Microsoft Confirms It Is Dropping Windows 8.1 Support 575
snydeq (1272828) writes "Microsoft TechNet blog makes clear that Windows 8.1 will not be patched, and that users must get Windows 8.1 Update if they want security patches, InfoWorld's Woody Leonhard reports. 'In what is surely the most customer-antagonistic move of the new Windows regime, Steve Thomas at Microsoft posted a TechNet article on Saturday stating categorically that Microsoft will no longer issue security patches for Windows 8.1, starting in May,' Leonhard writes. 'Never mind that Windows 8.1 customers are still having multiple problems with errors when trying to install the Update. At this point, there are 300 posts on the Microsoft Answers forum thread 'Windows 8.1 Update 1 Failing to Install with errors 0x80070020, 80073712 and 800F081F.' The Answers forum is peppered with similar complaints and a wide range of errors, from 800F0092 to 80070003, for which there are no solutions from Microsoft. Never mind that Microsoft itself yanked Windows 8.1 Update from the corporate WSUS update server chute almost a week ago and still hasn't offered a replacement.'"
u wot m8 (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 8.1 is no longer supported, so users must update to Windows 8.1?
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:u wot m8 (Score:4, Funny)
But when will we finally get an update for the update of the update to the update?
Re: (Score:2)
But when will we finally get an update for the update of the update to the update?
When they start supporting Windows 8 - I'm still waiting for it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can get an update for the update of the update to the update.
But there are no longer updates for the update of the update.
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:u wot m8 (Score:4, Funny)
Yo Dawg! I hear you like updates ... so I got you an update so you can update while you're updating.
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Funny)
Just thank your lucky stars that you're not in Linux-land, or some other godawful free software environment, 'cause you would have to type
>apt-get upgrade
in a terminal. This is obviously way too difficult for any human being, so bless Gates and Ballmer and whoever came after him for letting us not have to type that
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Funny)
Just thank your lucky stars that you're not in Linux-land, or some other godawful free software environment, 'cause you would have to type
>apt-get upgrade
in a terminal. This is obviously way too difficult for any human being, ...
Don't kid yourself, it would be: apt-get dist-upgrade
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
$ apt-get upgrade
bash: apt-get: command not found...
Hmm, I think that would be :-)
$ sudo yum -y update
Re: (Score:3)
emerge -uD world
Do it right... ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know what's even more user-friendly?
Just clicking the little update icon in the bottom right corner, entering your root password, and clicking OK.
I know how your type likes to hate on everything Linux without having any clue what you're talking about, but seriously, upgrading your distro isn't rocket science.
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what's even more user-friendly? Just clicking the little update icon in the bottom right corner, entering your root password, and clicking OK.
I know how your type likes to hate on everything Linux without having any clue what you're talking about, but seriously, upgrading your distro isn't rocket science.
In all fairness, fixing a broken update can, however, be close to rocket science :)
I use linux, and will continue to... But in this day and age, with all desktops going towards composite window managers, sucky nvidia drivers is a pain in the ass.
But it's a matter of luck when buying a laptop...
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Funny)
if rocket science was so easy as a "sudo apt-get install -f" and a "sudo dpkg --configure -a" , I would probably be building a moon base :)
Re:u wot m8 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:u wot m8 (Score:4, Informative)
Or just paying attention and buying a laptop with AMD instead of Nvidia. I know it's unacceptable to make people actually look beyond the color of the laptop when they buy it, but it really needs to be done.
Re:u wot m8 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I recently mangled yum by running out of RAM mid-updates. That was ugly. Really ugly. Fixed it, but more through luck than skill.
Re: (Score:3)
Tsk Tsk. You made it too simple.
You have to type
apt-get update
then
apt-get upgrade
then
you have to wait for a prompt and type Y [RETURN]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:u wot m8 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This is MCSE's we are talking about, using the keyboard like that is not a part of their training.
