> The first phase targets legacy drivers that have newer replacements already on Windows Update.
So only outdated drivers with replacements will be removed.
Likewise:
> Technically, expiring a driver means removing all its audience assignments in Hardware Development Center, which stops Windows Update from offering that driver to devices.
I don't interpret that as Windows Update proactively removing a driver that's already downloaded to a computer.
qualeed · 1h ago
The most important part of this, which it appears people may have missed is:
>legacy drivers published on Windows Update
You can still go download the legacy drivers directly. They just wont be automatically installed/updated via Windows Update. No devices are being bricked, your PC isn't breaking.
I get that Microsoft is the most evil company in the world, or whatever, but this is way overblown.
rini17 · 1h ago
> You can still go download the legacy drivers directly.
Directly from where? This is likely to be an issue too for older hardware.
qualeed · 1h ago
From wherever the hardware vendor (or anyone else who has copies of the driver) wants to upload them to.
crtasm · 22m ago
That's going to be a lot of drivers that you can't directly download.
As if my ATI video card doesn't lose its Windows driver every other reboot.
kachapopopow · 1h ago
I don't see the point when drivers are exploitable as ever on older hardware that doesn't have good virtualization performance and hyper-v solves majority of these problems with core isolation.
systemswizard · 1h ago
This blog post is FUD at best. They’re not removing these legacy drivers nor are they preventing them from being installed. WU at best just won’t offer them moving forward, not a big deal
methuselah_in · 2h ago
Time to download old drivers from OEM website and create fresh system drivers backup.
zsoltkacsandi · 1h ago
And that's why I don't use Windows.
frollogaston · 1h ago
Does Linux have a better story for old drivers?
winter_blue · 1h ago
If the driver is in the kernel tree, then the Linux community maintains the driver for you for free basically (if a refactor of some internal kernel API is done, all drivers are updated), but once the driver is old enough, new kernel releases might sometimes removes those old drivers (and even drop support for old CPUs as well).
Well, in my experience, the most important thing to worry about is whether the driver is there in the first place.
criddell · 1h ago
Might be a dumb question, but why are so many drivers in the kernel? I get that things like a mass storage device probably needs to be in the kernel but a printer or mouse driver seems like it should work from the user space.
Dylan16807 · 1h ago
Drivers generally go into the kernel code repo so yeah it's a lot better.
fabioborellini · 1h ago
Yes, they are maintained as a part of the open kernel source and have been proven to remain usable for long periods.
frollogaston · 1h ago
But only the ones that are in the kernel. It's fairly common that you need to install some yourself, for things that Windows would install from partners via this Windows Update mechanism.
folmar · 54m ago
There is one class of devices for which you often want manufacturer's out-of-kernel driver: Nvidia graphic cards. Otherwise all drivers are usually already in the kernel.
> Linux Delivering Driver Fix For 30 Year Old Creative SoundBlaster AWE32 ISA Sound Card
zsoltkacsandi · 1h ago
No, and neither does macOS. But if I bought a printer seven years ago and the driver is definitely outdated, my Linux and macOS machines aren't forcing me to stop using it. Legacy/outdated software will be always with us. The solution is not to brick the end users' device.
> The first phase targets legacy drivers that have newer replacements already on Windows Update.
frollogaston · 1h ago
Depends where you got the driver from. macOS includes some via the system updates, and those get removed sometimes. Windows has the equivalent. It's not that Microsoft is deleting drivers you installed yourself from outside, they're ones "published on Windows Update" according to the post.
zsoltkacsandi · 1h ago
Just a quick note: macOS usually doesn't distribute third-party vendor drivers through system updates. Most hardware vendors provide their own macOS drivers directly, if needed. So while Windows may include some third-party drivers via Windows Update, macOS tends to leave that up to the user or the vendor.
Seems highly likely that Microsoft have better data on which hardware is actually in use.
Linux is more likely to have a driver for some obscure hardware, because no one has actually been comfortable removing it in the past decade, but it's also not actually tested on actual hardware. Unless it's an Itanium CPU, in which case the code is gone.
We had the same story regarding file systems last year. Technically Linux had a driver for an old Unix filesystem, but it had only been tested on filesystems made with the same driver/filesystem-code, not on actual disks with the original filesystem.
The Linux advantage is that if you really need that hardware to work, you might get lucky, and if not, you're not starting from scratch.
supportengineer · 1h ago
I haven’t used it in 10 years. It’s completely unusable.
No comments yet
sandworm101 · 1h ago
Every bad day for windows is another great day for Linux.
