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



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 13, 2015)

> We have a pretty huge leak today with lots of new details on Intel’s upcoming Skylake processors. To begin with, Microsoft is removing support for the EHCI host controller (USB 2.0 spec) and keeping only the xHCI host controller spec (also known as the universal USB 3.0 specification). While the USB 3.0 spec is backward compatible with most USB 2.0 and 1.0 functions, installing windows 7 via USB will not be one of them (source: EXPReview).



It also notes in the article 





> *You might be thinking that one can always take the bootable DVD route* and even though research indicates that dependence on optical drives is diminishing by the second, it has its own caveats.* You better hope that your motherboard has a PS/2 port because even while installing from a DVD, the USB ports wont work* (during the install setup).



Nice fancy way for us to be forced to Windows 8 if we want Skylake. It explains why in the second paragraph.

Source


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> It also notes in the article
> 
> Nice fancy way for us to be forced to Windows 8 if we want Skylake. It explains why in the second paragraph.
> 
> Source


 
Soooo, how does this force us to W8, because my 8.1 is on a DVD?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> It also notes in the article
> 
> Nice fancy way for us to be forced to Windows 8 if we want Skylake. It explains why in the second paragraph.
> 
> Source


nah Windows 10 will be here when skylake hit the market (hopefully ...) even if it's a purely theoretical assumption from me ... 

to be sure i just checked the IO port of my MVIIR ... well still has a mouse/keyboard combined PS/2 port pfeewww i'm saved ... oh wait ... the Z97 is only Broadwell compatible not Skylake (well ... it's not like Broadwell will launch after Skylake ... )


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 13, 2015)

Who cares really. If you are geek enough and wanting an EOL OS, then you have lying around an PCIE USB controller or just put the installation medium on another SATA drive/ODM and write the boot sector on it and automate the installation. I always make a preactivated install medium with my tokens just for my PC's thus not triggering online activation counts up.

The seconds it can be patched out using DISM probably too.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


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


Nice. Now how will I install my operating systems!? I have only an USB DVD drive.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 13, 2015)

No Skylake system will ship with Windows 7 so...this is like Post Turtle.  It couldn't get there itself...someone had to put it there:





Please leave the turtle on the ground...where it belongs.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jan 13, 2015)

This article is poorly worded and confused me a bit a first, Microsoft isn't doing anything different its intel being a shit.
It should read Intel is removing USB2.0 controller's from its chipsets and Windows 7 doesn't have native USB3.0 support which could cause a problem for some users.
I have a feeling all the board mfg will include a legacy usb 2.0 chipset the same way we see PS2 ports on some boards today.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 13, 2015)

Well it ain't the first time like that...

Hassle with F6 SATA controllers during XP times...(nlite was a must) XP without SP1 didn't detect USB's also normally... NT6 scrapped all video drivers, direct sound.

To be honest... Windows 7 is like Win95OSR2 and the Windows 10 is like 98SE... it actually hasn't changed a bit how M$ works and how things evolve.

If you want power - use Linux and compile everything yourself. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Where it belongs.



Yeah this should be in your garage soon....


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 13, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> Microsoft isn't doing anything different its intel being a shit.


I believe Microsoft will do everything they can to force their users to use their latest products. If Microsoft is involved or not, I do not know. But I would not doubt or be surprised if it is. 



Batou1986 said:


> It should read Intel is removing USB2.0 controller's from its chipsets and Windows 7 doesn't have native USB3.0 support which could cause a problem for some users.


Then there is no problem, I thought it was something worse when I read the topic's title.



Batou1986 said:


> I have a feeling all the board mfg will include a legacy usb 2.0 chipset the same way we see PS2 ports on some boards today.


I hope so.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 13, 2015)

It shouldn't be too hard for someone to create a Windows 7 ISO with a generic Microsoft USB3 driver.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 13, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Soooo, how does this force us to W8, because my 8.1 is on a DVD?


