Posted on 03/16/2017 5:59:49 PM PDT by dayglored
I find that statement astonishing, rarestia. I respect your opinion on such matters, given your background, so it's not that I disbelieve you, but rather:
EVERY release of the NT kernel since 5.1 XP SP2 has been touted as "The Most Secure Windows Ever". Every one said it was important to upgrade because of security, implying the older kernels were swiss cheese.
My feeling is that Microsoft and Intel collaborated on the CPU enhancements (which I do not doubt are significant and legit) in a way that would allow Microsoft to now pull the rug out from under their PRIOR PROMISES OF SUPPORT UNTIL 2020 AND 2023.
If this story about Kaby Lake et al were true, then Microsoft would REQUIRE THOSE CPUS for running Win10. In other words, they would not permit Win10 to run on old hardware that DID NOT take advantage of the new CPU enhancements.
Sorry, it doesn't wash. Nothing personal, rarestia, but I think you've bought the official company line, and I just don't see it the same way.
As a system admin for a software company whose products have existed for two decades, now on a dozen different platforms, I have perhaps a different perspective on the value of compatibility and support.
Actually I'd like to ask if you're sure you meant "Intel" and not "Microsoft".
Did you really mean to say that the latest Intel CPU architectures no longer have the registers, instructions, and other features that would be required for Win7 and Win8.1 to run on them? I find that hard-to-impossible to believe, since the entire software base of the past two decades would become un-runnable on the new CPUs.
So, did you mean "Microsoft", not "Intel"?
Likewise, I find it hard-to-impossible to believe that Microsoft, arguably the leading and most experienced software maker in the entire world for the past 30+ years, has lost their ability to do conditional compilation. Because that's all that's required to produce security patches for Win7 and Win8.1, on a new CPU architecture, until their promised end-of-life dates.
If you disagree, I'm certainly willing to be enlightened.
No, not married to hardware. I have upgraded hardware multiple times already in my same main system.
The hardware I am using is WAY better than what you just recommended. I “built” my favorite system myself. I have something like 5 other computers as good as your suggestion, but the system I like best was my complicated fast Vista 64 system, may her system now rest in peace.
What I WAS “married to” was maybe 100 programs and packages installed on that system, many of which have long installation procedures, and have very complex “settings” that require a lot of steps to tweak properly. I wanted to upgrade Vista 64 “in place” without disturbing many of those installations. The reason I spent $450 on two Win 7 Ultimates (I thought I lost one when I moved so bought a second Win 7U while I could) + Win 8.1 Pro was because it would cost me more in many days of time than to replicate my system on a new OS. Now I will have to do all that anyway, sigh.
If I had actually been able to upgrade to Win 7 Ultimate “in place” I would have later gone on to upgrade that hardware to a new motherboard and Skylake processor, but since that is now blocked CAPRICIOUSLY WITH PREJUDICE by Microsoft, it would have been an even worse waste of time for me than what happened.
I agree with you that (though only for average users) the refurbished systems like the Walmart system you mention are a very good value. It’s like buying a new car for most people to get a “new” computer: bad idea.
Sometimes new good deals do drop: A while ago I got two brand new Acer I5 2.8 GHz laptops with 8 mb memory, a 1 TB drive, a DVD writer (uncommon now), SD slots, a lighted wide keyboard, and a TOUCHSCREEN with Windows 8.1 and it was microsoft certified straight from MS with no crapware for $320 each! They had Windows 8.1. (That is the one I left plugged in when I went on vacation and when I came back it and much later ran it, it had been (illegally - Win 10 is a virus!) upgraded to Win 10 against my wishes. I had gone through steps to stop the upgrade, no thanks to MS, but must have missed some little thing.)
I gave the other one to my daughter.
I have since used the Acer Win 10 one as a “clean” system so that I would be better up to speed on Windows 10. Yep, it’s a virus. Runs OK, dumbed down a bit like a Mac, and SO annoying as a result. Windows 8.1 was better, Vista fully updated was the best (though they let it languish). Win 7 is OK but is not as good as everyone seems to think.