You have choices. Make them.
frollogaston · 1h ago
Driver problems, of all things, isn't on my list of reasons to switch to Linux.
throaway920181 · 1h ago
I only use Windows for gaming, and the Intel graphics driver keeps getting downgraded by Windows Update. It's pretty annoying to have a fully updated driver get reverted to one that's a few years old. Good luck changing that behavior as well.
bdangubic · 1h ago
not yet :)
onemoresoop · 1h ago
Too bad that most people who are on windows only would never be capable of managing their Linux environment and instead of leaving Microsoft they learn to cope with how the new Windows is running and call that the new reality.
downrightmike · 1h ago
Good, they are security risks. They should also prevent them from being installed.
foresto · 1h ago
> Good, they are security risks.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's impossible to know without understanding how the PC is used.
downrightmike · 40m ago
Doesn't matter how it is used, old drivers that are known vulnerable are a part of the attack because they are signed valid from microsoft from back before that was a concern.
selfhoster11 · 1h ago
I don't think so, unless you're sponsoring new hardware for those affected.
mulmen · 1h ago
What’s the actual risk in a security risk? What’s the bad thing that happens to the user? How is it better or worse than their device failing to function without warning?
While I agree at some degree, when end users bought their instance of Windows, the promise was that it will work on that particular machine. A much more user friendly way would be to show a huge red windows at every login that you computer has outdated drivers that pose a security risk, use at your own risk and what are your options.
eddythompson80 · 1h ago
I'm confused as to where exactly people are getting "Windows is breaking old machines" from this.
The blog post says "they are removing old drivers that *are not being offered* to anyone. They are starting with the subset that also *has newer replacements*, and they will publish the name of drivers removed, and wait for 6 months to hear from any hardware vendors about any concerns. The entire post is target at their driver vendors to maintain their listing in their driver repository better. I'm guessing Microsoft ignored that for decades, and hardware vendors have submitted tons of drivers over the last 25 years and they have a clean up initiative. How is that like crazy?
mulmen · 1h ago
What about hardware from vendors that are no longer in business or don’t care to take on support?
> Once that happens, only the hardware partner who published it can bring it back. But there’s a catch. Microsoft may demand a business justification before allowing a republish. And if the partner doesn’t respond within six months, the driver is deleted permanently.
> And while the company claims this is about improving security and reducing compatibility issues, the reality is that it’s cutting support for a lot of older devices in the name of modernization.
> In other words, things that used to work might just stop working.
> Microsoft’s cleanup may sound responsible on the surface, but for anyone still clinging to older hardware or niche accessories, it might feel more like abandonment. Once a driver disappears, finding it again could become a scavenger hunt.
> But there’s a catch. Microsoft may demand a business justification before allowing a republish. And if the partner doesn’t respond within six months, the driver is deleted permanently.
Ok.. and? You're complaining that 6 months isn't enough for a hardware vendor who published a driver that has a replacement and they believe there is a newer replacement for (but they could be wrong)? You're complaining that they might ask "why?"
Say Debian maintainers want to get in touch with a package maintainer. They are thinking of removing it from their repository because no one is using it and there are tings about it they are not sure. They ping the package maintainer. Is it unreasonable to expect a reply in 6 months? should it be 12? 24? Is is also unreasonable for Debian maintainers to ask "Why?" if the package owner's answer (oh no, please keep it)?
> And while the company claims this is about improving security and reducing compatibility issues, the reality is that it’s cutting support for a lot of older devices in the name of modernization.
Ok, editorializing is fine, but literally nothing in the Microsoft post says they are removing drivers from devices and leaving them without drivers. They are removing older expired versions of drivers. Is it possible that a particular old version of a driver is very important for a particular scenario that newer version of the same driver don't cover? Of course. How in the hell would Microsoft know that? They presumably have telemetry on downloads, loaded drivers, etc. But they still can't cover everything.
> In other words, things that used to work might just stop working.
In other words, never make any changes. Things that used to work might just stop working. ok..
> Microsoft’s cleanup may sound responsible on the surface, but for anyone still clinging to older hardware or niche accessories, it might feel more like abandonment. Once a driver disappears, finding it again could become a scavenger hunt.
oh a scavenger hunt, sounds fun.
michaelmrose · 1h ago
So if you have a printer with a diver that works on windows 11 in an in use configuration window should basically tell you to spend potentially hundreds of dollars replacing working hardware that may have years of use it in for your own good.
Refusing to do work to say make a xp era printer work in Windows 11 is perfectly comprehensible you aren't owed that labor and even support from a vendor is finite in duration but actively disabling working hardware when the vendor has already done the work feels more like vandalism.
sandworm101 · 1h ago
Ya, bricking old hardware just because MS cannot be bothered.
nodja · 1h ago
The title is just fearmongering, it's removing the driver from being automatically installed from windows update, not preventing it from being installed altogether. They're also not revoking the signatures either so downloading and installing directly from the vendor site still works (and is still the recommended way to do it).
The equivalent in the linux world would be removing a driver from the main repo, requiring the user to either install the rpm/deb manually or use a third party repo.
stevepotter · 1h ago
This comment should be at the top
eddythompson80 · 1h ago
Lol, I get the outrage bait. nerds.xyz, go get that bag dude.
Though like... they are reviewing their driver store and notifying hardware partners who publish and maintain drivers in their repository to re-visit and/or resubmit their drivers in an attempt to clean up old stuff. I'm super mad at stuff....