Ill answer your quote with another quote:



> *You might be thinking that one can always take the bootable DVD route* and even though research indicates that dependence on optical drives is diminishing by the second, it has its own caveats.* You better hope that your motherboard has a PS/2 port because even while installing from a DVD, the USB ports wont work* (during the install setup). If you have just one PS/2 port you will have to switch your PS/2 based mouse and keyboard as required through the entire process. All this means that Windows 7 will be very very troublesome for people to install and in most of the cases, people will consider it not worth the effort. Even if you do get it to work, the lack of EHCI means there might be unforeseen compatibility issues in the future. Effectively, from Skylake, and thanks to Intel’s spec upgrade, Windows 7 is now officially an obsolete OS.





Blue-Knight said:


> Nice. Now how will I install my operating systems!? I have only an USB DVD drive.


Install your OS's by not having a Skylake motherboard unfortunately.



Ferrum Master said:


> If you want power - use Linux and compile everything yourself.


Fuck that.  I want one OS to do it all. Not dual boot Windows/Linux so I can play games without hassle of using WINE.



Blue-Knight said:


> Then there is no problem, I thought it was something worse when I read the topic's title.


Only problem is using USB to install anything on skylake motherboards. USB2.0 and 1.1 wont even work from my understanding. USB3.0 cant work because Windows 7 doesnt support USB3.0 by default.



FordGT90Concept said:


> It shouldn't be too hard for someone to create a Windows 7 ISO with a generic Microsoft USB3 driver.


Ive tried to bake it into my installs wit no success.

On a side note, I hate how EVERYTHING is updating to look more like windows 8/10. I hate the style so much. Onstar just did it with their mobile app and it's like 50 steps in the opposite direction.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Fuck that.  I want one OS to do it all. Not dual boot Windows/Linux so I can play games without hassle of using WINE.



, It ain't that bad... if the drivers weren't that bad and STEAM is really pushing things up... Linux keeps you on the edge, like getting used to borking things up and fixing them and the endless cycle of it


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 13, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> , It ain't that bad... if the drivers weren't that bad and STEAM is really pushing things up... Linux keeps you on the edge, like getting used to borking things up and fixing them and the endless cycle of it


Ill give steam props for sure. They're making sure gaming is accessible on all PC platforms. But drivers blow, and it's just not worth the hassle for me.


----------



## ChevyOwner (Jan 13, 2015)

I don't see anything that would block a wds or network install.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 13, 2015)

ChevyOwner said:


> I don't see anything that would block a wds or network install.


network install will work if you have ps/2 mice/keyboard. USB2.0 isnt supported during windows setup on skylake motherboards. Though it is supported after the OS is installed. That is where the problem is.


----------



## ChevyOwner (Jan 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> network install will work if you have ps/2 mice/keyboard. USB2.0 isnt supported during windows setup on skylake motherboards. Though it is supported after the OS is installed. That is where the problem is.



You don't need a keyboard for this, but you can setup it up for that if you really want to.
This is mainly what I was referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Deployment_Services


----------



## Batou1986 (Jan 13, 2015)

Actually I don't understand another thing about this article 
My USB3.0 ports work fine during bios and during win7 install from USB 
Isn't xHIC and EHIC controlled by the bios most of the time ?
I Know for a fact the UEFI on my Zotac APU box has options to control the E/x HCI handoff to the OS


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 13, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> Actually I don't understand another thing about this article
> My USB3.0 ports work fine during bios and during win7 install from USB
> Isn't xHIC and EHIC controlled by the bios most of the time ?
> I Know for a fact the UEFI on my Zotac APU box has options to control the E/x HCI handoff to the OS



Come to think of it, I was able to turn on USB 3.0 on my Z68 in UEFI BIOS prior to install of Windows when I had Windows 7.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 13, 2015)

We're freaking out about requiring the motherboard manufacturer to include a $2 controller on their boards?

Honestly, I don't see the point in Intel wasting die space on a EHCI controller when the xHCI controller does the same things and then some.  An old OS not supporting the xHCI controller during install can't really be blamed on Intel, and since xHCI didn't exist when Microsoft made Win7 it can't really be blamed on Microsoft either.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 13, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> USB2.0 and 1.1 wont even work from my understanding.


WHAT!? You mean I will not be able to use my USB 2.0 devices anymore!? 

Please, tell me it is not true. But tell me the truth. 

