No Windows 7 Drivers for AMD Ryzen

[rruff]

AMD may beg to differ, and I'm sure they've done a cost-anaylsis that says you aren't "worth it" to support, and maybe they are even correct from an economic point of view.

AMD is a tiny company and they have to pick their battles. There is no question that supporting W10 well is much more important than supporting W7 and W10 less well.

Remember guys, it doesn't matter if more people are on W7 presently. What matters is what *new* processor buyers will use. That is overwhelmingly going to be W10.

 

[Melvis]

In new pc builds it essentially is. I don't think you can even buy it outside of second-hand channels now.


Also, it's been known for a long time that 10 outperforms 7 overall, if only slightly.

AMD is a hardware company, not a software company, there goal is to sell as many units as possible to anybody, and you have the biggest amount of people in the world sitting on a W7 OS, and my bet is most are in businesses/corporate environments. That massive share of clientele will NOT upgrade to W10, they will replace there current hardware and continue to use there older OS (just like they did with XP) New PC sales is indeed important, but the biggest part of the pie is the 50% of people STILL using W7, regardless if W10 was free for a yr, bla bla bla, proof is in the pudding, W10 lost, period! The only reason any of us would run W10, that are running a trusted OS (W7) is because we have been forced to or have no choice, that for me is a big turn off and a bad business move. There is a huge market out there and there completely missing it.

 

[R-T-B]

AMD is a hardware company, not a software company, there goal is to sell as many units as possible to anybody, and you have the biggest amount of people in the world sitting on a W7 OS, and my bet is most are in businesses/corporate environments. That massive share of clientele will NOT upgrade to W10, they will replace there current hardware and continue to use there older OS (just like they did with XP) New PC sales is indeed important, but the biggest part of the pie is the 50% of people STILL using W7, regardless if W10 was free for a yr, bla bla bla, proof is in the pudding, W10 lost, period! The only reason any of us would run W10, that are running a trusted OS (W7) is because we have been forced to or have no choice, that for me is a big turn off and a bad business move. There is a huge market out there and there completely missing it.

Business/corperate most likely isn't Ryzens target though. I mean, it lacks an igpu, and an office worker honestly doesn't need 4 threads let alone 8. An APU would be better suited to that, and it would not surprise me if we find those AM4 APU units do actually feature Windows 7 support.

W10 lost, period!

If we're setting the goalpost here and now, sure it lost. That's silly though, this race has a ways to go, and the true finish line will be the Windows 7 EOL IMO. See me then.

PS: I'm a vocal critic of Windows 10 in many aspects, but I recognize it's not going anywhere. I think our best bet is to campaign against the flaws, not the whole OS.

 

[Fx]

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.

I will eventually install Win10, but strictly for gaming. Then another system will be used for all other tasks and more than likely be based on linux. My hopes is that, given time, gaming on alternative platforms (such as SteamOS) will gain enough traction that I can ditch Microsoft altogether.

I can't say this news from AMD pisses me off. They obviously designed Ryzen from the ground up and are relying on new technologies to make their magic happen. It seems that this time they finally hit a sweet spot between implementing forward-thinking technologies and transitioning from yesteryear's stability.

 

[bug]

How many existing machines do you have on AM4, out of curiousity?

New machine? New OS. LTSB is even supported for 10 years.

Would you argue the same if Vega weren't supported on Win7?

 

[dom99]

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...

Ha I also work in the insurance industry and this is very true - even upgrading from xp to win7 was purely due to it no longer being supported, so probably had to from a audit point of view. The problem is that investment in IT systems and its benefit is hard to quantify in money making terms. If you were able to say it will cost "X" but save make/save us "Y" then it would be different

 

[wurschti]

This is completely normal. After some time of having Windows 10 on my PCs and Laptops, I tried installing W7 on some of them to test if there was a speed increase because of the "lighter" Windows.
Honestly, after being used to SSDs for some time now, I must say that W7 driver support for SSDs let me down. The PC is not as responsive as W10 and everything is not as snappy as W10.
I would never buy a new shiny PC and have it on a 10 year old OS. I'm happy with what W10 turned out as an OS. I don't like being spied all the time, but don't hold your hopes up for W7 being more private and secure too. If you like privacy nowadays, disconnect your internet

 

[newtekie1]

AMD is a hardware company, not a software company, there goal is to sell as many units as possible to anybody, and you have the biggest amount of people in the world sitting on a W7 OS, and my bet is most are in businesses/corporate environments. That massive share of clientele will NOT upgrade to W10, they will replace there current hardware and continue to use there older OS (just like they did with XP) New PC sales is indeed important, but the biggest part of the pie is the 50% of people STILL using W7, regardless if W10 was free for a yr, bla bla bla, proof is in the pudding, W10 lost, period! The only reason any of us would run W10, that are running a trusted OS (W7) is because we have been forced to or have no choice, that for me is a big turn off and a bad business move. There is a huge market out there and there completely missing it.

