There's a lot of vagueness around the term "support". This issue has nothing to do with ringing up for technical support, or Microsoft "killing off" the OS prematurely.

Going forward, CPUs (or rather the platforms that support them) will stop being compatible with the bootloader and HAL that Windows 7 requires. This isn't a new occurrence. Remember when Windows wouldn't work on 286s any more because it required protected mode?

In that sense, Microsoft isn't "adding support" for new hardware to Windows 7. This was always to be the case, Windows 7's "end of mainstream support" date was January 13, 2015. Extended support lasts until 2020, this means that the OS will continue to receive security updates and critical bug fixes until that date. Extended support doesn't include adding new features or supporting new hardware.

Windows 8 has received the Windows 8.1 update, which they appear to consider as a service pack. Windows 8.1 has mainstream support until 2018, meaning it will receive new features and new hardware support until that time.

There are no surprises here for anyone with half a brain. Which is apparently not Forbes magazine, which has gone from a prestigious business print publication to Buzzfeed in recent years.

The change in the 386 memory model was worth sacrificing some hardware compatibility as is AMD64. What does Skylake introduce that will be fundamentally incompatible with Windows 7 and 8 that is similarly worthwhile?

gdjacobs wrote:

That was a change that made sense, as did the Windows requirements when AMD64 was introduced. What does Skylake introduce that will be fundamentally incompatible with Windows 7 and 8?

And since when you can't install Windows 7 or 8 on one of those? MS will simply not support it, so if they do introduce something or drop some legacy feature MS will not bother releasing updates to address that. I bet you can install even XP on a Skylake - but you'll need to use some workarrounds here and there (e.g. giving up AHCI and using legacy IDE if possible).

alexanrs wrote:

And since when you can't install Windows 7 or 8 on one of those? MS will simply not support it, so if they do introduce something or drop some legacy feature MS will not bother releasing updates to address that. I bet you can install even XP on a Skylake - but you'll need to use some workarrounds here and there (e.g. giving up AHCI and using legacy IDE if possible).

Perhaps so, but Microsoft should make an effort to clarify this. Besides, driver support for peripherals will depend more on Intel I think.

gdjacobs wrote:

Perhaps so, but Microsoft should make an effort to clarify this. Besides, driver support for peripherals will depend more on Intel I think.

MS is awful at this, IMHO they should address these issues better. Anyway, I meant stuff like newer platforms dropping legacy features - like not being able to boot/install Windows 7 from a flash drive plugged into an USB3 port or some changes in the boot process. When it comes to drivers even XP was only dropped by nVidia with their latest series of cards, Windows 7 will most likely be supported by hardware manufacturers for a while given its marketshare.

gdjacobs wrote:

What does Skylake introduce that will be fundamentally incompatible with Windows 7 and 8 that is similarly worthwhile?

It's not the CPUs this time, it's the Z170 platform (and contemporaries). It drops legacy USB 2.0 support, and Windows 7 and 8 can't boot from a USB 3.0 port. That's the main sticking issue.

Microsoft haven't "dropped" anything, they're simply "not adding" something, which they're under no obligation to do.

It's not insurmountable, people have worked out ways around it, as they have with the other compatibility issues. Intel making a platform change isn't Microsoft's problem for an OS that's EoL.

Fair enough. Sounds like Windows 7 fans will have to have PCIe USB 2.0 controllers to make these new boards fly.

One wonders how big is the upside of dumping UHCI/EHCI support? How much silicon are we talking about, here?

Dropping legacy USB 2.0 support... what? There's still USB 2 peripherals and drives...

Who the hell's designing this BS?

DracoNihil wrote:

Dropping legacy USB 2.0 support... what? There's still USB 2 peripherals and drives...

Who the hell's designing this BS?

xHCI (USB3) supports USB 1.1 and 2.0 devices. It just can't be used with earlier drivers which expect the earlier standard interfaces. I'm simply questioning if they gain anything besides 0.01mm^2 (or whatever) of silicon.

DracoNihil wrote:

Dropping legacy USB 2.0 support... what? There's still USB 2 peripherals and drives...

Who the hell's designing this BS?

Yeah sorry, that was badly worded. They are dropping USB 2.0-specific silicon, so the only USB host controllers on the board are USB 3.0 ones. Of course you can still use USB 2.0 guest devices in a USB 3.0 port.

gdjacobs wrote:

I'm simply questioning if they gain anything besides 0.01mm^2 (or whatever) of silicon.

Nobody would bother making a dual-stack EHCI/xHCI chip since the southbridge will provide one or the other, so adding USB 2.0 means an extra chip.

