Intel's new Skylake CPU removes support for USB based Win 7 install

[newtekie1]

Then why Microsoft can not make it support USB 3.0 then?

If that is the problem then Microsoft could still get a solution for this situation. They are being very bad if they do not.

Windows 7 is out of mainstream support, so that means no major bug fixes and no new features, just security patches from here on out. Native support for xHCI in the installer could fall under both a bug fix or a new feature, it definitely wouldn't be a security patch.

Wanting new hardware, but not new OS, to me, is fail. I 100% support the idea that if you want new hardware, you gotta buy a new OS, too. Running software from 5 years ago on new hardware is just more work for the OS maker, and that takes resources away from them doing things right in the first place. I'd much rather see investment in the future, rather than the past. And looking for old software to work old hardware is simply that... investing in the past.

WinXP is 14 years old. Windows 7 is 6 years old. Both are dinosaurs in the hardware world, so if you want to run legacy software, you should run it on legacy hardware.

I 100% support the idea of hardware not being held back just to support old software.

 

[ChevyOwner]

Wanting new hardware, but not new OS, to me, is fail. I 100% support the idea that if you want new hardware, you gotta buy a new OS, too. Running software from 5 years ago on new hardware is just more work for the OS maker, and that takes resources away from them doing things right in the first place. I'd much rather see investment in the future, rather than the past. And looking for old software to work old hardware is simply that... investing in the past.

WinXP is 14 years old. Windows 7 is 6 years old. Both are dinosaurs in the hardware world, so if you want to run legacy software, you should run it on legacy hardware.

This would be fine if every version of Microsoft Windows was great, and none are junk. From what I have seen Vista sold better then Win8 has.

PS
I have no plans to upgrade my CPU until it dies or becomes too slow.

 

[cadaveca]

This would be fine if every version of Microsoft Windows was great, and none are junk. From what I have seen Vista sold better then Win8 has.

PS
I have no plans to upgrade my CPU until it dies or becomes too slow.

I use windows 8.1 on my desktop, and my Surface Pro3. I think 8.1 is great myself, and having used the Surface Pro3, all the complaints that users have about it sucking... goes right along the lines of how I feel about hardware not working with older software. I see zero need for and legacy OS at this point, and if I did, I see no problem in using legacy hardware to run it. I don't mind plugging in my Super Nintendo to play Super Metroid.

 

[Blue-Knight]

I use windows 8.1 on my desktop...

I think 8.1 is great myself

I see zero need for and legacy OS

I see no problem in using legacy hardware to run it

I don't mind plugging in my Super Nintendo to play Super Metroid.

Well, that is you. Just because you do not care it does not mean people not have too.

And they (still) have their right to complain.

Spoiler: Unnecessary comments

About those crazy and countless Windows compatibility problems with older programs, I believe there is some marketing strategy on it as well:

You paid for a software that could run fine on Windows 7. Its upgrade is not free.
Microsoft forces you to change to Windows 8 or 10. Both have a completely different GUI (supposing...) and things are not on the same place (for average users).
The programs you paid for will no longer work on these new operating system. You will have to upgrade or buy a new license.

Everybody wins...but you.

Calm down!
It is just a theory, it may or not represent actual facts.

 

[cadaveca]

Well, that is you. Just because you do not care it does not mean people not have too.

And they (still) have their right to complain.

And like they have the right to express their opinion, I have the right to express mine. Except that this isn't a place where users have rights (please see our forum rules), but that is besides the point.


However, you are right, I must digress. And in the past, consumer feedback does affect how a company designs and releases products. So the expression of such things is quite important for sure. Yet... I don't think many users are really going to care about such issues, unless they are some sort of enthusiast, and the enthusiast market is quite small (although I'd like it to get bigger, myself). So when the minority thinks it can be the voice of the majority...problems are sure to follow.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

And like they have the right to express their opinion, I have the right to express mine. Except that this isn't a place where users have rights (please see our forum rules), but that is besides the point.


However, you are right, I must digress. And in the past, consumer feedback does affect how a company designs and releases products. So the expression of such things is quite important for sure. Yet... I don't think many users are really going to care about such issues, unless they are some sort of enthusiast, and the enthusiast market is quite small (although I'd like it to get bigger, myself). So when the minority thinks it can be the voice of the majority...problems are sure to follow.

How dare you express basic logic and sense Dave, I expected better..................i kid i kid.

