https://www.anandtech.com/show/14078/microsoft-brings-dx12-to-windows-7
This might be related to MCC PC.
That's weird considering incoming end of technical support.
Or they gonna extend it too.
What next - Win7 64bit in Minimal requirements for MCC?
So i take it would this mean that all the halo games coming to pc would be playable on Win7?
I'm not familiar with this type of stuff so i dunno.
What is the point of this when security updates for normal people end in less than a year? This is only going to cause huge news stories come EOL where huge gaping holes are exploited in 7 and people whine that Microsoft is doing nothing to fix it even though they were warned this was happening. If they did this like 3 or 4 years ago it would make sense, but right now, it's stupid.
is microsfot having a meltdown rn?
Probably because there's a lot of people who still use Windows 7 (hello, I'm one of them) who want to play DX12 games but can't/won't upgrade to Windows 10 for one reason or another.
Even after the Forced Windows 10-ocalypse, there's a surprising amount of people that remained on 7. 33.89% of the market share for Windows OSes alone. Windows 10 is 54.78%, 34% rounded is a decent percentage all things considering.
... And Windows 8?
"Now before you get too excited, this is currently only enabled for World of Warcraft; and indeed it's not slated to be a general-purpose solution like DX12 on Win10. Instead, Microsoft has stated that they are working with a few other developers to bring their DX12 games/backends to Windows 7 as well. "
Big ol' asterisks here
That's what I tried to post before fucking war thunder (hiding in my tray) managed to somehow strangle chrome out of all my bandwidth.
Win10 features a bunch of low-level enhancements to the graphics driver layer that are effectively required for full-fledged DX12 support (especially w regards to synchronization between cpu/gpu). For this reason, that's the plan being taken. I'm not on the DX12 team though, so I can't tell you more. Only what I can pick up from their press releases as well haha. I would expect reduced performance and a reduced featureset, and it does appear it'll require work by developers to support. That'll be up to individual titles and studios to decide on.
It's not a big deal lol. As long as you've got a firewall and decent A/V software installed and avoid skeezy downloads you'll be fine with zero security updates whatsoever. I haven't gotten malware in over 10 years and I also don't install any system updates, and it's all because I have a firewall in my router, a good A/V suite installed, and I don't download shit off skeezy sites.
Wow, I genuinely forgot Windows 8 even existed
It's absolutely wild that there are digital anti-vaxxers. How hard is it to just update your computer once a month?
I think that's the way Microsoft prefers it. Always a rude awakening when a place is running Server 2012 and I have to deal with the shitty W8 GUI :p
I update my computer when the update sitting in the pipeline fixes an issue I'm currently having. And that's....well, seldom, if ever, for Windows. If my system works I leave it the fyuuuuuuuuuck alone. Not only that, but I've been burned on bad updates far too many times over the years(And missed out on countless more that may very well have bricked my system so badly a format-and-reinstall was the only repair).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Works just as well with computers as it does with cars and toasters.
If I start having a Windows problem that is solved by installing an update, I will get that specific update, install it, and then I'm good. Otherwise, Windows Update stays turned completely and totally off.
Pretty damn hard when it fucks the accounting software that the company I work for uses. Software that sees regular updates and has been around since before the existence of Microsoft.
So yeah, updating Windows 10 actually made it so, if not for my department working quickly, we would not have gotten paid and payments to other companies would have been missed that week. People who don't know better will compare anti-vaxxers with people who don't like automatic updates but there are serious differences such as computer viruses not mutating within infected hardware to bypass existing security measure, other tools that function as strong protective solutions to prevent further spread (especially when you drop the money for a pair of the best Fortigate systems you buy), and the wildly varying dependencies and functions within software that can easily break, especially in commercial environments and for power-users.
Exactly. Why chance breaking the house-of-cards that is one's software environment because Big Daddy Microsoft pushed out yet another pointless update that solves an 'issue' that won't even affect 99.995% of the users that install said update?