An extra chip means another piece on the BOM, more traces to route, more board real-estate needed, another reel on your pick-n-place, etc.

It's up to the motherboard manufacturers, if they think the extra chip is worth the cost to get their board in at a price point. Evidently they've decided it's not.

I wouldn't stress over this, let's see what actually happens 😀

Something related I'd like to see is MS releasing unsupported Retro OS. Like MS-DOS or Windows 98. I think they really don't care what people do with those, but it would be nice to have something official.

Coming to supporting only Windows 10, accessories will follow suit soon. I'd be surprised if the next round of 14 nm graphics cards will get XP support for example.

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

Coming to supporting only Windows 10, accessories will follow suit soon. I'd be surprised if the next round of 14 nm graphics cards will get XP support for example.

The current ones don't even have XP support.
I have a GeForce GTX970, and there are no XP drivers (seems that the 950 and 960 still get XP drivers, unless they mistakenly turn up on the website search... 700 was the last generation where all devices had XP support anyway).
Same goes for AMD, they stopped XP and Vista support a few generations ago already.

I see. I think we can also assume that AMDs next platform won't support XP either.

At least there is now a clear marker in the timeline what collecting XP compatible parts is concerned 😀

PhilsComputerLab wrote:

I see. I think we can also assume that AMDs next platform won't support XP either.

At least there is now a clear marker in the timeline what collecting XP compatible parts is concerned 😀

Well, with an .inf hack, I got my 970 to work under XP. It works okay (D3D and OGL appear to work), but I can't run it at full 4k resolution. I just don't get any signal at all when I select 3840x2160. Running it in 2650x1440 works though.
Funny enough the standard VGA driver did work in 4k resolution.

Make a custom 4k resolution to see if it's just their mode setting they messed up on or whether they broke something fundamental.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Is Microsoft really that desperate to sell Windows 10?

Microsoft even gives it for free and by obsessive spam. NSA is desperate to spy on you.

Anyway, "won't support" isn't synonymous with "won't allow", is it?

on practice
Today systems have limitations to setup Windows 7: "boxes" on Bay Trail will not allow this.
I heard chipsets for new CPU 6xxx have strange limitation wich will not allow to setup Win7 from USB.
Also no drivers for Win7 from hardware developers because MS presses them.

Tertz wrote:

Also no drivers for Win7 from hardware developers because MS presses them.

I really don't see why MS would have to press hardware vendors not to develop drivers for an old OS.
Hardware vendors are usually glad that an OS finally goes EOL, so they can drop support for it like a bad habit.
Some hardware vendors even drop support before the OS itself went EOL. Or they don't support a new OS on an older product, even though they still support the product itself.
Supporting OSes is expensive, so hardware vendors don't do it unless they really have to (which also explains why so few devices get official linux support from the vendor).

SquallStrife wrote:

Nobody would bother making a dual-stack EHCI/xHCI chip since the southbridge will provide one or the other, so adding USB 2.0 means an extra chip.

I admit, I don't know too much about how xHCI is architected, but couldn't the south bridge include some sort of UHCI/EHCI fall back either through dual controllers and an internal switch or in the controller itself?

Tertz wrote:

on practice Today systems have limitations to setup Windows 7: "boxes" on Bay Trail will not allow this. I heard chipsets for n […]
Show full quote

on practice
Today systems have limitations to setup Windows 7: "boxes" on Bay Trail will not allow this.
I heard chipsets for new CPU 6xxx have strange limitation wich will not allow to setup Win7 from USB.
Also no drivers for Win7 from hardware developers because MS presses them.

This is more about Intel dropping legacy stuff than Microsoft doing anything - I wonder if you can just slipstream the USB3 drivers into the media and be done with it, just like we did back then with XP and newer SATA controllers in AHCI/RAID mode.

Anyway... is there any new hardware without Windos 7 drivers? Given its marketshare, and the fact Intel supported XP until Ivy Bridge, I find that unlikely. These companies want to sell products and, unless they they believe the costs of supporting an OS offset the potential increase in sales, they should support it.

alexanrs wrote:

This is more about Intel dropping legacy stuff than Microsoft doing anything - I wonder if you can just slipstream the USB3 drivers into the media and be done with it, just like we did back then with XP and newer SATA controllers in AHCI/RAID mode.

Probably.
And if not, there are other ways to install the OS.
You could migrate an image from another PC (or virtual machine).
You could just copy the installer to a partition on the HDD and start it from there.
You could create a bootable DVD and install from there.
Probably other ways.

But I can see why MS wouldn't support that. These aren't things that your average computer user will be able to do. The people who know how to do this, don't need support anyway.