Don't know how to take this info.
On one hand, haven't used 7 on my desktop since 10 came out. And will prob never go back to it. So this lack of support means nothing to me. Plus you gotta drive that progress in some way.
On the other hand, there are still a ton of users on W7 who aren't planing to switch to 10 anytime soon.
But then again, it's not like it ain't gonna work at all.

ShurikNDon't know how to take this info.
On one hand, haven't used 7 on my desktop since 10 came out. And will prob never go back to it. So this lack of support means nothing to me. Plus you gotta drive that progress in some way.
On the other hand, there are still a ton of users on W7 who aren't planing to switch to 10 anytime soon.
But then again, it's not like it ain't gonna work at all.

The HW dies... new HW investment usually means a new legit OS. I cannot see problems in this at all...

The thing is, it'll still work just fine. It's just that it won't support fancy power saving features, meaning it'll be more power hungry during idle. I don't think it'll change in any other way.

ShurikNDon't know how to take this info.
On one hand, haven't used 7 on my desktop since 10 came out. And will prob never go back to it. So this lack of support means nothing to me. Plus you gotta drive that progress in some way.
On the other hand, there are still a ton of users on W7 who aren't planing to switch to 10 anytime soon.
But then again, it's not like it ain't gonna work at all.

Well, it would be a knee jerk reaction to condemn AMD for not supporting W7 (as many people may have done with Skylake and Intel). There's no point trying to accommodate an older OS with limited microsoft support. As @Ferrum Master says, upgrading a CPU is about as major as it gets - new system is generally required, so a new OS install would be the norm.

My upgrade will also be to W10, no matter whether I go with Zen or not.

Oh come on... pff.

RejZoRThe thing is, it'll still work just fine. It's just that it won't support fancy power saving features, meaning it'll be more power hungry during idle. I don't think it'll change in any other way.

How do you know it's just power saving features though?

I wonder if Microsoft applied a little pressure here...

thevoiceofreasonI wonder if Microsoft applied a little pressure here...

Don't matter if they did or didn't, end of the day AMD need to move forward to whats new and get that supported the best as possible for the long term.

Ferrum MasterThe HW dies... new HW investment usually means a new legit OS. I cannot see problems in this at all...

I can see at least 2: extra cost and simply being happy with the older Windows.

Pretty much anything you buy today can technically work with Windows 7 - both hardware and software.
W7 itself is a pretty good OS - stable, fast, fairly easy on resources. W10 is better, but it's not an upgrade worth few hundred EUR or USD...

This is an issue with Microsoft. They were a software company for most of the time and got seriously interested in hardware just few years ago. As a result we have to pay for their OS - something that should be a cheap addition to their other products.
And because we have to pay a lot for the OS, Microsoft has to convince us there is something to pay for, so they change the interface all the time... and that's why people prefer not to upgrade.
This whole strategy is deeply wrong. Apple solved this way better and that's why they're stealing customers.

On average you're right. Most people buy complete systems (usually laptops) that come with an OS. They can't do much with their PCs, so learning the new OS doesn't take them long.
But if you're building a PC yourself and you're a "poweruser", paying for a totally different OS and changing your whole workflow is just a huge inconvenience.

Imagine keyboard manufacturers rearranging the keys every few years. :)

Though most enterprise environments don't necessarily have the latest and greatest, it is attitudes like this that are giving the middle finger to that type of environment. Windows 7 is a stable, time-tested operating system. IT departments already have enough trouble convincing the powers that be to spend money (in the eyes of financial personnel, there is little return on investment on IT :banghead:) , so dropping a project like upgrading to all Windows 10 is not going to be received well. The time it would take to upgrade plus the manpower and licensing costs make it a technician's nightmare. So yes, for personal upgrades to windows 10, it isn't a big deal, but think of us who manage thousands of PC's. This trend is scary to us.

Good. Why waste valuable engineering time on drivers for a system that Microsoft themselves will not be supporting "soon" (Jan. 14, 2020) yeah less than 3 years but still a waste of the companies resources.

The OS will be more and more useless if Intel would do the same. put focus on Windows 10 drivers and make them solid and stop trying to beat on a "dead" OS.

BoatvanThe time it would take to upgrade plus the manpower and licensing costs make it a technician's nightmare. So yes, for personal upgrades to windows 10, it isn't a big deal, but think of us who manage thousands of PC's. This trend is scary to us.

So true.
I work in insurance industry. Most of the staff has minimal computer proficiency, so actually most of the cost when upgrading a Windows or Office is not in software (or IT manpower), but in training and... a significant loss of work efficiency in the first days.

As you've said, it's really hard to convince anyone that investment in IT is a good idea - and it's not easier when there aren't any clear arguments.

To give an example of just how difficult an update to Windows 10 is in insurance (where profits and general IT systems quality are much lower than in banks etc):
When one of insurance companies in my country (top 5) jumped from Win 7 to 10 last year, it spawned 2-page articles about IT systems in many popular business magazines...

nickbaldwin86The OS will be more and more useless if Intel would do the same. put focus on Windows 10 drivers and make them solid and stop trying to beat on a "dead" OS.

In your signature it says, that you use a "dead" OS (Win 8.1), which is (in your words) going to get more and more useless. Why haven't you upgraded to Win 10 yet?

nickbaldwin86put focus on Windows 10 drivers and make them solid and stop trying to beat on a "dead" OS.

That is a very narrow-minded viewpoint my friend. I'm just telling it how it is with enterprise environments. Plus, from a business standpoint, AMD just alienated an entire sector of their customer base. If support hasn't officially ended, it isn't "dead".

