phaZed
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 3,138
- Location
- Richmond, VA
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/14085
That says 10 years. Which matches what their Product life cycle table says. I really don't care that they said a year ago that they didn't plan to do it. It is contradicting the policy they have published.
Well, OK, but that document is the embodiment of the "New Deal" of 10 years for current products that you're speaking of. Not of the product released in 2009 (W7).
That document plainly says, "applies to most products currently available through retail purchase or volume licensing" - Windows 7 is not and has not been available for retail or volume licensing, therefore this document does not apply.
Rather, you should refer to the document I poster earlier, HERE, which plainly says in the properties of the document:
Article ID: 13853 - Last Review: Feb 14, 2017 - Revision: 37
Applies to
Windows 10, Windows 7, Windows 8.1
Whereas yours does not.
Not true at all. Absolutely EVERY OEM computer sold is comprised of WHQL tested hardware or they can't be an OEM, that's OEM 101 stuff. Every product that has the Windows Logo "For Windows XXX" is WHQL tested. Every product. When was the last time you got a motherboard, videocard, soundcard, etc that didn't have the Windows Logo? Chinese fleebay and off-brand crap need not apply to the argument, please. NVIDIA has periodic "Game Ready Drivers" which are generally NOT WHQL, instead, they offer the newest WHQL drivers for download concurrently... the main deal is that a WHQL driver exists at product launch.Also only about 1/10th of all drivers are WHCP. Plenty of companies produce drivers that have not been certified.
WHQL = Stickers on CPU's and Print on boxes =

You show me a reputable article or reference that backs your 1/10th claim and I will happily recant. I'm only arguing for 'reputable hardware'.
I would challenge you to find ONE name-brand product that requires a driver, is designed for Windows (Not Apple/Linux only, for example) and has no WHQL certification.
Not true in the context of Windows 7. Only half-way true in the context of Windows 8 and 10.And if Microsoft finds a non-certified driver is insecure they are free to block it.
First, the issue for WHQL testing wasn't / isn't necessarily focused on security/insecurity but rather buggy/not buggy and works/doesn't work. This was Microsoft's response to Bluescreens and other mal-behaviors caused by 3rd parties in the late 90's and early 2000's. They didn't want their operating system blamed for buggy coding on the part of others.
Secondly, Windows 7 was always automatically set to deny the install of unsigned drivers, by default. How often do you have to Start>Run and type "bcdedit /set nointegritychecks OFF" when installing drivers? But that's not really Microsoft "Blocking Drivers" like they can in 8 and 10, where 'updates' can be pushed as a service. Windows 8 and 10 have "Driver Signature Enforcement" in which you must run Win10 in 'Test Mode' to install and run unsigned drivers. Once you leave test mode, the drivers unload and fail on next boot.

Again, not really about security as it is best practices in coding, bug testing and hardware compatibility across a wide range of hardware that is the focus of WHQL testing. The author of the driver is expected to fix their own sh*t, yes. So what?And the few times that hardware drivers have had security issues it also has been the hardware maker who fixes it.
Your argument makes no sense and is patently false. "Supporting" means that there is a team of people testing and developing software for Windows 7. These people do get paid and departments have overhead. The reason this doesn't affect 'old hardware' is because, obviously, that software is already written and working. It's new silicon that needs new software that is the problem - so I don't get how your argument is valid..The premises that Microsoft is somehow saving money by not supporting new hardware is full of crap because this policy doesn't affect old hardware that will get the same patches.
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsex...acing-silicon-innovation/#WipQoLdEJcw3vGT2.97
Yes, that is a logical and valid point from Microsoft.Windows 7 was designed nearly 10 years ago before any x86/x64 SOCs existed. For Windows 7 to run on any modern silicon, device drivers and firmware need to emulate Windows 7’s expectations for interrupt processing, bus support, and power states- which is challenging for WiFi, graphics, security, and more. As partners make customizations to legacy device drivers, services, and firmware settings, customers are likely to see regressions with Windows 7 ongoing servicing......
.......Redesigning Windows 7 subsystems to embrace new generations of silicon would introduce churn into the Windows 7 code base, and would break this commitment.
So what? You could registry hack XP to continue to get patches too, but it did often cause instability and other problems. Just because you can, doesn't mean it's going to work. A little early to call anything "bogus" as nothing has happened yet. Time will tell.And there is already talk, in this thread, of registry hacks that will allow the patches to be installed anyway.
So if they can be and they will work then why block it other than a bogus reason to force end users to go to Windows 10.
BS. You get to show where it says that.And here is the other POS part of this deal. If you purchase the extended support hotfixes, you get the block patches anyway.
Consider the following:
Extended Hotfix Support
NON-SECURITY HOTFIX. So what blocked security patches are EHS subscribers getting again?Premier Support customers can purchase Extended Hotfix Support as an add-on program for an annual program fee plus an additional fee for each non-security hotfix provided. Customers must enroll in the program within the first 90 days of the Extended Support phase.
and EHS only HAD a 90 day window for sign-up in 2015 - that pre-dates Skylake and Kaby Lake, so those customers surely WILL continue to get updates... your full of it, dude.