I'll admit my situation's nowhere near as critical as the one at your work, but just the same, I'm not willing to chance bricking my OS because of a bad update, or an update conflicting with something else on my system and breaking that.
Just recently there was a zero day privilege escalation exploit and all you needed was Windows 7 and Chrome and malicious code on a page. And it exploited built in broswer functionality. 32 bit was verified exploitable and 64 may have been vulnerable, if not now, but in past versions. And was known to be actively exploited in the wild. That was last week. Windows 8 and 10 were not vulnerable.
Chrome has patched it, and you're mostly right that good habits go a long way, but its becoming clear that there are inherent security problems in the Windows 7 kernel that no antivirus will protect you from, simply because we know a lot more about how to design a secure OS than we did 10 years ago, and Microsoft have made many improvements to kernel security since 8 came out. Part of that is moving more functionality from kernel space into user space (which is also why 10 is less affected by the Spectre patches).
Honestly, I'm just glad that Windows 8 came out only three years after Windows 7 so that we aren't even closer to XP-level stubbornness. Can you imagine if Win7 was their flagship for six years like XP was? We'd never be able to pull people from it.
When Windows 10 stops sucking enough cock to put half of Vegas out of work I'll maybe think about possibly considering attempting to suss out an upgrade path. I've already got one W10 machine in my house, though...my mom's laptop...and it is HORRIBLE. No better than 7 on a useability standpoint and it murders my already shittastic DSL whenever it god damned well pleases for no good reason. And I can't even turn it off without going into my router and disabling the ports it uses to phone home!....which then makes it start crying about how it can't phone home, which then makes my mom start bitching about her laptop being 'broken' until we unblock the ports and let it destroy our connection all over again.
Fuck Windows 10. I'll wait for a good Windows to come out before I move over to it. And that means it's gonna allow me to turn windows update 100% fully off like I can in 7, Vista, XP, 2000, ME,, et-al. I shouldn't have to block ports in my firewall to turn a windows feature truly 100% off, fucking ridiculous. Well, that, and it also needs to acknowedge that I might actually know what the hell I'm doing once in a blue moon(The incessant coddling W10 does is also a massive fucking dickpunch, it seriously assumes the person at the keyboard literally has never heard of a computer before and doesn't know how to hold a mouse...), to stop crying when I give the only user account on the machine full administrative privvies(I'm not rebooting in order to log into another account just to change a single setting fuck you), and to not look like the bastard child of iOS and Windows Phone 7(Holy fuckballs is 10's UI utter cancer).
I've used 10 plenty enough to form a full opinion of it, and as a gamer/power user, I fucking hate every aspect of it.
All this just raises one question to me.
I can get putting off updates, and you can actually do that in Win 10 by flipping some settings around, but WHY WOULD YOU PURPOSEFULLY DISABLE UPDATES?
I get the fear of some updates fucking shit up, even Windows 7 was susceptible to that back in the day, but why would you actively disable the ability to get things like crucial security updates and improvements? Do you want your Windows installation to be in shambles? "Common sense" and "computer knowledge" only works up to a point, and security issues are only becoming less and less obvious to pinpoint as time goes on.
Also, the part about phoning home, Windows has been doing that for years now really, yes, even in Windows 7. It's just 10 gets all the attention because its phoning home was actually made into public knowledge in a society that cares more about its online privacy then it did back in the Windows 7 days. If you want to use an OS that doesn't "phone home", use a Linux distro. No seriously, the state of Linux is miles better now than it was even just a few years ago. Just install a distro that doesn't use GNOME 3, and you're good to go.
Also, the Windows 10 UI is pretty much the same as the standard Windows UI from the past. I think in your rambling here, you confused 10 and 8, which even 8.1 remedied that issue to a degree.
The fact that I've switched to 10, have had practically no issues with it, haven't had it try to "hold my hand" as you mention, and don't even get asked to update in the middle of something anymore goes against your experience. Maybe I just have a magical installation of 10 where it's all fine and dandy and everyone else complaining has the standard install, but I seriously doubt that.