 

[newtekie1]

About those crazy and countless Windows compatibility problems with older programs, I believe there is some marketing strategy on it as well:

You paid for a software that could run fine on Windows 7. Its upgrade is not free.
Microsoft forces you to change to Windows 8 or 10. Both have a completely different GUI (supposing...) and things are not on the same place (for average users).
The programs you paid for will no longer work on these new operating system. You will have to upgrade or buy a new license.

Everybody wins...but you.

Calm down!
It is just a theory, it may or not represent actual facts.

I have yet to find a program that runs in Windows 7 that doesn't run in 8.

 

[Schmuckley]

Wanting new hardware, but not new OS, to me, is fail. I 100% support the idea that if you want new hardware, you gotta buy a new OS, too. Running software from 5 years ago on new hardware is just more work for the OS maker, and that takes resources away from them doing things right in the first place. I'd much rather see investment in the future, rather than the past. And looking for old software to work old hardware is simply that... investing in the past.

WinXP is 14 years old. Windows 7 is 6 years old. Both are dinosaurs in the hardware world, so if you want to run legacy software, you should run it on legacy hardware.

Yet still almost all manufacturing equipment still runs on XP .Do you really think companies are going to scrap a $500,000 piece of equipment and buy a new one because..Microsoft wants them to?Most workplaces are using Win7..that won't change for at least a couple more years..
Also XP yields the fastest SuperPi and WPrime speeds on HWbot.
Win 8 isn't even allowed on HWbot.
It probably is collaboration between Microsoft/hardware vendors.
Hardware vendors will lose out on customers by not supporting legacy OSes.
PS: My Haswell rig runs XP,will yours?

 

[RCoon]

My Haswell rig runs XP,will yours?

Probably, but I see no reason to run an outdated OS that provides no clear benefit besides benchmarking. 99% of the world's Windows users don't benchmark. I use Windows 8.1 Pro. I hated so hard in Windows 8, I was probably one of the worst offenders for slamming it like the immature person I am. Then it went on sale for £15, so I bought it.

I am pleased to admit I was wrong. While the UI still bugs me on occasion, the performance benefits, and sheer usefulness of booting into Windows in 5 seconds makes up for all of it. It's also a lot easier to use when I'm benchmarking figures for games and extrapolating that information onto my charts for reviews.

 

[Schmuckley]

Probably, but I see no reason to run an outdated OS that provides no clear benefit besides benchmarking. 99% of the world's Windows users don't benchmark. I use Windows 8.1 Pro. I hated so hard in Windows 8, I was probably one of the worst offenders for slamming it like the immature person I am. Then it went on sale for £15, so I bought it.

I am pleased to admit I was wrong. While the UI still bugs me on occasion, the performance benefits, and sheer usefulness of booting into Windows in 5 seconds makes up for all of it. It's also a lot easier to use when I'm benchmarking figures for games and extrapolating that information onto my charts for reviews.

Many games do not run properly on Win7-8-8.1.

 

[RCoon]

Many games do not run properly on Win7-8-8.1.

May I ask which ones?
If they're 20 years old, perhaps you should buy newer games, or just keep an XP Virtual Machine on your rig so you can play them when you want compatibility. Maintaining Windows XP as your main OS for 15-20 year old games seems a bit of a lapse of judgement in terms of security and development.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I have yet to find a program that runs in Windows 7 that doesn't run in 8.

And even better than that, W8.1 is the first OS I've had from MS that runs virtually ANY program or game I have thrown at it, no matter how old.

 

[Schmuckley]

AOE 2,WW1,Scarface,Operation Flashpoint..off the top of my head.

"20-year old games"

Virtual machines don't work much.

It was 1995 20 years ago.

 

[RCoon]

AOE 2,WW1,Scarface,Operation Flashpoint..off the top of my head.

"20-year old games"

It was 1995 20 years ago.

Have you tried googling solutions?

AOE 2: http://www.mayankmrug.com/2013/02/how-to-play-age-of-empires-ii-in.html

I can play games from before 1995 on my PC still. I boot up Master of Orion 2 occasionally! Even Mega'lo'Mania.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Operation Flashpoint works perfectly on my 8.1, as well as when I bought it and had W7.

 

[hat]

I hated Windows 8 when I first tried it. I got by with Classic Shell, but there were a few... odd quirks that bugged me. What they were exactly I don't recall. With Windows 8.1 (and classic shell) I'm a much happier user.