Unix based systems do not have the software I need - and other issues, it is not what I program for.
However, after I retire, I may well “marry” a -nix OS. I never plan to marry hardware.
I’ve done the same,
New i7 system, Win 7 x64, updates disabled.
It is this sort of thing that turns us geeks against MS.
No, I mean Intel.
Let me break this down a different way, and I’ll answer your other post at the same time.
When a core kernel is compiled and distributed, it is “pure as the wind-driven snow” according to the developer.
Over time, vulnerabilities are found and patched. Those patches are seldom perfect and patching, as I’m sure you know, has a butterfly effect. As one patch supersedes another and a roll-up supersedes then and a service pack supersedes both of them, you start to have a patchwork kernel where something pristine used to stand.
When Microsoft redesigned their kernel for Vista, it was truly revolutionary for them, because for years they used an open kernel with access to anyone or anything on the system. If it could load into memory, it could access the kernel. Then they slapped an abstraction layer around the kernel in Vista and called it secure. To access the kernel, you had to have your privileges elevated. Problem is that most people turned off UAC and ran as local admin, so anything could still access the kernel.
Then comes along Windows 7, again revolutionary, because they forced UAC on but you could turn off the notifications. This provided some better protection for the kernel, but you could still force your way in. They closed functionality loopholes and polished the interface. Problem is that it’s been around for 8 years and it’s just as patchwork-y as Vista was.
Windows 8(.1) introduced another abstraction layer around the kernel, and now only specific kernel-mode modules could only run in the lower-level architecture. Windows 8 was, and still remains, one of the most stable operating systems Microsoft has developed, because the kernel is hardened. Patching occurs at layer B, thus insulating the kernel-mode layer from the patchwork shenanigans. Think of it like this:
The kernel is a lightbulb. You put a fishbowl around the lightbulb. It’s clear, you can see the light (the kernel), but to keep the kernel safe, you have to start blocking off certain parts of the fishbowl with duct tape. Soon enough, the fishbowl becomes a grade school paper mache project with a couple of very tiny little lights coming out of it. Now, clear that fish bowl of all the tape and put a box around it with specific holes opened up for the light. The same amount of light can be seen, but now if some shenanigans start on the top of the box, you close up the hole while the rest of the box remains untouched or open a hole somewhere else while ensuring the same mistakes of the previous hole aren’t repeated.
Enter Windows 10. The kernel is functionally the same as Windows 8. Layers A and B are still intact. Now, however, Microsoft wants you to talk to the operating system through the same secure channels they’ve hardened in the past while forcing you to use their app store for specific functions. Their browser, also an app in the way it functions, is its own “box,” to use the previous example. If the app gets messed up or corrupted, they patch that secondary box instead of touching the (layer B) box. At any point in time, they can trash that app box and rewrite it from the ground-up while leaving the rest of the OS untouched. Everything is modular. They’ve taken a page from Google and Apple and wrote their kernel around a solid central core (the NT kernel) while insulating it from access except by the highly-privileged elevated accounts and processes permitted to talk to it.
When I said swiss cheese, I mean the functional capability of operating environment after years of patching have had their way with the security abstraction layers. Intel is doing away with what is “legacy,” because they want to write code that is specifically targeted to the HARDWARE abstraction layer as designed for Windows 10. Microsoft’s made a ton of core changes as well (just look at what they’re doing with RHEL now), so while they’re not doing away with support for the operating system by continuing to patch it, they’re not going to support people putting Windows 7, for instance, on newer architecture. It doesn’t benefit them to do so, because once you’re in extended support for a Microsoft OS, they’re only patching vulnerabilities and making sure the platform is safe and functional until EOL.
And you’re right, I’m 100% Microsoft fanboi. After 20+ years in IT, numerous certifications, and architectural knowledge that even I get confused sometimes, Windows has been my chosen operating environment. I support RHEL, SUSE, Ubuntu as well, but Windows is where my heart is. I’m not ashamed to admit that.
Good to hear. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.