Re: (Score:2)
The only time I've had significant breakage is when I have heavily modified something and hacked it in rather than doing it the right way.
When a new version goes stable, I wait a few days, then dist-upgrade one machine and look it over. Then I upgrade in batches of 6 or so. Never a significant problem.
Doing updates within the same major version is even easier.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "dist-upgrade". But even then you are doing something amazingly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a linux prophet, how do you know about windows and upgrading?
I ask this because pert damn near everyone I've worked with over the past 15 years knows that when you move to a new Microsoft release, it's a wipe and reinstall.
And just like Star Trek Movies, every second windows release sucks. XP was great, Vista sucked balls, win 7was ok, win 8 ran for goatse .
(p.s. - never upgrade until the second service pack for the release)
Bullet, meet foot (Score:5, Insightful)
A timely reminder why users should stick with a stable, proven OS such as Win7 (and to a lesser extent, WinXP).
Less fancy unnecessary features like Metro also means less chances for cock-ups to happen.
If MS' intention is to migrate users of older OSes to Win8.1, it is not doing itself any favors here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I recently bought a Windows 7 for my old computer along with an SSD (which alone makes a massive difference). That should tide me over until Windows 9. Not going to bother with any Windows 8 version. I may not be a huge gamer, but until Linux is the default platform for developers, I do need a Windows somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OSX9? Remember: X goes to 11!
Re:Bullet, meet foot (Score:5, Insightful)
A timely reminder why users should stick with a stable, proven OS such as Win7 (and to a lesser extent, WinXP).
???
A lot of their Windows XP stuff requires SP3. Is this any different?
Re:Bullet, meet foot (Score:4, Informative)
Only because it checks for it. you can install a lot of the MS updates and add ons without SP3 if you break open their installers and get at the delicious gooey insides.
Re:Bullet, meet foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Or linux.
Re: (Score:3)
Or linux.
I wish that were so... unfortunately Windows still has the Desktop userbase majority by a wide margin, and that doesn't seem to be changing despite Microsoft's many steps towards making computer owners' lives more difficult. "Windows Genuine Advantage" that limits your ability to change hardware in a computer running Windows, licensing confusion concerning running Windows in a Virtual Machine, version confusion ("home", "professional", "enterprise", "ultimate", etc), UI confusion with Metro and the Office
Re:Bullet, meet foot (Score:4, Insightful)
8.1 and the SR1 makes it just about tolerable but the most glaring omission is still the lack of a start menu. They could and should have a mini-metro popup that offers functionality analogous to the old start menu. Rumours suggest that one is being worked on but its not in this release.
Re:Bullet, meet foot (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a rumor, they showed a start menu + live tiles demo [arstechnica.com] at BUILD this year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well they released an update that you must get to get updates!
just another MS win8 era naming fail. how they can fuck up so badly is a miracle.
(and nevermind that windows 8 is what.. under 2 years old?? and 8.1 is not getting security updates now?? )
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Name one president who hasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon, we all know that peanuthead doesn't count.
Now I Know... (Score:2)
A friend of mine is coming by this arvo for help with his Windows 8.1 laptop which Windows Update apparently broke.
Looks like I have some bad news for him... but at least I know *what* to tell him now. Cheers.
Re:Now I Know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell him that M$ have done the same old, same old, attempted to correct their failures in the cheapest way possible by shoving the cost back on consumers. Can't get the upgrade to work, suck it up, format, re-install, repatch, re-upgrade and repatch and the restore you back up data, don't have backups, M$ answer to you, well, that's your fault for trusting their software.
Re: (Score:2)
What are they not supporting? Are you really claiming that they aren't no longer releasing patches for Windows 8.1 unless you patch Windows 8.1?
Is it really valid to claim that an OS vendor cannot require chained updates? That sounds pretty much ridiculous to me.
Re:Now I Know... (Score:5, Informative)
Winows 8.1 update 1.