"why would you purposefully disable updates" because I'll update when I want it, not when they want me to
I don't want to press "later, not now" or whatever every day, I need it to fuck off for good until I specifically want it
"Do you want your Windows installation to be in shambles? "Common sense" and "computer knowledge" only works up to a point"
Been working fine for me, I don't get viruses, I remember the last thread about antiviruses where everyone was like "you don't have an antivirus??? you probably have tons of malware and don't know about it!!!" well guess what, a dozen MBAM scans later, still nothing, what a shocker
If anyone's reading this, do not listen to this. OS security updates are critical for the security of your system. No firewall or AV can replace that. It has nothing to do with computer savviness, as many of the exploits that OS updates protect against are automatic and require no action from your side. The only way to be safe on an unpatched system is to keep it disconnected from the internet forever.
Disabling updates for your own system is computer anti-vaxxing. Believing you're smart enough to not need security updates is straight up hubris. The same arguments have been used by people turning off their AVs, and it's bullshit.
Again, I seriously haven't been prompted to update much at all. If anything, I've actually had to check for updates more often than I've been told about them. I've never really experienced the whole "I'm in a game/application and it asks me to update EVERY TIME I'M IN IT" complaints that everyone else has.
Also thinking MBAM is a catch all is foolish. Not saying to install an AV, but thinking MBAM magically has the ability to catch all security threats is naive at best. Every bit of security can be circumvented or has loopholes, and ideally, having some sort of protection as well as an OS that is up to date is the way to go.
Automatic updates aren't comparable for companies and private users. Companies have tools to control update rollout, and should have an IT department vet updates before sending them out. They should also have a locked down enough network that delaying the update until that's done isn't catastrophic.
Regular users have no reason to disable security updates though. They very rarely break things for home computers, and if they do, it takes a couple of minutes to uninstall the update. Feel free to disable Win10 feature updates, as they're not critical to the system and do have the chance of breaking things. There's ways of doing that, made by Microsoft, that allow you to do that without disabling security updates.
Anti-vax isn't that bad of an analogy. Computer viruses don't evolve or spread the same way, but they're constantly being developed to find new weaknesses instead. The important takeaway for a regular person is that security updates are a really easy way to avoid loads of preventable exploits for no real downside.
At the very least turn on Windows Defender if you're not gonna download another active AV (since MBAM Free only does user-initiated scans). That and Windows Update should be your bare minimum. MBAM Free is a good supplement to those for when you think you have an issue, but it shouldn't be your only protection.
We do that and more and that doesn't really matter because there are limits to what we can do, especially when the OS starts to overrule the restrictions set upon it for updating.
It really is though because there are a myriad of differences between how a computer virus and a biological virus function and spread. Just another example to add on to what was already said: A virus typically cannot last long in vaccinated or otherwise nonreceptive host and will eventually die off. On the flip side even a fully patched machine that is not vulnerable to a computer virus can be a carrier for it indefinitely and spread it around to other systems that may be vulnerable. In the case of computers the "vaccine" does next to nothing to curb the spread of viruses, which is one of the most critical function of a biological vaccine.
How exactly does a virus spread if it can't infect the system in the first place?
It just sits on it and moves along available transmission lines. It doesn't have to actually be doing any damage like it intends to, it can simply sit and do its own thing looking for a way to spread.
Well, not so different from how pathogens stick to people and things to move around.
Wouldn't a system running a malicious program capable of enough arbitrary code execution to spread itself to other systems be, by definition, compromised? Even if it can't achieve privilege escalation to do 'what it wants' I'd still consider such a system to be infected.
Patching systems does have an effect on the spread of viruses(as malware can't spread from a machine it can't run on in the first place, and having everyone patched against a certain exploit makes it useless), but it's frankly irrelevant for my point. My point is that security patches are a thing that massively improve your own security with little effort, and is something everyone should use by default. Exceptions should only arise for specific patches when they are known to cause issues. Anything else is objectively stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.