I knew I would ruffle a few people with that comment...haha

BoatvanThat is a very narrow-minded viewpoint my friend. I'm just telling it how it is with enterprise environments. Plus, from a business standpoint, AMD just alienated an entire sector of their customer base. If support hasn't officially ended, it isn't "dead".

I work in a enterprise environment and I am a IT professional. I have been deploying W10 on all new machines that we purchase. Yes, older machines are still on Windows 7 but that is only because I am 1 and there are to many for me to install Windows 10 on, so a 1 by 1 is good enough. we have a "mixed" or "hybrid" environment

krukIn your signature it says, that you use a "dead" OS (Win 8.1), which is (in your words) going to get more and more useless. Why haven't you upgraded to Win 10 yet?

I dont even own that system in my "System specs" so let me fix that for you ;) I have been on Win10 since a very early Preview.

Just my opinion and the way I am guessing AMD are thinking as well.

nickbaldwin86. I have been deploying W10 on all new machines that we purchase

Don't get me wrong, we are in a transition phase. Some of our hardware is already on W10. But vendors shouldn't determine when a company needs to update. The company and the Operating system's official support should dictate this.

BoatvanDon't get me wrong, we are in a transition phase. Some of our hardware is already on W10. But vendors shouldn't determine when a company needs to update. The company and the Operating system's official support should dictate this.

You have to remember that they are saying for Ryzen not the entire AMD line. I am sure AMD will still offer "enterprise" hardware with support for Win7 and I am assuming this move toward Ryzen is because it is directed toward the "gamer" or enthusiast market and see that Win10 is moving forward in those areas?

Again this is just my opinion and take off of this. I cant believe they would cut themselves short in enterprise if they just didn't see the value. or Microsoft is paying them off? but doubtful

OctopussOh come on... pff.


How do you know it's just power saving features though?

It's just power saving and turbo boost. The way how much OS is aware of CPU and what it's doing. I can't think of any reason why anything else would need OS awareness. Maybe virtualization functionality, but I'm not sure.

I guess at this point, I need to start setting a budget, and saving up for a my next box, and pull in the Windows 7 supported parts as I can. I have zero intention of moving to windows 10, as inevitable as that may be, for as long as I possibly can. So, I need to build a solid machine based on acceptable parts as soon as I can.....

"New instruction sets?" Any details on those?

Once I have a Ryzen board cpu, ddr 4 I will grab 2 840 Pro 256 SSDs and have a Dual Boot and see for myself. If W7 is really crippled i will pull the W7 SSD out and have it as a spare at that point and run 10 then.

I don't believe we can really blame Intel or AMD on this because its just time to move on. Windows 7 is old and even though we have all enjoyed it we need to move on to the newer OS's with new equipment. Its much more expensive and difficult to keep an ageing OS in the loop on new hardware and debug problems. Many business still use Windows 7, but even then its getting to the point they to need to move on since we have had now 2 OS revisions since then.

merely an adoption of Intel position on the matter. Legacy OS begets legacy hardware.

I have no beef with this. many of us took tried to run Windows NT (sp4+) and Windows 2000 pro much longer than we likely should have because we enjoyed the pure simplicity and speed. But we had to move eventually.

So I don't really care when new hardware begets new OS. I did of course nerf the hell out of the auto updates on windows 10 so I don't have anniversary yet. Which may influence things a bit.

But seriously this would be like paying for a brand new car and trying to tear out the new dash so you can throw in the one from your old car...

sure you may like it better, but the new dash is designed to work with the new car and old is designed to work with the old car. Forcing the old on the new isn't going to be pretty. And sure the manufacturer could make it possible to swap your new dash for the old one, but it's not exactly a high demand item and it would severly hamper future development.

Ferrum Masternew legit OS

That's the problem right there. Server 2016 is actually a much cleaner (read no store or apps or bloatware) OS than Win 10 so there's that.

So, now we are on the "burst your bubble" phase?
And I call bullshit at this "no reason to support old OS" rationale. That old OS has nearly double the marketshare of the new one. I smell Microsoft behind this. Next they'll say their SMT isn't standard in-hardware, instruction-level parallelism and requires software support exclusive to 10! -_-
</annoyed rant>

Seriously, annoyance with the [not quite] new attitude aside, why does this actually matter in practice? Afaik, the only thing the processor lets the OS handle are the c states, no? And from what I could find, the latest instructions in Zen are RDSEED (from Broadwel days) and AVX/FMA instructions (ages old).

notbI can see at least 2: extra cost and simply being happy with the older Windows.

Pretty much anything you buy today can technically work with Windows 7 - both hardware and software.
W7 itself is a pretty good OS - stable, fast, fairly easy on resources. W10 is better, but it's not an upgrade worth few hundred EUR or USD...

This is an issue with Microsoft. They were a software company for most of the time and got seriously interested in hardware just few years ago. As a result we have to pay for their OS - something that should be a cheap addition to their other products.
And because we have to pay a lot for the OS, Microsoft has to convince us there is something to pay for, so they change the interface all the time... and that's why people prefer not to upgrade.
This whole strategy is deeply wrong. Apple solved this way better and that's why they're stealing customers.

On average you're right. Most people buy complete systems (usually laptops) that come with an OS. They can't do much with their PCs, so learning the new OS doesn't take them long.
But if you're building a PC yourself and you're a "poweruser", paying for a totally different OS and changing your whole workflow is just a huge inconvenience.

Imagine keyboard manufacturers rearranging the keys every few years. :)

Those still paying $100s + for an OS are just stupid. Multiple resources available in which to get cheap Win 10 keys. I don't think ive paid over $40 for an OS in the last 3-4 years.