Looking at the current market share is not what is important when Intel/AMD are making these types of decisions.

You look at the current sales and market share trends. And Windows 10 is outselling Windows 7 by a landslide. I guarantee you they talked to every major computer manufacturer to see how many PCs they are shipping with Win 7, and I guarantee the number is a small fraction of total sales.

And if you look at the latest OS market share, Win 10 is set to take over Win 7 this year. In fact Win 10 might even do it in the first half of the year.

 

[yogurt_21]

Looking at the current market share is not what is important when Intel/AMD are making these types of decisions.

You look at the current sales and market share trends. And Windows 10 is outselling Windows 7 by a landslide. I guarantee you they talked to every major computer manufacturer to see how many PCs they are shipping with Win 7, and I guarantee the number is a small fraction of total sales.

And if you look at the latest OS market share, Win 10 is set to take over Win 7 this year. In fact Win 10 might even do it in the first half of the year.

https://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpaf=&qpcustom=Windows+10&qpcustomb=0
https://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpaf=&qpcustom=Windows+7&qpcustomb=0

likely the end of the year. 10 isn't just cannibalizing 7, it's gobbling up the 8.1 market as well. So half of its growth comes from each. Then there's the very persistent xp market... its almost flat... like they've dug in their heels and are not giving up. It even had a month of growth last year...

 

[kruk]

Let's be realistic here. If Win 10 wasn't a free upgrade promoted as nagware it's market share would be much lower now, probably same as Win 8 (8.1) at it's peak. You can easily calculate this with freely available data on the web (e.g. statcounter). In the free upgrade time from august 2015 to august 2016 Win 10 had a steady growth of 2% per month, but after that, the adoption rate has slowed down to 0.66% per month.

Microsoft fears of another Windows XP scenario is doing anything it can to bring Windows 7 market share down.

 

[arterius2]

Haven't used windows 7 for 6 years now. who cares.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Microsoft fears of another Windows XP scenario is doing anything it can to bring Windows 7 market share down.

Windows 7 is already as old as Windows XP when Windows Vista came out.

 

[eidairaman1]

Windows 7 is already as old as Windows XP when Windows Vista came out.

Vista was a debacle, then xp proved to be that way too, w8 had a crap interface system, w10 still has issues to be ironed out, 7s are pretty much gone.

 

[pedromvu]

And since when do processors need drivers?

Maybe they are referring to chipset drivers for their AM4 motherboards?

 

[newtekie1]

And since when do processors need drivers?

Maybe they are referring to chipset drivers for their AM4 motherboards?

Processors need drivers, the OS has to know how to properly interact with them, and what functions/instructions work with them. Yes, they can a lot of the time work with basic drivers, like how a GPU will work without a driver installed. But they won't work anywhere near their potential.

 

[Shihab]

Processors need drivers, the OS has to know how to properly interact with them, and what functions/instructions work with them. Yes, they can a lot of the time work with basic drivers, like how a GPU will work without a driver installed. But they won't work anywhere near their potential.

Available instructions can be enumerated through CPUID.
Not sure about functions though. CPUs are getting too SoC-ish these days. I'm starting to fear that the PC platform might turn into a Smartphone-esque abomination.

 

[R-T-B]

Would you argue the same if Vega weren't supported on Win7?

Honestly? That's AMD's call.

 

[OldSchool Tech]

We all know that windows 7 is rock stable and dependable, in order for these new tech to function to full potential, all we need are drivers then. Since the platform is still very viable, that fact being very evident with over 48% market share, AMD should have made drivers for it. They are the smaller company coming from behind trying to catch-up with Chipzilla and they are forsaking almost half the world market to do it? Far from being what maybe considered a smart decision. And for people who seem to think the difference in GUI makes all the difference, FYI pros look at operating systems from the point of view of registry, security permissions, and group policies. When you refer to windows 7 as an old decrepit OS, please be informed that it is 95% way to similar to windows 10. And it leads windows 10 in 4 categories real enthusiasts should really worry about. Full- control computing in windows 7 and blind faith in windows 10(no control over updates means what you could turn off could be overturned by the next update. You cant even turn off Defender lol cuz it will always run again...later whatever lol), security(in windows 7 you can actually choose who you want to provide it for you), privacy (with windows 7 you can deactivate telemetry and not worry about auto updates in windows 10 turning them back on), and, ofcourse, system monitoring(no enthusiast operates his computer in blissful ignorance and windows 7 can be configured to monitor temps fan rpm ram and vram consumption cpu throttle) And if you are wondering how monitoring might help, think overclocking or think bitcoin miner malware. You detect these things easily with proper monitoring. Windows 7 is a great product of MS that AMD should have been supported with drivers.

 

[Jism]

Come'on, that CPU will work on Windows 7 X86 or X64. The only thing you are missing are the new features that come along with that CPU. It does'nt mean you cant launch certain programs or missing in on performance on some parts, i bet your butt that it will work identical as any other 8350 or i7/i5/i3 from Intel.