It's just an awkward versioning scheme. If this was the unix world, they'd be talking about no longer updating 8.1.0 and requiring customers update to 8.1.1.
Wanna give up on these guys yet ? (Score:3)
"a wide range of errors, from 800F0092 to 80070003, for which there are no solutions from Microsoft."
Story of our Lives. Here we are.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wanna give up on these guys yet ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder what I'd prefer ... clean crash along with the info that there will never be a patch to it, or a segfault where I will no later than 3 days later have a patch delivered... Decisions, decisions...
Re:Wanna give up on these guys yet ? (Score:4, Insightful)
How long did it take Ubuntu 12.10 to fix their "installing this OS bricks E1000 adapters" bug?
Anyone claiming Linux doesnt have these sorts of issues is full of shit.
Re:Wanna give up on these guys yet ? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least it fails gracefully with a clean error code. In Linux world it would show up as a dialog with corrupted text and a mysterious "Invalid argument" error message written in some log. ;)
Mostly under Linux the error messages are useful to someone technical. Increasingly other OSes (Windows, OS X, iOS, Android) consider useful error mesages to be not user friendly and just give you a generic "something broke" error that is no use to man nor beast - frequently I'm left digging out tcpdump to diagnose customer's problems because the application itself won't give me any information (yes, even in the system log) - I shouldn't need to tcpdump their IMAP traffic to discover that the server is telling them their password is wrong damnit!
Re: (Score:2)
A clean error code that has the message "An unknown error has occurred". Now maybe it's just me but if you know enough about the error to assign it a specific code then how can it be unknown?
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK for Apple but not Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't support more than one version of iOS. If you want to fix a problem with 6.1.2, you get to go to whatever version is current (7.1). You don't get to go to 6.1.3, you don't get to go to 7.0.5 or 7.0.6, you go to 7.1. Your choice is "upgrade or don't."
Nope, not okay for either (Score:3)
You should be able to upgrade/downgrade/sidegrade to any version that suits your needs
Re:Nope, not okay for either (Score:4, Insightful)
and you should accept that down-grading will mean you are vulnerable to any issues later versions have fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
And now we know why cars that have a metal value of a few bucks cost thousands, while operating systems can still be found in the three digit range. Of course they can be engineered to the same level of stability and security as cars, but first of all, nobody will pay 10,000 for an OS unless he is a government and doesn't give a shit about money, and second you wouldn't get it sold since your competitor came out with his OS that looks and feels about the same and is a shoddy piece of junk that kinda-sorta r
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Server 2012 Datacenter, which is the server version of Windows 8.1 costs $6,155 basic so what's the excuse now? Your argument also falls down because Linux costs nothing and there has been no mass migration to that.
Re: (Score:3)
WIndows 2012 R2 Standard is the server version of Windows 8.1. Windows Server 2012 is the server version of Windows 8.
Windows 2012 (and 2012 R2) Datacenter is not a version, it is a licensing option for virtual environments. The Standard version contains all functionality. The price for the Standard version is $882 (list - two physical CPUs).
Re: (Score:2)
And when you write your own OS, feel free to support that model. Nobody is stopping you.
Re: (Score:2)
There are too many versions and variants of the Microsoft operating system.
I think that's the explanation why they see failures in the patches, they can't keep track of all permutations that exists.
Re:It's OK for Apple but not Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you're comparing phones/appliances to computers, so yes.
Windows has for many years now used a multiple-tier support strategy (the Windows Lifecycle policy [microsoft.com]). Microsoft supports an OS for 10 years, and during that period if they issue a service pack then they support the previous sub-version of Windows for 2 years. Windows 8.1 Update is about 30% of a service pack; the update contains a number of feature enhancements and on a code level it becomes a "base" OS that all future updates are built against. So unlike a normal security update, you can't skip Windows 8.1 Update and still get other security updates. This in turn can be interpreted as a violation of the Lifecycle Policy, as it's functionally a service pack and therefore Microsoft should continue providing security updates for Windows 8.1 (sans Update) for 2 years.
iOS on the other hand offers no such policy. You are expected to use the most recent version of the OS and Apple has never said any differently, full stop.
