How to avoid being "upgraded to Win 10" against your will:

[dencorso]

Well, technically, neither Intel nor AMD are bound in any way to uphold the OSes EoS dates, whereas MS (which is the party that established the EoS dates, to start with) ought to be bound by its own word...

[OneSerendipity]

If I remember correctly, such companies support a product during the mainstream support period of its life. That is, for example, Vista, whose mainstream ended in April 2012. Which means, Sandy would be the last architecture to support it, while XP's finished in 2009, yet they still made compatible architectures for it, not sure if Ivy is the last to do so though.

[dencorso]

Yes: Ivy Bridge with the x6x (Cougar Point) Southbridges supports XP fully. Ivy Bridge-E with the X79 Southbridge is also does. Supposedly the most extreme fully supported XP machine ought to be an LGA 2011 X79 motherboard with non-Intel USB 3.0, powered by a Core i7-4960X (which has 6 cores and Hyperthreading). 

[greenhillmaniac]

9 hours ago, JorgeA said:

Vista doesn't go EOS until next year, and yet AMD stopped supporting it three years ago. So this sort of thing has already happened? 

Bummer.

Unless somebody decides to make a KernelEx for Vista, or something of the sorts, Windows 7 is the oldest OS people can go to, and even that is not guaranteed, with M$ saying that they will stop supporting Skylake on Win7+8.1 in 2018 (though I'm still not sure how that will work... seems like breach of EULA or something. Will they release updates that don't install if they detect a Skylake CPU?)

[TELVM]

More sabotage:

Microsoft Botches Up UEFI Support for Windows 7 on ASUS Motherboards

"Microsoft inadvertently bricked a vast number of PCs running Windows 7, by changing the priority of an erroneous software update. Earlier this month, Microsoft changed the priority of an obscure-sounding security update for Windows 7 from "Optional" to "Recommended," (which by default gets automatically downloaded an installed). This update, KB3133977, bricks machines running ASUS motherboards, in the UEFI mode.

Windows 7 inherently does not support Secure Boot, a feature introduced with Windows 8, which takes advantage of UEFI to provide users with a layer of system integrity throughout the boot process. With KB3133977 installed on Windows 7 machines that use UEFI boot, the motherboard senses a Secure Boot violation, and invalidates the boot device (refuses to boot from it). ASUS recommended a BIOS setting with which you can deactivate Secure Boot while making your motherboard continuing to boot in UEFI mode."

"Security" updates and "Secure" boot make your system safe! It's for your security! Don't even think about running W7 without them!

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by TELVM

[NoelC]

What if the engineers at Microsoft, and especially the managers in charge, weren't even as smart or careful as those of us communicating here...

What if this was all a big game to them.

Food for thought.

-Noel

[MTDirector]

Microsoft realesed en new update wich is th KB3150513, it's the "May 2016 Compatibility Update"
 

Quote

This update provides updated configuration and definitions for compatibility diagnostics performed on the system. The updated definitions will improve accuracy and help enable Microsoft and its partners ensure compatibility for customers who want to install the latest Windows operating system. This update will be offered only if KB2977759, KB2952664, or KB2976978 is installed on Windows 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1), or Windows 7 RTM.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3150513

[JorgeA]

A new Windows Update to add to the verboten list:

Updated capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7

Quote

This update adds capabilities to some computers that lets users easily learn about Windows 10 or start an upgrade to Windows 10. Before you install this update, see the Prerequisites section.

--JorgeA

[dencorso]

On 4/13/2015 at 11:06 PM, dencorso said:

KB3123862- Updated capabilities to upgrade Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 This update adds capabilities to some computers that lets users easily learn about Windows 10 or start an upgrade to Windows 10.

It's there already!

But thanks anyway, we must keep eyes wide open, all the time.

[JorgeA]

Whoops, sorry!! 

What happened is that I saw KB3123862 available on my Win7 system -- bearing the date "5/17/2016". Then, figuring that it was a brand-new update, I came here to see if anybody had reported it since May 17. Noticing that the last post was from May 6, I concluded that the update had not yet been announced in the thread and so went ahead and posted.

Next time, I'll make sure to also check the first post in case the work has already been done. 

--JorgeA

[dencorso]

It's OK, really! Like I said, we're much better safe than sorry.

There's no such a thing as "excess zeal", in matters like this one.
 

[jaclaz]

On venerdì 6 maggio 2016 at 5:12 AM, TELVM said:

Windows 7 inherently does not support Secure Boot, a feature introduced with Windows 8, which takes advantage of UEFI to provide users with a layer of system integrity throughout the boot process.

Well, to be fair, you take something totally UNdocumented (the BIOS) that empirically and through years of experience works fine (though with a few limitations) and decide to create a completely NEW "standard" (the UEFI) senselessly complicated by having it developed by a committeee and OVER-document it, and you couple it with another NEW "standard" (the GPT) also developed by a committee, but this time UNDER-documented and then use anyway a non fully compliant implementation of both and let most motherboard manufacturers  have each their own (different and not fully compliant - but differently) implementation, something is about to happen before or later.

Nothing can be fully compliant with more than 2,000 - two thousands - pages of (BTW unclear and often contrasting) documentation, particularly if even each member of the committee do not respect the standard.

Besides the MS or the Asus guys, the people to blame are IMNSHO the ones on UEFI.org, particularly the INTEL peeps, that pushed and helped this madness.

jaclaz

 

[glnz]

Dumb Q - A week ago, on my Win 7 Pro 64-bit, I installed first kb3138612 and then kb3145739 specifically to make downloading of updates faster, as recommended somewhere.
Last night I UNinstalled kb3138612 because it is on this thread's Stop Win 10 list.
Seeing a reminder about faster Windows Updates for Win 7, I just REinstalled kb3138612.
But I am now worried that I have installed kb3138612 and kb3145739 in the wrong "order", with kb3145739 now "first".
► Am I ok, or should I now UNinstall kb3145739 and then REinstall kb3145739 so that the two KBs are installed in the right "order"?
Sorry - I'm making myself dizzy - and thanks.

[dencorso]

You're OK, relax!

[glnz]

Dencorso and friends - What's your verdict on this Win 7 Pro 64-bit "roll-up" KB 3156417?  Its description looks OK (says two issues are fixed), but some commentators elsewhere are suspicious.  Thanks.

Edited May 25, 2016 by glnz