fixing backwards compatibility. And yet these issues still happen. It's always been that way, and there's no reason to suspect that it won't continue to be that way.

As I say, rehabilitate the software developers, that's where the solution lies.
If people stop releasing broken software, backward compatibility becomes a non-issue.

Whether this is true or not, note that "in the end" is not the same thing as "now." Clients need their software to work now. They freak out if the system goes down for two hours; they sure as hell can't wait around weeks or months for all the requisite fixes to get written, tested, and rolled out.

What exactly is your point? Not upgrading is certainly not going to solve problems. You have to upgrade at some point to software that is less broken. Better sooner rather than later.

What I'm saying is, from an end-user perspective, it doesn't matter. Nobody cares whose fault it is;

Then why do people always blame Microsoft?
The problem is with all these software developers that just write broken code, or simply don't bother to update their codebase at all.
I mean, if you're writing drivers, yes you KNOW that every now and then things will change, new OSes will be released, and you have to recompile your codebase for a new OS, and possibly rewrite/add some stuff because of new features (such as power-saving options).
Problem is that a lot of companies are managed extremely poorly and/or their developers are completely inept, so they can't/won't respond to issues in time.

Pushing new OSes at an alarming rate is the best thing that can happen to this world. It will separate the men from the boys.

 

[Shadow Lord]

Do hobbyists care if Microsoft supports them

Support I don't care about but actually preventing you from booting the OS of your choice through HW checks I do.

 

[commodorejohn]

As I say, rehabilitate the software developers, that's where the solution lies.
If people stop releasing broken software, backward compatibility becomes a non-issue.

Even if we take that for granted (and pretend that nothing is ever Microsoft's fault,) then what? Are our clients supposed to just live with their software not working until the developer gets their act together? Or spend tens of thousands more dollars in licenses, time, and labor switching to some other system in hopes of it being more compatible, all for the sake of a Windows upgrade?

What exactly is your point? Not upgrading is certainly not going to solve problems. You have to upgrade at some point to software that is less broken. Better sooner rather than later.

Even if "sooner" causes them to lose time and money?

Your blithe disregard for the needs of actual users is pretty stunning.

Then why do people always blame Microsoft?

1. Because they don't understand computers. 2. Because sometimes it's actually Microsoft's fault. 3. Because they really don't actually care whose fault it is and just need a target for their venting.

The problem is with all these software developers that just write broken code, or simply don't bother to update their codebase at all.
I mean, if you're writing drivers, yes you KNOW that every now and then things will change, new OSes will be released, and you have to recompile your codebase for a new OS, and possibly rewrite/add some stuff because of new features (such as power-saving options).
Problem is that a lot of companies are managed extremely poorly and/or their developers are completely inept, so they can't/won't respond to issues in time.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that, from a perspective of day-to-day actually-being-able-to-do-stuff business concerns, nobody cares.

Pushing new OSes at an alarming rate is the best thing that can happen to this world. It will separate the men from the boys.

Because that's definitely the most important thing, and anybody who gets caught in the fallout can just go jump in a lake, I guess.

 

[Plasma]

Pushing new OSes at an alarming rate is the best thing that can happen to this world. It will separate the men from the boys.

Change for the sake of change is my number one pet peeve. Do you buy a new car every year? Why not? There's a new model out now, you should have it!

Aside from online security issues, there is no reason any properly working OS needs to be upgraded. There are plenty of offline CNC machines running ancient versions of DOS and Windows, that will not be upgraded, ever.

Also, I'm sorry, but you clearly have no clue how actual businesses are run. Time is money. It takes time to test new updates and OSes to make sure they won't break anything. It takes time to retrain your employees when UIs and software changes. It takes time to update your in-house software.

And let's be honest. The majority of programmers out there aren't geniuses. They are code monkeys. It's a job, not a passion They slap shit together that barely works so they can get paid and go home. This isn't going to change any time soon.

 

[Shadow Lord]

How is this any different from what's unfolding here with Windows 7? The Intel platform dropped EHCI, and Windows 7 doesn't support xHCI out-of-the-box. Newer Macs need drivers that aren't part of 10.6 (also, I think there's something in there to do with 32-bit vs 64-bit UEFI that changed from 10.6 to 10.7).

The difference is that I can boot a PC w/ DOS - yes I may not have access to USB 3 but the system will boot, I can format it, run dx on the HDD etc. The Mac will not boot at all. As a general rule up to this point you could always run an older OS on newer HW in the PC world with the understanding that some devices would not work. However, that does not hold up in the Mac world. As I understand it there are secret updates that prevent similar version to run on different Macs. I.E. preinstalled OS and retail version could be the same version but slightly different builds and the retail will not run on the machine.

Again my issue is if there is collusion to actively prevent new HW from running old OSes. Other than that it is business as usual...

Only because the motherboard manufacturers are still implementing a superset of IBM's PC BIOS from 1981 (or have an emulation of it). Soon that will go away too, as there is no point now.

Of course there is. Yes, if all you do is stream music, FB, and paly games on your computer then support for legacy equipment is pointless because new toys keep coming out and you want the shiny toy.

However, many huge businesses still run on ancient HW. I personally know of a multibillion dollar company that has one part of their ordering system still running off of a 386 server. Yes a 386. Don't ask for details but as long as that 386 runs and they have backup boards they are not rewriting and debugging anything that may shut down a major revenue stream.

 

[Scali]

Are our clients supposed to just live with their software not working until the developer gets their act together?

Yes, that's pretty much it. Regardless of what Microsoft does or doesn't do, and whether you do or don't upgrade, the clients are always at the mercy of the developers.

Your blithe disregard for the needs of actual users is pretty stunning.

On the contrary. I'm one of the few developers who actually understands the needs of actual users, and who actually understands that it's my responsibility to keep up with technology, and to know that my software has to be future-proof *before* it becomes an issue for users who may need to upgrade.

My whole point is that there are too many 'cowboys' out there, and they indeed just need to go out of business asap.
The software industry needs to mature. If we are to make the analogy with the car industry again, then the car industry is extremely professional, and there are a lot of rules and regulations that a car manufacturer's products need to meet. They are also actively inspected by third parties, and the car manufacturers will be reprimanded when they fail these inspections.
The software industry needs to mature as well, and much stricter rules and regulations for quality and support need to be put in place, and be enforced. This indeed will mean that a lot of developers will fail to make the cut, which is the only solution to the current 'wild west' situation of software and hardware.

 

[Shadow Lord]

By incrementally updating the OS, it is much easier to control backwards compatibility. And a big part is just in rehabilitating all the uselessly incapable software developers out there, who created most of the compatibility issues in the first place.

Not really. This is about control. MS has been slowly forcing control of the OS from users with windows updates/activation/ and other BS. However, they have never been able to control the HW side as much as they have tried (unlike Apple which has had firm control of both sides except for a short while w/ the Mac compatibles). If this was about empowering users and making their lives better the MS ftp site would still be available, links on MSes web sites to all released patches, options, upgrades, etc. would work, and the user could use their outdated system for as long as they thought it was appropriate.

I am still on Win7. I think this is one on the best OSes MS has put out since Win2K. I have no desire to upgrade my PC to run Win 10 just so I can do word processing and browse the internet.

MS just wants a shorter and shorter upgrade cycle....

 

[Scali]

The difference is that I can boot a PC w/ DOS

Not anymore. There are already PCs on the market that only have UEFI, no legacy BIOS. As such they can only boot OSes with native support for UEFI (and in some cases only OSes with support for secure boot from UEFI, narrowing down your options even further). Booting DOS on such systems is out of the question.

 

[Krille]

the MS ftp site would still be available

Works for me.