Windows 10 - free upgrade to those with PC using Windows 7 or 8

[fjtorres]

As this afternoon, the list of Slylake PCs that will be supported stands at over 100:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/heres-m...tag=TREc64629f

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As this afternoon, the list of Slylake PCs that will be supported stands at over 100:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/heres-m...tag=TREc64629f

Supported until July, 2017 -- not until January, 2020 (Windows 7) or January, 2023 (Windows 8.1). Nothing new in this announcement.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Supported until July, 2017 -- not until January, 2020 (Windows 7) or January, 2023 (Windows 8.1). Nothing new in this announcement.

But then there's this (which was also mentioned in the ars technica article earlier):

"After July 2017, the most critical Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 security updates will be addressed for these configurations, and will be released if the update does not risk the reliability or compatibility of the Windows 7/8.1 platform on other devices," Microsoft execs said.

So....? There will still be support of the most critical kind?
Plus, while, again, I dislike the tactics as much as anyone, is it even really a 'breech of contract' in any sense? Did MS ever promise 7/8 would be compatible and supported on processors that didn't exist yet?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rcentros

No, the word "monopoly" is appropriate here. [...]In other words they're using their monopoly standing to manipulate their customers.

[sorry, I missed this post]

No, they're using their strong position to manipulate their customers. Every piece of Windows software that someone feels locked into COULD be developed for Linux or OSX, or heck, probably Android at this point, if the developer (or some other developer who is clever at reverse engineering) chose to do so.
Lots of people are 'locked in' not because there aren't options, but because they invested a lot of money and training, and it's just not practical for them to switch casually. No monopoly. Other Evil forces at work.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ApK

But then there's this (which was also mentioned in the ars technica article earlier):

So....? There will still be support of the most critical kind?
Plus, while, again, I dislike the tactics as much as anyone, is it even really a 'breech of contract' in any sense? Did MS ever promise 7/8 would be compatible and supported on processors that didn't exist yet?

Support of the "most critical kind" ... "maybe." Not exactly something a businessman is going to rely on.

It's not a matter of hardware incompatibility, it's a matter of licensing. Windows 7 and 8.1 already run on Skylake processors -- now. There's no reason why they couldn't run on Skylake processors till 2020 and 2023. And it's not Microsoft who writes drivers for 3rd party hardware (like graphic cards and network cards), the companies who make the hardware write the drivers.

The hardware support issue is just a lame excuse for Microsoft's strong-arm attempt to force all users to the same platform.

They were discussing this on "Windows Weekly" -- sounded more like apologies for Microsoft than anything else -- then the host shows his computer and talks about installing Linux Mint on his former Windows 10 computer. Cracked me up.

https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly...utostart=false

Go to the 1:16:45 mark if interested.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

But then there's this (which was also mentioned in the ars technica article earlier):

So....? There will still be support of the most critical kind?
Plus, while, again, I dislike the tactics as much as anyone, is it even really a 'breech of contract' in any sense? Did MS ever promise 7/8 would be compatible and supported on processors that didn't exist yet?

It is as rcentos says: Windows 7 and 8.1 already run on Skylake systems. The CPU's and chipsets are on the market already, and have been for 5 months. There is no reason Windows 7 and 8.1 should stop running on these platforms.

If Microsoft wants to stop support for newer processors and chipsets, they should do so for systems that are not already on the market. Skylake's successor will probably be released somewhere in 2017. They could have said: "No support if you put Windows 7 or 8.1 on those systems", and I could have understood that. Cutting support for systems on which the OS already runs (and not only that, they were delivered with said OS until two weeks ago) is just a lame tactic to get people to move to Windows 10.

[ApK]

Yeah, 'compatible' was the wrong word. What I meant to ask was if there was ever more detailed system requirement for 7 or 8 beyond just "x86 1ghz or faster." Did they ever have language like 'current processors' or such to give them an out. Cuz if not, there could be a genuine breach of contract here and we can expect some Olympic level backpedaling soon.

