Microsoft ends support for Windows 8 and 8.1

[Scali]

Okay, then I'll go with my less subjective but harsher original assessment and call it "aggressive," which it is.

It's still subjective. In fact, you stating that it is 'less subjective' is subjective in itself

If you're not saying that I have to accept it, then what are you saying when you tell me to "deal with it?" Because I already am dealing with it in my own way, which is to absolutely reject and condemn it. I fully acknowledge that it's happening, I just do not accept that it constitutes acceptable behavior.

Well, deal with it in peace

 

[vwestlife]

Microsoft updates support policy: New CPUs will require Windows 10

"Going forward, as new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support... Windows 10 will be the only supported Windows platform on Intel's upcoming 'Kaby Lake' silicon, Qualcomm's upcoming '8996' silicon, and AMD's upcoming 'Bristol Ridge' silicon."

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-updates-support-policy-new-cpus-will-require-windows-10

 

[Chuck(G)]

Good--that should make non-bleeding edge hardware super cheap in the used market. After all, what outfit wants to run last month's hardware if they know that MS won't support it?

 

[vwestlife]

Good--that should make non-bleeding edge hardware super cheap in the used market. After all, what outfit wants to run last month's hardware if they know that MS won't support it?

Actually it's the opposite -- you'll still be able to run Windows 10 on older CPUs, but on these new CPU generations, you won't be able to run Windows 8.x or earlier.

 

[Plasma]

Unless they have a secret deal with Intel and AMD, Microsoft can't actually prevent earlier versions of Windows from running on new CPUs. Sure, they can issue an "update" disabling Windows 7/8 if a new CPU is detected (and probably will, based on the crap they are doing now), but I just won't install it.

 

[SomeGuy]

Sounds like something Apple would do. It used to be that manufacturers practically designed their hardware around Windows. This makes it sound like Microsoft is taking all responsibility for driver development etc.

So will they still be allowed to run Linux? (The way these jerks are behaving, I fully expect them to show up tonight and break my legs just for mentioning it)

 

[pearce_jj]

To be fair much of the criticism Microsoft endures is precisely because Windows is so open - Apple OTOH only has to test their products with a handful of devices. An ecosystem of hardware & software could be very useful.

This week one of my customers lost over £300k due to cyber crime (in actual money); the more Microsoft can do to lock things down the better IMO. Of course it doesn't suit us tinkerers, but now the black-hats are doing such real damage both to us individually and to society (and perhaps, civilisation, I.S.) the reality is that open platforms with end-users having root access are really over.

 

[Unknown_K]

To be fair much of the criticism Microsoft endures is precisely because Windows is so open - Apple OTOH only has to test their products with a handful of devices. An ecosystem of hardware & software could be very useful.

This week one of my customers lost over £300k due to cyber crime (in actual money); the more Microsoft can do to lock things down the better IMO. Of course it doesn't suit us tinkerers, but now the black-hats are doing such real damage both to us individually and to society (and perhaps, civilisation, I.S.) the reality is that open platforms with end-users having root access are really over.

All those downsized IT guys whose jobs got shipped to India need something to make money on. Or is it Chinese and Russians doing the majority of the cyber crime?

Windows won because it was so open, close it up too much and people will jump ship to Linux, OSX, or worse yet a third party that does not exist yet. With so much RAM and unused multi cores on newer desktops I wonder why somebody has not made a shell that controls the hardware and is a gateway to a virtualized Windows to protect it from outside threats being immune to Windows vulnerabilities. A super firewall antivirus OS.

 

[Agent Orange]

Microsoft updates support policy: New CPUs will require Windows 10

"Going forward, as new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support... Windows 10 will be the only supported Windows platform on Intel's upcoming 'Kaby Lake' silicon, Qualcomm's upcoming '8996' silicon, and AMD's upcoming 'Bristol Ridge' silicon."

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-updates-support-policy-new-cpus-will-require-windows-10

Looks like a law suit in the making. Don't think that policy would fly.

 

[commodorejohn]

To be fair much of the criticism Microsoft endures is precisely because Windows is so open - Apple OTOH only has to test their products with a handful of devices. An ecosystem of hardware & software could be very useful.

This week one of my customers lost over £300k due to cyber crime (in actual money); the more Microsoft can do to lock things down the better IMO. Of course it doesn't suit us tinkerers, but now the black-hats are doing such real damage both to us individually and to society (and perhaps, civilisation, I.S.) the reality is that open platforms with end-users having root access are really over.

Horseshit. Locking things down doesn't deter crackers; the ones that rely on bug exploits A. don't rely on specific driver glitches for the most part (because then you're drastically limiting the scope of your attack) and B. are already experts at getting around security by definition, and the vast majority rely more on social engineering and the gullibility of end-users, which no amount of lockdown is actually going to solve until you get to the point where the computer is basically useless for anything.

Lockdown isn't useful or intended for security purposes. It's intended to benefit the locker at the expense of the users who are left with less choice in how to use their systems.

 

[pearce_jj]

Windows won because it was so open, close it up too much and people will jump ship to Linux, OSX, or worse yet a third party that does not exist yet.