Never mind the huge difference between an OS for a disposable device, and an OS for computers that is expected to last for a decade or more and is interfaced with massive amounts of custom hardware and software. Unsurprisingly, the type of device and the expected use case for it is a big factor in how long an OS is supported and how OS updates are handled.
Re:It's OK for Apple but not Microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)
I dare say it's a close call if you migrate from ME...
No, not quite true. (Score:3)
Yes, apple want you to upgrade to iOS 7, but if you don't want to (or can't because your hardware is too old) they still provide security patches for iOS 6.
The last update was iOS 6.1.6 in Feb:
6.1.6 was only released for devices that cannot run iOS 7. If you have a device that can run iOS 7, you had to upgrade to iOS 7 in order to get the important security fix, even if the device had iOS 6.x at the time. There was never an iOS 6.1.6 released for iPad 2 or 3, for example.
If they had released an iOS 6.1.6 for iPad 2/3, it would've allowed downgrading from iOS 7.x to iOS 6.x then jailbreaking, something Apple hates with a passion.
Jeez (Score:5, Insightful)
Just patch windows 8.1 with the update. It makes the OS unequivocally better. Whining about it is just silly.
Re:Jeez (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If I read it right, the problem is that a number of users are having issues with installing Update 1 and have yet to find solutions... While that really is a problem, I feel that the headline here was meant more to get people bashing some more.
$0.02
Wow what idiots....can you make it more confusing? (Score:5, Interesting)
They make things so confusing, whoever makes these decisions are the ones that should be fired from Microsoft! Windows 8.1 and Windows 8.1 Update 1. Just name the damn thing 8.2 or Service Pack 1 that everyone is familiar with. Then to top it off Windows 8.1 isn't getting any more updates!!!
Then you have a pro version, this version and that version!
Sorry but life is much more simpler in the Mac world! 10.9.0.....10.9.1....10.9.2.......etc. Then you have Delta Updates that are the point releases and Combo updates that will update you from the 10.9.0 to the latest version say 10.9.9 in one download and one install. Then you don't have 200 updates to download and install.
I think the Microsoft way is superior as you can install/uninstall individual updates incase of problems, but its too complicated!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. I spend most days programming against .Net and haven't noticed all of these .Net updates you are complaining about.
Re:Wow what idiots....can you make it more confusi (Score:4, Funny)
That's because you're programming against it. If you go easy on .Net and only program alongside it, then it'll start throwing it weight around like an unruly child.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have gone with something more meaningful, like 8.6.31-11, and perhaps 8.4.x for the old version of the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
slow down there Sheldon!
running 8.1 update 1 from wsus (Score:5, Informative)
if you have wsus without ssl, it works fine after importing the update from the catalog.
i don't see the need of ssl on an internal small server, anyway even with ssl you can enable tls 1.2 manually and it will work.
this article is also misleading, since the update itself is a regular update and not labeled "update 1" or even a service pack, but on every windows version out there there are updates that depend on other updates, especially service packs, so nothing new here.
Re: (Score:3)
i don't see the need of ssl on an internal small server
The 1980s called and would like their "my firewall stops ALLLL the hackerz!" approach to security back.
On the server providing updates to all your Windows systems? Thank goodness you have no authority over my network. All the guys on my team get regular reminders about the importance of defense in depth.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course SSL isn't anywhere close to bulletproof. Just like a firewall isn't bulletproof. Anti-malware/anti-rootkit applications aren't bulletproof. NIDS/IPS and HIDS aren't bulletproof. All those things together, however, raises the bar for an attacker to successfully locate and exploit a vulnerability and remain undetected. The less of those kinds of things you have in place (and appropriately configured/monitored/alarming/etc), the lower that bar.