[Katsunami]

As far as I know, at least from the past, Microsoft has never stated that you had to have (or NOT have) a specific CPU. Their requirements have always been very generic. The Windows 7 site says this:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor*
1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

These have always been the requirements. This basically comes down to having a Pentium III Tualatin CPU, a 20GB hard drive and a GeForce 4 (DirectX9 compatible) graphics card.

This is a vintage computer from 2002.

PS: It *IS* non-trivial to install Windows 7 RTM on a Skylake-equipped computer. The chipsets and mainboards have too many features that Windows 7 does not readily support without adding drivers beforehand, making installation of the RTM version impossible. Microsoft is at least right about that.

The RTM version as sold on DVD does not have support for NVME-type SSD's, and it does not support Skylake's XHCI-protocol (eXtensible Host Controller Interface), used to control USB-devices. Windows 7 supports up to EHCI (Enhanced Controller Interface), but Skylake has dropped everything older than XHCI. This means that Windows 7 RTM is unable to use USB-devices during installation. Your USB mouse, keyboard, CDROM, and sticks won't work, and also, you won't be able to install Windows 7 on a new NVME SSD.

If you want to install Windows 7 on a Skylake computer using the RTM DVD, you will have to rip the CD, slipstream the correct drivers first, and create a new DVD.

Windows 7 obviously can be installed and run on Skylake (my laptop came with 7), but it can be a difficult task. (And... oh, if you have a UEFI-based computer and you want to use the UEFI features, you'll have to have the 64-bit version. The 32-bit version does not support UEFI.)

PSS: Some manufacturers foresaw the problem with Intel dropping EHCI-support and added an EHCI-to-XHCI front-end chip on their mainboards. It intercepts the EHCI communication coming from Windows 7, and passes it on to the Skylake XHCI chipset.

Windows 7 will thus work with these Skylake motherboards, and requires slipstreamed NVME drivers only; and only if you're installing on a new NVME SSD. If you use a normal SATA-connected SSD, you can install Windows 7 as is. This is nothing new. When installing Windows on a very new, or unknown storage device, it has always needed either slipstreamed drivers, of you must load them from floppy using the F6 key during installation. IIRC, Vista was the first Windows to be able to load these drivers from USB. (Which, as said, is something you can't do with Windows 7 'cause of the non-supported XHCI interface. Thus you will need to have an already working computer to create a customized Windows 7 installation disk.)

Manufacturers of storage add-on cards often call these drivers "F6 drivers", even today.

[danwdoo]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Support of the "most critical kind" ... "maybe." Not exactly something a businessman is going to rely on.

It's not a matter of hardware incompatibility, it's a matter of licensing. Windows 7 and 8.1 already run on Skylake processors -- now. There's no reason why they couldn't run on Skylake processors till 2020 and 2023. And it's not Microsoft who writes drivers for 3rd party hardware (like graphic cards and network cards), the companies who make the hardware write the drivers.

The hardware support issue is just a lame excuse for Microsoft's strong-arm attempt to force all users to the same platform.

They were discussing this on "Windows Weekly" -- sounded more like apologies for Microsoft than anything else -- then the host shows his computer and talks about installing Linux Mint on his former Windows 10 computer. Cracked me up.

https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly...utostart=false

Go to the 1:16:45 mark if interested.

There was quite a bit more to this than you are letting on. One of the points mentioned in the show was that for every new processor, Microsoft has been 'back patching' older OSs to make sure they do work correctly with new hardware.

They then go on to talk about with new processors becoming much more complex (just look at the new sleep modes with Skylake) and all the resulting sleep issues many PCs using them have had that are still being worked out, and you quickly realize that the issue is a far more complex one than it may appear to be at first glance. Add to this the complexities of 'systems on a chip', new throttling capabilities, and it becomes much more clear as to why Microsoft would have a lot of motivation to do this.

