5 ms·

Microsoft chooses not to support new Intel & AMD chips in Windows versions earlier than 10. The title makes it the fault of chip makers. Isn't it just a softw

by jxy 10y ago

Microsoft chooses not to support new Intel & AMD chips in Windows versions earlier than 10. The title makes it the fault of chip makers. Isn't it just a software problem?

infodroid 10y ago
What I understand is that Intel and AMD decided not to work on drivers for their new chips to support older Windows, aligning themselves with the new Microsoft support policy... Intel said: "Intel will not be updating Win 7/8 drivers for 7th Gen Intel Core per Microsoft's support policy change". AMD said: "AMD's processor roadmap is fully aligned with Microsoft’s software strategy". Microsoft are also holding back, for example by not supporting 7th gen xHCI USB controller on older versions of Windows. So it doesn't seem like it is Microsoft's choice alone. I think the current title (Latest Intel & AMD chips won't support Windows versions earlier than Windows 10) is not pointing blame at anyone, just saying that the chips are not going to be officially supported. Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-made-em-do-it-the-latest-kaby-lake-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-ma...
- Sylos 10y ago
  Rationally speaking, yeah, it doesn't mean much more than that they won't work with it, independent of who's to blame, but I did initially still read it as if it was Intel's and AMD's fault, and I'm obviously not alone with that either. Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8" Then it's completely open why that is and the reader can make up their own mind.
  - infodroid 10y ago
    I agree with you that "won't work with" is even more neutral than "won't support". But I think only the mods can change the title at this point.
  - regularfry 10y ago
    "Fault" is one way of looking at it. However, another way is to say that it's apparently not commercially worth while to the chip makers to support generation N-1 of Microsoft's OS. That says something interesting about the market.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8" A much more appropriate description would be that Microsoft won't support Intel's and AMD's newer chips in the company's earlier OSs.
rbanffy 10y ago
One of the great things that would come out of a market where no single proprietary OS is dominant is that hardware makers would be free to pursue enhancement of their offerings while not being tied up to the marketing strategies of third party. I remember reading e-mail and browsing the web (and developing software) on a 64-bit multi-processor machine years before AMD64 appeared. Actually, even before Itanium was announced.

by jxy 10y ago

Microsoft chooses not to support new Intel & AMD chips in Windows versions earlier than 10. The title makes it the fault of chip makers. Isn't it just a software problem?

infodroid 10y ago

What I understand is that Intel and AMD decided not to work on drivers for their new chips to support older Windows, aligning themselves with the new Microsoft support policy... Intel said: "Intel will not be updating Win 7/8 drivers for 7th Gen Intel Core per Microsoft's support policy change". AMD said: "AMD's processor roadmap is fully aligned with Microsoft’s software strategy". Microsoft are also holding back, for example by not supporting 7th gen xHCI USB controller on older versions of Windows. So it doesn't seem like it is Microsoft's choice alone. I think the current title (Latest Intel & AMD chips won't support Windows versions earlier than Windows 10) is not pointing blame at anyone, just saying that the chips are not going to be officially supported. Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-made-em-do-it-the-latest-kaby-lake-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112663/software/microsoft-ma...

Sylos 10y ago
Rationally speaking, yeah, it doesn't mean much more than that they won't work with it, independent of who's to blame, but I did initially still read it as if it was Intel's and AMD's fault, and I'm obviously not alone with that either. Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8" Then it's completely open why that is and the reader can make up their own mind.
- infodroid 10y ago
  I agree with you that "won't work with" is even more neutral than "won't support". But I think only the mods can change the title at this point.
- regularfry 10y ago
  "Fault" is one way of looking at it. However, another way is to say that it's apparently not commercially worth while to the chip makers to support generation N-1 of Microsoft's OS. That says something interesting about the market.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > Better would have been like I've already used it: "Intel's and AMD's chips won't work with Windows 7/8" A much more appropriate description would be that Microsoft won't support Intel's and AMD's newer chips in the company's earlier OSs.

rbanffy 10y ago

One of the great things that would come out of a market where no single proprietary OS is dominant is that hardware makers would be free to pursue enhancement of their offerings while not being tied up to the marketing strategies of third party. I remember reading e-mail and browsing the web (and developing software) on a 64-bit multi-processor machine years before AMD64 appeared. Actually, even before Itanium was announced.