> this could mean unexplained failures after a Windows update
I'm not sure how the author concludes that. From https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardwaredevcenter/r...:
> The first phase targets legacy drivers that have newer replacements already on Windows Update.
So only outdated drivers with replacements will be removed.
Likewise:
> Technically, expiring a driver means removing all its audience assignments in Hardware Development Center, which stops Windows Update from offering that driver to devices.
I don't interpret that as Windows Update proactively removing a driver that's already downloaded to a computer.
>legacy drivers published on Windows Update
You can still go download the legacy drivers directly. They just wont be automatically installed/updated via Windows Update. No devices are being bricked, your PC isn't breaking.
I get that Microsoft is the most evil company in the world, or whatever, but this is way overblown.
Directly from where? This is likely to be an issue too for older hardware.
Closed-source bobs are closely tied to the kernel version, since the kernel’s internal ABI and API is constantly changing. There is some documentation on why here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...
> Linux Delivering Driver Fix For 30 Year Old Creative SoundBlaster AWE32 ISA Sound Card
> The first phase targets legacy drivers that have newer replacements already on Windows Update.
Linux is more likely to have a driver for some obscure hardware, because no one has actually been comfortable removing it in the past decade, but it's also not actually tested on actual hardware. Unless it's an Itanium CPU, in which case the code is gone.
We had the same story regarding file systems last year. Technically Linux had a driver for an old Unix filesystem, but it had only been tested on filesystems made with the same driver/filesystem-code, not on actual disks with the original filesystem.
The Linux advantage is that if you really need that hardware to work, you might get lucky, and if not, you're not starting from scratch.
No comments yet
You have choices. Make them.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's impossible to know without understanding how the PC is used.
Here's one recent(ish) example:
https://support.hp.com/ro-en/document/ish_11892982-11893015-...
The blog post says "they are removing old drivers that *are not being offered* to anyone. They are starting with the subset that also *has newer replacements*, and they will publish the name of drivers removed, and wait for 6 months to hear from any hardware vendors about any concerns. The entire post is target at their driver vendors to maintain their listing in their driver repository better. I'm guessing Microsoft ignored that for decades, and hardware vendors have submitted tons of drivers over the last 25 years and they have a clean up initiative. How is that like crazy?
I don't know what their process is.
> Once that happens, only the hardware partner who published it can bring it back. But there’s a catch. Microsoft may demand a business justification before allowing a republish. And if the partner doesn’t respond within six months, the driver is deleted permanently.
> And while the company claims this is about improving security and reducing compatibility issues, the reality is that it’s cutting support for a lot of older devices in the name of modernization.
> In other words, things that used to work might just stop working.
> Microsoft’s cleanup may sound responsible on the surface, but for anyone still clinging to older hardware or niche accessories, it might feel more like abandonment. Once a driver disappears, finding it again could become a scavenger hunt.
One can spin anything.
> But there’s a catch. Microsoft may demand a business justification before allowing a republish. And if the partner doesn’t respond within six months, the driver is deleted permanently.
Ok.. and? You're complaining that 6 months isn't enough for a hardware vendor who published a driver that has a replacement and they believe there is a newer replacement for (but they could be wrong)? You're complaining that they might ask "why?"
Say Debian maintainers want to get in touch with a package maintainer. They are thinking of removing it from their repository because no one is using it and there are tings about it they are not sure. They ping the package maintainer. Is it unreasonable to expect a reply in 6 months? should it be 12? 24? Is is also unreasonable for Debian maintainers to ask "Why?" if the package owner's answer (oh no, please keep it)?
> And while the company claims this is about improving security and reducing compatibility issues, the reality is that it’s cutting support for a lot of older devices in the name of modernization.
Ok, editorializing is fine, but literally nothing in the Microsoft post says they are removing drivers from devices and leaving them without drivers. They are removing older expired versions of drivers. Is it possible that a particular old version of a driver is very important for a particular scenario that newer version of the same driver don't cover? Of course. How in the hell would Microsoft know that? They presumably have telemetry on downloads, loaded drivers, etc. But they still can't cover everything.
> In other words, things that used to work might just stop working.
In other words, never make any changes. Things that used to work might just stop working. ok..
> Microsoft’s cleanup may sound responsible on the surface, but for anyone still clinging to older hardware or niche accessories, it might feel more like abandonment. Once a driver disappears, finding it again could become a scavenger hunt.
oh a scavenger hunt, sounds fun.
Refusing to do work to say make a xp era printer work in Windows 11 is perfectly comprehensible you aren't owed that labor and even support from a vendor is finite in duration but actively disabling working hardware when the vendor has already done the work feels more like vandalism.
The equivalent in the linux world would be removing a driver from the main repo, requiring the user to either install the rpm/deb manually or use a third party repo.
Though like... they are reviewing their driver store and notifying hardware partners who publish and maintain drivers in their repository to re-visit and/or resubmit their drivers in an attempt to clean up old stuff. I'm super mad at stuff....