Future CPUs will only support Windows 10

[Muazzam]

Please stop posting here.

You don't own the forum, so you can't make me stop.

I've already said that if the admin or any of the moderators asks me to leave, I'd gladly do without thinking twice.

[Muazzam]

Your post makes it abundantly clear that you realize why the uncensored version of it was deleted. I'm not sure that this latest version is any better.

I have to agree that the majority of your posts are offensive or flame-bait. Your signature is pathetic and goes a long way to explain the popularity of idiots like Donald Trump.

Grow up.

I 100% understand that I, having signature like that, makes this forum a worse place whenever someone sees my post. I apologize.

I've removed it since and will try to have a reasonable one.

P.S. Trump is not completely wrong when he says security cannot be traded for the name of "political correctness."

[Roman]

I 100% understand that I, having signature like that, makes this forum a worse place whenever someone sees my post. I apologize.

I've removed it since and will try to have a reasonable one.

These words make me experience a déjà vu.

[Muazzam]

I 100% understand that I, having signature like that, makes this forum a worse place whenever someone sees my post. I apologize.

I've removed it since and will try to have a reasonable one.

These words make me experience a déjà vu.

**googles**

[Roman]

I 100% understand that I, having signature like that, makes this forum a worse place whenever someone sees my post. I apologize.

I've removed it since and will try to have a reasonable one.

These words make me experience a déjà vu.

**googles**

Without wishing to drag this off-topic, your signature displays an unhealthy degree of paranoia. No-one here (that I am aware of) cares about your religion or nationality, just what you post.

I take it as an insult to the members of this forum that you make such a statement. And, for that, I will choose to ignore you.

Removed that signature.
I admit that I had just gone crazy.

[SpyderTL]

I 100% understand that I, having signature like that, makes this forum a worse place whenever someone sees my post. I apologize.

I've removed it since and will try to have a reasonable one.

These words make me experience a déjà vu.

**googles**

It means that you have a "strange feeling" that you've seen something before.

It also means that they changed something in The Matrix...

[davidsmith0143]

i think this article would definitely be of help! http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/10780 ... rs-skylake

[DeezRamChips]

Why making CPU for this, they can just make some APICs(Aplication specific IC) withc whould be much faster

[Octocontrabass]

As I said in the very first reply to this thread...

You've got it backwards. Windows 10 will be the only version of Windows to officially support new CPUs.

They are not making CPUs specifically for Windows.

[Ycep]

Hi,

a) Future CPUs will be backward compatible and will run all OSs (that the computer's firmware supports - e.g. you're not going to be able to boot MS-DOS if the system is "UEFI only").

b) The other stuff inside the same chip as the CPU (mostly GPU) will work on any OS that provides drivers for it.

c) Microsoft have said "for newer CPUs/chips, that other stuff (mostly GPU) won't be officially supported". This doesn't mean it won't work ("unofficially supported"). Mostly it only means that device driver developers can stop providing drivers for older versions of Windows if they want to (and blame Microsoft when people complain instead of taking all the blame themselves).

d) Alternative OSs will be unaffected, and will continue to have no drivers for recently released hardware (the same as it's been for the last 20+ years).

e.1) For secure-boot, it's unlikely that (for laptop/desktop/server) computer manufacturers will remove the option for disabling secure boot (even though Windows 10's logo doesn't force them to provide it); partly because it's already in the firmware and they're not saving any $$ by bothering to remove it, and partly because it reduces the target market slightly and costs them $$ instead.

e.2) The main thing to worry about with secure-boot is something I'd call "boiling the frog" - increase the restrictions a little ("Hey, we forced manufacturer's to provide an option to disable it!"), let people get used to it, increase the restrictions a bit more ("Hey, manufacturer's can still provide an option to disable it!"), let people get used to that, increase the restrictions a bit more...

f) Systems using other CPUs (ARM, MIPS, etc) will continue to be far worse (because there's all the same problems; but far fewer standards that an OS relies on, like PCI and firmware).


Cheers,

Brendan

+1.