My response said nothing of SSL being a magic cure-all. I
Re: (Score:2)
Can't tell you how many times I've received the "well if they got this far, it's game over anyway" response, and it's been bullshit every single time. SSL isn't a magic cure-all; it's one of many, many different layers, each of which raise the bar of complexity and difficulty of successful, undetected penetration. Is SSL a super powerful security layer? No, but why take away something that's trivial for you to set up and maintain and which creates additional work for an attacker?
This idea that we should sim
It's spelled out isn't it? 24 months support. (Score:3)
Microsoft only support the current service pack level and all those less than 24 months old for Windows Client and Server.
That's the agreement they've given to their customers.
They will drop support for 8.1 in 24 months time.
http://support.microsoft.com/l... [microsoft.com] .... wait a minute. They should at least update their support policy before cutting support.
Upgrade, don't update. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since there's nothing inherently wrong with Windows 8.1 besides the awful UI, I can't figure why you'd downgrade to Windows 7. Or are you telling me that you can't install another UI and go on your way? I now await people to say that's it's worse than vista, when it's not. Especially when it's main negative feature is the UI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Speak for yourself. I run both Windows 8 and Windows 7 machines, and my Windows 7 machines are demonstrably more stable and less buggy than my Windows 8 one.
So do I. I actually haven't run across an OS quite as stable as this since Win2k, probably my favorite version of windows. My follow up would be XPx64. If it's taking *that* long on a fresh install, you've got something else going on wrong on your system, either ram timings, spread spectrum, or something esoterically weird going on. I've seen exactly that type of issue before in Win7 and XP, and each case it was something different anything between windows itself trying to remotely grab a driver and get
Re: (Score:3)
If it's taking *that* long on a fresh install, you've got something else going on wrong on your system, either ram timings, spread spectrum, or something esoterically weird going on.
It sounds like a bad driver or hardware enumeration. But, yes, if windows takes more than a few seconds to get to a login on a SSD based machine (so, what 30-40 seconds on a spinner?) then it's a hardware problem. W8, once I restored the start menu, is no less stable or responsive than my W7 machine. Most of my complaints are over install of OEM versions of the OS that aren't auto-authorized by the bios (most of my machines are Dell, and the Dell OEM OS just installs; no games, no keys, no mess).
FWIW, my
Re: (Score:2)
Since there's nothing inherently wrong with Windows 8.1 besides the awful UI
Perhaps you didn't read the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you didn't read the summary.
Assuming, magically making an ass out of yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
To get the same sort of behaviour that users have seen since before Win3.11. As seen with online purchases at HP etc there are certainly people prepared to pay extra for that.
Re: (Score:3)
But there is. They broke the integrity of the core packaging system by marrying it so deeply to .NET that there are multiple people out there who have to reinstall the OS from scratch because the update broke the package registry irreversibly.
Funny, I didn't hear people bitching and moaning over that when they did the same thing with .net 3.5 in windows 7....which did exactly the same thing.
WAIT! it's April 15th, not 1st! (Score:2, Insightful)
MS is just so sad
it hurts
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not go back to the old SP system and stop this (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not go back to the old SP system and stop this mess of a new update system where some stuff is in the windows store and others is in the windows update system.
As for this not working for all does it have any thing to do with 8.0 to 8.1 being more like a full os upgrade then an SP? and why did make the 8.1 iso not take Windows 8 product keys?
MS needs to go back to how it used to be with XP, vista, 7. Where it's not lot's of separate updates it is rolled up on to big install that has it all or least offer that as a choice not only for people who say have 2-4+ pc's and don't want to have re download the same updates on each pc but in some cases that combo updates work better.
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Update worked! (Score:4, Informative)
After four tries, the update finally worked. What does it do? I now have an App Store icon in the task bar. Only took some 880 Mbytes to do that.
