[propbeanie]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

The other end of the spectrum is that both AMD and Intel and microsoft are conspiring to force end users to have Windows 10 in their machines if they want to use the latest CPU's with high number multi cores.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/318...backfires.html

Further, the implementation of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) instead of the original Bios is making things more difficult to get around these obstacles


Quote: That statement was augmented by Microsoft’s Lifecycle Policy FAQ, published last month, which says:
As new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support. This enables us to focus on deep integration between Windows and the silicon, while maintaining maximum reliability and compatibility with previous generations of platform and silicon. For example, Windows 10 will be the only supported Windows platform on Intel’s upcoming “Kaby lake” silicon, Qualcomm’s upcoming “8996” silicon, and AMD’s upcoming “Bristol Ridge” silicon.
Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 will continue to be supported for security, reliability, and compatibility on prior generations of processors and chipsets under the standard lifecycle for Windows. This includes most devices available for purchase today by consumers or enterprises and includes generations of silicon such as AMD’s Carrizo [emphasis added] and Intel’s Broadwell and Haswell silicon generations.


http://www.infoworld.com/article/318...backfires.html



https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/1...essors-skylake

I haven't seen anything that mentions if this will affect those higher end users who choose to build their own desktop PC's, purchasing various motherboard and CPU combinations . Hopefully, Computer manufactures who sell their computers retail will object to this and if not, I hope it has a detrimental effect on their computer sales.


The good news is the 16 core designs will probably find their way into high end video cards making PC games considerably more realistic.

It has already affected folks building their own, at least one having posted on this site. They couldn't get a version of Linux to install on their new build until there was a workaround or hack for the UEFI. I'm curious if there will be lawsuits for the cozy relationship between the motherboard manufacturers, the "bios" chip manufacturers, the CPU manufacturers and MS. How can they claim to be "assuring security integrity" with something like that on the newer chipsets? They're burying the "integrity" in a black box that only a select few will have knowledge of, and who knows what else might perchance be in that black box - besides back doors?... I can understand if they incorporate new instruction sets that would only be compatible with newer silicon, but they usually do NOT drop compatibility for all previous versions of an OS that fast - and lock others out. I've been closely watching AMD the last couple of years, rooting for them to get back up and fight, and then they're part of this "consortium" in UEFI... good idea in a way, but really ~bad~ in so many others. "Computer x03DEFA00078 has logged onto the internet in Sanduskey!" "Why, he hasn't paid a $360 parking ticket in Miami! Deny their Windows 10 service! Turn on his camera and mike. Garnish his wages!" "Copy that!" Sometimes I miss my C-64...