And the host switched only one of his 2 Windows 10 machines to Linux, not because he doesn't like Windows 10, but because he, as a tech enthusiast, keeps himself abreast of all platforms and technologies. His Surface Book is still running Windows 10.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by danwdoo

There was quite a bit more to this than you are letting on. One of the points mentioned in the show was that for every new processor, Microsoft has been 'back patching' older OSs to make sure they do work correctly with new hardware.

They then go on to talk about with new processors becoming much more complex (just look at the new sleep modes with Skylake) and all the resulting sleep issues many PCs using them have had that are still being worked out, and you quickly realize that the issue is a far more complex one than it may appear to be at first glance. Add to this the complexities of 'systems on a chip', new throttling capabilities, and it becomes much more clear as to why Microsoft would have a lot of motivation to do this.

And the host switched only one of his 2 Windows 10 machines to Linux, not because he doesn't like Windows 10, but because he, as a tech enthusiast, keeps himself abreast of all platforms and technologies. His Surface Book is still running Windows 10.

But, as he pointed out, linux worked just fine...

[danwdoo]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But, as he pointed out, linux worked just fine...

Not sure I see your point. A current release of Linux works on the machine just as Windows 10 (a new release of Windows) works on it. This discussion is about installing an older OS on new hardware, which is a completely different thing.

[eschwartz]

If Ralph was referring to the general challenge of supporting old OSes on new hardware, then I am pretty sure you can and will still be able to install old versions of linux distros on the new hardware.

Any supported distro will receive newer kernels (eventually, because some distros just update really slow, and faster if they need to support new-generation hardware).
Assuming new drivers are actually needed (rather than needing them only to unlock new features).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If Ralph was referring to the general challenge of supporting old OSes on new hardware, then I am pretty sure you can and will still be able to install old versions of linux distros on the new hardware.

Any supported distro will receive newer kernels (eventually, because some distros just update really slow, and faster if they need to support new-generation hardware).
Assuming new drivers are actually needed (rather than needing them only to unlock new features).

If it's true, though, that Skylake motherboards have a different method of talking to USB devices, wouldn't that mean that older distributions of any o/s couldn't talk to USB devices on such a motherboard? That would mean no keyboard, no mouse, etc. Kind of hard to upgrade anything if you can't communicate with the o/s.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If it's true, though, that Skylake motherboards have a different method of talking to USB devices, wouldn't that mean that older distributions of any o/s couldn't talk to USB devices on such a motherboard? That would mean no keyboard, no mouse, etc. Kind of hard to upgrade anything if you can't communicate with the o/s.

That might very well be true (or things of that general ilk), yes.

As I said, any particular drivers that might be needed, would be distributed anyway in a kernel update. Linux only has one kernel, the kernel for older distros is an old version of the current kernel.

Any kernel update that includes new drivers critical to basic use of common hardware is most likely going to receive special treatment, even on distros that are usually cautious about upgrades (because "stability").

So for newer hardware, all you need is the latest installation media, and yes, most distros do periodically re-release installation media with the latest stable updates. Or, worst comes to worst, it is trivial to roll your own.
Unlike slipstreamed Windows media (which I believe relies on unofficial if proven tools), linux distros publicly release the same tools they use to build the media, and provide official guides for remastering the ISOs. (This is already commonly done by people to customize the default software list.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If it's true, though, that Skylake motherboards have a different method of talking to USB devices, wouldn't that mean that older distributions of any o/s couldn't talk to USB devices on such a motherboard? That would mean no keyboard, no mouse, etc. Kind of hard to upgrade anything if you can't communicate with the o/s.

No, the bios provides that hardware level communication. The interface to Windows is through the bios. That's the whole point of the bios to make the O/S hardware independent by presenting a standard interface to the O/S.

Now if the Bios interface has been changed in a non-backwards compatible way, that's a different story.