Broke for me... (Score:5, Informative)
I installed the update at work - it worked. I installed the update on my old PC - it worked. Tried to install it on my current PC - failed, after taking something like 20 minutes. It then took another half-hour to revert the changes. (On those machines where it worked, it took only 5 minutes or so to install).
Digging around online showed that fiddling around on the command line with dism might help. The online image is corrupted but it's repairable... that is, until you try and use /restorehealth, at which point it moans that there are no sources. Of course there aren't, it was upgraded to 8.1 from 8.0 via the online store.
So, after faffing around and grabbing an install.wim from an old 8.1 iso I had saved at work (not the 8.1 update 1 iso currently on the MS website) I find that dism won't use the image, even after mounting it.
I couldn't then even attempt to reinstall the update, as it failed immediately. Dism was called upon again to remove the update package, then at least it would let me try again... only to fail. Another 45 minutes wasted.
It looks as though the only way to "fix" it is to nuke Windows entirely, then go through the painful 8.0 > 8.1 > 8.1 with Media Center route. Except, of course, to get Media Center reinstalled you have to buy it again - there's no option I can see to re-enter your Meda Center key again because, guess what, when you upgrade to Media Center your Windows product key is changed. And a Windows 8.1 with Media Center key isn't accepted by the 8.1 iso (or at least wasn't when I tried earlier)...
Looks like a long and boring Easter weekend coming up.
On the other hand, I might just reinstall Windows 7 instead.
RE: Broke for me... (Score:4, Informative)
Magic upgrade sequence solved! (Score:5, Funny)
I can understand this (Score:2)
Slashdot is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole thread is absurd, as are all the people jumping on the "bash MS" bandwagon.
* Microsoft will continue to support 8.1, and everyone here KNOWS that.
* Everyone knows that because Microsoft has a bigger problem with having to support old platforms than any other vendor out there. Many posters here generally know this, too, but are being obtuse so that they can harp about Microsoft ending support for a new platform (which isnt even remotely believable).
* The author of the blog even knows that! The Microsoft technet entry says almost the opposite of what the blogger does-- that 8.1 WILL recieve updates. All he got right is that you do need to install a prereq to get them, like we've seen with countless other OSes. The venerable XP does this, too.
* Half the people gloating over the "bugginess of Windows" are fans of an OS that is experiencing one of the biggest internet vulnerabilties in about a decade in its SSL stack, but thats OK in their eyes somehow because its not packaged with the OS and therefore theyre allowed to be buggy.
* Some people are taking the time to smirk about the confusing version numbering of Win8-- which is doubly hillarious given how ridiculous Linux's versioning was until about a year ago.
* And if I had to guess, the aforementioned problems could possibly be related to the aforementioned heartbleed bug, as we dont know what all was leaked and Microsoft is almost certainly not going to want to go into it.
But yea, dont let that stop the fun.
Re:Slashdot is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
The SSL flaw has been fixed and rolled out very quickly, it was not the first and will not be the last. How many known Security flaws for windows, IE and many other Microsoft products are out there, unfixed?
Could you explain why "Microsoft has a bigger problem with having to support old platforms" than anyone else? They seem to have vast resources and should actually be able to react quicker than others.
Best
-S
Re: (Score:3)
Arguing that Microsoft is "bad" because theyre not FOSS (which is really what you are driving at) is irrelevant. Everyone knows they ship proprietary software, but that has no relevance either to this story or to the quality of their code. As we've seen, OpenSSL has a bug that has been hemorrhaging private keys and passwords for days while the closed-source Schannel has not seen such a bug.
Ideological spiels about how Windows sucks simply because its proprietary are really getting kind of old. If you don
Re: (Score:3)
It is karmawhoring because Firefox is a far bigger problem these days than IE10 / 11 / soon-to-be-12, and at the moment the single biggest security vulnerability out there is a FOSS one.
Re: (Score:2)
'cause then people wouldn't upgrade on principle, knowing that every other version number of an MS OS is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would make too much sense.