Not all the time things people like to use are developed for it - Office, iTunes, Photoshop etc etc. Being a closed ecosystem like IOS also means minimal piracy, so everybody 'protects their revenues'.

With so much RAM and unused multi cores on newer desktops I wonder why somebody has not made a shell that controls the hardware and is a gateway to a virtualized Windows to protect it from outside threats being immune to Windows vulnerabilities. A super firewall antivirus OS.

Containers: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscontainers/about/about_overview

 

[Llamarama]

It seems to me that Microsoft screwed up with 8 and then people started looking into alternatives. When I was at uni we were given laptops that had a fresh install of 8, but were "Downgraded" to 7, the number of macs slowly grew, people were running a different Distro of Linux every other week.

Windows 8 as a multi platform product was an abject failure. I have used it on a tablet and it felt rushed, the Start Screen seemed like an add on that was just getting in the way, and once at the desktop and in explorer it felt like 7. It didn't feel comfortable on a PC and it didn't feel complete on a tablet. I think Microsoft want to kill this one off as soon as it can to get people back onto the Microsoft bandwagon and 10, rather than to develop tastes for other software.

 

[Unknown_K]

While I like the fact that MS tries to be different and expand into different looks they seem to be very bad at it (too many people having input that makes for a bad product). Up through XP every release MS had did pretty decent. Vista was a mistake people avoided but most people like 7. 8 seems to be a mess (have not used it) and not sure how 10 will work out.

I knew a local guy making pretty decent money at one time downgrading new laptops with Vista on them to Windows XP. It took me ages to give up on Win2k and go to XP, once you like something you kind of stick with it (plus some of my gear was older and didn't have drivers). Currently using Windows 7 because I needed greater then 4GB of RAM and a modern web browser.

Apple uses OSX to sell new hardware, each OS release shitcans some older machines so people have to upgrade (same with their phones). Since MS doesn't really sell hardware (outside of that surface tablet) they can just get away with tacking on some new feature on the older OS since most of their money comes from OEM sales and not user upgrades. I guess the OEMs need a new OS every 5 years so they can sell new machines so they beg MS to release something new hoping its a resource hog?

 

[Scali]

"Supported" in this context means that Microsoft will provide support for these systems.
As in: you can probably run older versions of Windows on these newer CPUs (provided their motherboards come with pre-Windows 10 compatible drivers as well), but you won't be entitled to help from Microsoft when you run into problems.
Which seems to be more or less in line with MS pulling support for Windows 8 and 8.1 altogether. They want people to upgrade to the latest OS (even if that means giving away the upgrade for free, apparently), rather than having to maintain two or more generations of Windows alongside eachother for long periods of time.

 

[vwestlife]

Apple uses OSX to sell new hardware, each OS release shitcans some older machines so people have to upgrade (same with their phones).

Not true. The system requirements for Mac OS X haven't changed since Mavericks (10.9) in 2013. Any Mac that can run Mavericks can also run Yosemite (10.10) and El Capitan (10.11). Some models as old as 2007 are supported:

* iMac: Mid 2007 or newer
* MacBook: Aluminium Late 2008; Early 2009 or newer
* MacBook Air: Late 2008 or newer
* MacBook Pro: 13-inch, Mid 2009 or newer; 15-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or newer; 17-inch, Late 2007 or newer
* Mac Mini: Early 2009 or newer
* Mac Pro: Early 2008 or newer
* Xserve: Early 2009

 

[Rick Ethridge]

I hate to say it but ever since Gates and Balmer left M$ has gotten really lousy. Win 8 and family started the move away from what users wanted and 10 seems to be meant as an advertising vehicle. With as many changes have/are occurring, you never know just exactly what's going on above or below the hood. I've gravitated towards Linux. I, at least, have an inkling of what's going on. I hand it to Apple to maintain a modicum of standards and eschewing advertising and spying.

 

[SomeGuy]

Modern Microsoft reminds me of a train that has jumped its tracks but is somehow still barreling forwards. It's gonna crash and burn.

 

[Scali]

what users wanted

You can never let yourself be led by what users want, if you want to develop new and innovative products. People don't know what they want until they see it. You have to develop it first, then fine-tune it.

I've gravitated towards Linux. I, at least, have an inkling of what's going on.

You actually have time to look through the millions of lines of code of the OS and its applications? I don't.
Linus' law doesn't hold, that's been proven time and time again by bugs that weren't found in open source products until decades later. So apparently others don't have the time to look through the code either (or at least, if they do, they aren't skilled enough to actually find issues/potential backdoors etc).

 

[pearce_jj]

That is true, though it can also be the same with commercial software like for example the SSH backdoor put into Fortigate firewalls that remained undiscovered for years.

 

[commodorejohn]

You can never let yourself be led by what users want, if you want to develop new and innovative products. People don't know what they want until they see it. You have to develop it first, then fine-tune it.

But when they see it and they still don't want it, the proper response is not to push it on them anyway, which has been Microsoft's strategy for years.