Back in the Pentium days, a CPU with MMX was often faster in video playback then a CPU without, even tho the CPU without MMX was higher clocked.

You have 8 cores and 16 threads. I'm pretty sure that performance will be as good as solid compared from W7 to W10.

 

[bug]

Come'on, that CPU will work on Windows 7 X86 or X64. The only thing you are missing are the new features that come along with that CPU. It does'nt mean you cant launch certain programs or missing in on performance on some parts, i bet your butt that it will work identical as any other 8350 or i7/i5/i3 from Intel.

Back in the Pentium days, a CPU with MMX was often faster in video playback then a CPU without, even tho the CPU without MMX was higher clocked.

You have 8 cores and 16 threads. I'm pretty sure that performance will be as good as solid compared from W7 to W10.

You must have missed the part where new instructions won't work. Or proper power management. Other than that, you're spot-on.

 

[Jism]

Power management can be controlled by UEFI bios. No need for OS level anyway if you set things on "high performance". New instructions do not always prove to be better or offer more performance. It's very rare applications that make benefit of new instructions.

 

[Pixels303]

I can see at least 2: extra cost and simply being happy with the older Windows.
Imagine keyboard manufacturers rearranging the keys every few years.

many fail to recognize this type of marketing practice, to say that new is better and old won't work is a nonsensical statement. All software needs to function is a "patch" to employ new coding idea's. Microsoft could support the older OS easily this way, but chooses not to in favor of their modeling a way of replacing a system with a newer model at the expense of re-learning a new GUI and spending more needless time and money. Naturally it can be frustrating for the end-user, especially those who are enthusiasts. I always remember seeing a home made Mac video, where the Mac guy tells the viewer that he will be introducing a new upgrade preceded by another .44 magnum wielding Mac clone wearing a fancy leather jacket, shoots him dead and steps on his body and says "greetings, I am the new upgrade". It has become socially acceptable to discard efforts on perfectly functional systems rather than modify them to be more advanced at the expense of complete change. I'll wait to see what happens with AMD as I really need more process power with my current system. If I can't upgrade it in favor of a complete re-build, it would cost me many many more dollars and much more grief. . I use XP and 7, and yes, XP and 7 are alike, with a few improvements and many more irritating changes which don't make any sense, but I see no reason to continue down the Microsoft path if this is what I can look forward to every year they decide to change everything. I guess I will be learning Linux sooner than anticipated.

 

[newtekie1]

Power management can be controlled by UEFI bios. No need for OS level anyway if you set things on "high performance". New instructions do not always prove to be better or offer more performance. It's very rare applications that make benefit of new instructions.

That obviously isn't true. Again, just installing Windows 8.1 on a Kaby Lake processor resulting in an unstable mess. Sorry, but not having proper driver support for the processor, and everything integrated into it, leads to problems. And proper driver support takes research and development time, and research and development time isn't free. Windows 7 is rarely sold with new machines, and it is rarely used on new machines. Obviously both Intel and AMD have decided the money spent to support Windows 7(and 8) is not going to lead to a positive return on investment. It isn't just a few new instructions and some power management features. CPUs now integrate so many functions. They have built in security features, for examples. And if the OS doesn't know how to talk to those security features, you'll get instability. The entire northbridge of the chipset has been integrated into the CPUs. Remember how you have to install chipset drivers? Well that need doesn't change just because a major portion of the chipset is now on the CPU.

The current market share of Windows 7 doesn't matter. When selling a new processor, AMD and Intel don't give s shit about what people are already using. They care about what people will be using with the new processor. They care about what OS will come on the brand new system. And for probably over 90% of the new computers sold or built, Windows 10 will be the OS installed on them.

many fail to recognize this type of marketing practice, to say that new is better and old won't work is a nonsensical statement. All software needs to function is a "patch" to employ new coding idea's. Microsoft could support the older OS easily this way, but chooses not to in favor of their modeling a way of replacing a system with a newer model at the expense of re-learning a new GUI and spending more needless time and money. Naturally it can be frustrating for the end-user, especially those who are enthusiasts. I always remember seeing a home made Mac video, where the Mac guy tells the viewer that he will be introducing a new upgrade preceded by another .44 magnum wielding Mac clone wearing a fancy leather jacket, shoots him dead and steps on his body and says "greetings, I am the new upgrade". It has become socially acceptable to discard efforts on perfectly functional systems rather than modify them to be more advanced at the expense of complete change. I'll wait to see what happens with AMD as I really need more process power with my current system. If I can't upgrade it in favor of a complete re-build, it would cost me many many more dollars and much more grief. . I use XP and 7, and yes, XP and 7 are alike, with a few improvements and many more irritating changes which don't make any sense, but I see no reason to continue down the Microsoft path if this is what I can look forward to every year they decide to change everything. I guess I will be learning Linux sooner than anticipated.

This is not a decision of Microsoft. This decision has nothing to do with Microsoft.

 

[Melvis]

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

 

[newtekie1]

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

And what does that have to do with anything?