Windows 8.1 brings a few advantages over 7 that I actually benefit from. Better SSD support for one. I believe Windows 8 has better UEFI support too, but don't quote me on that.

 

[ChevyOwner]

One of the reasons many people want to keep Windows XP is that are unwilling to learn a new Operating system. Windows 7 is not terribly hard to move up to from XP. I used Windows 8 for a while. For me the interface would have worked on a tablet, but it did not work well on a Desktop. I know someone that installed the Windows 10 Technical Preview, and it is IMO much better then windows 8 or 8.1.

PS
While Windows 10 Is better then windows 8/8.1 in my opnions the only version of Windows I have used that was worse out of 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7...Was Windows 3.1. I find 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 are all better then 8/8.1 on 10. I won't be dowgrading from Windows 7, unless there is a Game I cant live with out that needs something newer even then I will just boot it from a VHD or VM, and only for that game.

 

[TRWOV]

The only game I've found to not run properly on W8.1 is Scarface due to some weird multicore bug (it works fine on multicore XP machines and single core W7/8 ones).

There are several others that won't install on Vista/7/8 but that's because developers used a static OS version query: the installer queries for Windows version 4 and 5 (98 and XP) and won't run if the version is not only lower but different at all. They run fine if you install then on an XP machine (to go around the OS version lock) and copy the install folder to a Vista/7/8 machine. I personally own Beyond Good and Evil and Jade Empire, both suffer from this.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

I dont like the feel of Windows 8/8.1/10. I dont like the look of it either. Everything is too flat. It reminds me of a modernized windows 98 look. Just prettier. All apps and shit are updating to the windows 8 look too and i cant fucking stand it. Sure I can get classic shell or w/e for windows 8, but it doesnt have all the full functionality compared to the actual start menu of 7. I can actually right click an emtpy space and have options to choose from.

Windows 10's start menu is a pile of shit too. I dont want movable windows. I want the Windows 7 look/feel. Dont modernize it. At the very least, have the option for the windows 7 look/feel and call it classic and make the current "classic" "legacy"

 

[BarbaricSoul]

I dont like the feel of Windows 8/8.1/10. I dont like the look of it either. Everything is too flat. It reminds me of a modernized windows 98 look. Just prettier. All apps and shit are updating to the windows 8 look too and i cant fucking stand it. Sure I can get classic shell or w/e for windows 8, but it doesnt have all the full functionality compared to the actual start menu of 7. I can actually right click an emtpy space and have options to choose from.

Windows 10's start menu is a pile of shit too. I dont want movable windows. I want the Windows 7 look/feel. Dont modernize it. At the very least, have the option for the windows 7 look/feel and call it classic and make the current "classic" "legacy"

pretty much how I feel considering 8 and 8.1. Haven't seen a 10 preview yet (someone toss me a link please)

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

pretty much how I feel considering 8 and 8.1. Haven't seen a 10 preview yet (someone toss me a link please)

10 is what 8 should have been. Looks and feels exactly the same except stupid modernized start menu and metro isnt the first thing that slaps you in the face.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

10 is what 8 should have been. Looks and feels exactly the same except stupid modernized start menu and metro isnt the first thing that slaps you in the face.

its not in 8 1 either......

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

its not in 8 1 either......

Doesnt matter.

The only thing that might make me jump ship is the implementation of Cortana. And that all depends on how well it performs.

 

[ChevyOwner]

Wanting new hardware, but not new OS, to me, is fail. I 100% support the idea that if you want new hardware, you gotta buy a new OS, too. Running software from 5 years ago on new hardware is just more work for the OS maker, and that takes resources away from them doing things right in the first place. I'd much rather see investment in the future, rather than the past. And looking for old software to work old hardware is simply that... investing in the past.

WinXP is 14 years old. Windows 7 is 6 years old. Both are dinosaurs in the hardware world, so if you want to run legacy software, you should run it on legacy hardware.

Have a cringe at this then. I know a few people that work for RR Donnelley, and many of their machines still ran on Windows 3.1 until the last sometime in the last 2-3 years. I think they made it up to Windows XP now.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Have a cringe at this then. I know a few people that work for RR Donnelley, and many of their machines still ran on Windows 3.1 until the last sometime in the last 2-3 years. I think they made it up to Windows XP now.

We have one machine that is windows 95 on our network. AFAIK, it hasnt been rebooted or turned off in years. Im not even sure what the purpose of the machine is.