*EDIT*:
Since USB 3.0 is backward/forward compatible with USB 2.0 then it means I could use my 2.0 devices on USB 3.0 port if available.

If that is true, then there is no problem.


----------



## Schmuckley (Jan 13, 2015)

All I know is there better be XP support.
I don't care if it's backchannels or what..
No XP/Win7 support =fail.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 14, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> WHAT!? You mean I will not be able to use my USB 2.0 devices anymore!?
> 
> Please, tell me it is not true. But tell me the truth.
> 
> ...


The problem is not having that support during the initial windows setup process for USB2.0. But afterwards once you are on your physical desktop, there are no issues. Even if USB 3.0 is backwards compatible, the USB 2.0 base driver wont be there.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 14, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> Well it ain't the first time like that...
> 
> Hassle with F6 SATA controllers during XP times...(nlite was a must) XP without SP1 didn't detect USB's also normally... NT6 scrapped all video drivers, direct sound.
> 
> ...



Can't wait to drive that in Forza 6.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 14, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> This article is poorly worded and confused me a bit a first, Microsoft isn't doing anything different its intel being a shit.
> It should read Intel is removing USB2.0 controller's from its chipsets *and Windows 7 doesn't have native USB3.0 support*


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. 



Spoiler: Advice



I guess it is time to change to an operating system that will give you freedom! Freedom of choice, freedom of *.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 14, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> All I know is there better be XP support.
> I don't care if it's backchannels or what..
> No XP/Win7 support =fail.


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.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 14, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> 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.



cadaveca said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

ChevyOwner said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> *I use* windows 8.1 on my desktop...





cadaveca said:


> *I think* 8.1 is great myself





cadaveca said:


> *I see* zero need for and legacy OS





cadaveca said:


> *I see* no problem in using legacy hardware to run it





cadaveca said:


> *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 (Jan 14, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> 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).
> ...



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


----------



## Schmuckley (Jan 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

RCoon said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

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 (Jan 14, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

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


----------



## hat (Jan 14, 2015)

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 (Jan 14, 2015)

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 (Jan 14, 2015)

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 (Jan 14, 2015)

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 (Jan 14, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> 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 (Jan 14, 2015)

ChevyOwner said:


> 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.


----------



## Raw (Jan 14, 2015)

cadaveca said:


> 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.


Makes sense and I have to agree with you. "I'd much rather see investment in the future, rather than the past."
Has it been 14 years already...holy shit!


----------



## ChevyOwner (Jan 14, 2015)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> 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.



These machines just insert stuff into mail. I understand they run hundreds of thousands of letters a day.


----------



## Constantine Yevseyev (Jan 14, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It shouldn't be too hard for someone to create a Windows 7 ISO with a generic Microsoft USB3 driver.


Sorry, but it doesn't work as of now. Intel has a pretty complicated implementation of their USB 3.0 hub, which basically sits on top of a secondary device, so when Windows PE loads your copy of Intel USB 3.0 driver software, only the "bottom-level" eXHC device starts working, while the other thing that you need (xHCI Root Hub with your USB drive attached to one of its ports) remains inactive for it's "located" on that very host controller.

To be honest, you get the same architecture with USB 1.1/2.0, but in that case both the controller and root hub are already working when the PE environment is loaded, while with USB 3.0 you basically have to restart your PC after getting eXHC to work, so... Yeah. You can't really do that, hah.

My theory is that you can perform a two-stage "fake" Windows installation, during one of which you will install an eXHC driver, then commit changes back to ISO, and then spin everything up again and finish up with installing the actual USB 3.0 Root Hub driver (and then your ISO should be ready for shipment). It's totally different from using a "safe" Answer File-based approach, but if it works, that would be really cool. Well, as long as Intel provides you with said Windows 7-compatible driver for your USB 3.0 hardware, which might not happen with Skylake.

Oh, and sadly there's no "Generic Microsoft USB 3.0" driver for Windows 7. I mean, as far as I'm concerned,_ it doesn't exist_, and OEMs/IHVs are responsible for providing it solely on their behalf. In Windows 8+, sure, but not in legacy operating systems.


----------

