If you're still on Windows 7/8.1, it's time to say goodbye to Google Chrome Google has joined the funeral procession for Windows 7 and 8.1, announcing the last Chrome update for the aging OSes will come in early February. The end of support for Chrome on Windows 7 and 8.1 is tentatively planned for February 7 along with the release of Chrome 110, bringing Google in line with Microsoft's planned …
Yes. I do find it frustrating that people seem to take "no longer supported" to mean "will absolutely cease to function and leave you bereft of functionality".
I still have an old XP box lying around running some legacy stuff - it's been unsupported for ages, but still perfectly functional in its long-running use case.
"will absolutely cease to function and leave you bereft of functionality"
How about all the websites that will go to a blank screen saying "Your browser is unsupported" with helpful links to be able to download a supported browser?
How about Google disabling basic functionality (like logging into your account) with their own browser, calling it insecure, if it's more than a handful of releases old.
There's no need for this nonsense except for a relentless push to get people onto the latest newest thing.
And in the case of Chrome on Android, this appears to be colluding with the OS to have you permanently logged in (the only way to log out is to do so with the phone's primary account) in order that the bastards can track you everywhere in detail.
So, yes, older versions of browsers will continue to work (unless there's a secret kill switch like they did with Docs on iOS?), but the ability to use the web will get progressively less optimal as time passes.
Conversely and notably, they will quote security issues for ceasing support of older browsers on older OS's. It is possible that maintaining full functionality on these older systems opens them up to legal troubles if / when some clueless person using said legacy software gets fished into poverty.
blank screen in your browser always means that it was (deliberately) broken by a javascript library. The big companies have followed down that path (as they would), but it's not entirely fair to blame them for something that was first implemented as an open-source community decision to break IE6.
That is, assuming that you want to. Firefox is still a thing,* and it doesn't leave you under the ad agency's microscope. Especially with uBlock0, NoScript, DDG, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, and ClearURLs. I admit it's not quite as snappy as Chrome, but I don't care.
*It also currently seems to be the main plausible alternative to the Chrom(e/ium) engine. Diversity in the web-browser ecosystem is undeniably a good thing. It also prevents Google from being able to define de facto web standards with impunity.
That is, assuming that you want to. Firefox is still a thing,* and it doesn't leave you under the ad agency's microscope.
Firefox? What's that you say? So there's another ad agency called Amazon, who provide a direct-to-video service called Prime. Who recently decided to 'upgrade' it's player. It's a subtle upgrade that removes the overlay it used to have so you could adjust volume, pause, fast forward etc. Or just do handy things like turn subtitles on/of, switch to full screen and back..
And now you can't. And it sucks.
So I contacted Amazon's support and they said it's my browser, and have I tried installing Chrome, and using that? Or the Prime App? So I told them I'd just grab some screenshots of the new, reduced and practically invisible controls to forward to Ofcom and see how it's audio/video services comply with broadcasting (and streaming) accessibility requirements instead. I doubt that would get anwhere, but currently Amazon seem happy to blame Firefox, and steer customers to it's competitors.
It's probably some sort of bug. From time to time it happens to me using the app on Android. I start up a video, the blue flash appears (This crap may contain product placement / Flashing images / Etc) and then poof! Tapping the screen does nothing. No playback controls at all.
I find force closing and clearing the cache tends to restore normality for a while, but it's a bit shit if you've downloaded something...
It's probably some sort of bug.
Nah, not a bug, it's a feature. Too many elements of the overlay have been removed, resized, repositioned and recoloured. It's like they took the U out of UI. Pretty impressive demonstration of the tech giant's testing though. I never really imagined a video player that has less functionality, like inability to enter/exit full screen. The intent may of course be to force installs of their 'app', because everyone MUST install an app under admin privs in order to play a simple video stream.
Companies love steering users to their apps of course, because the apps are a walled garden where the user's experience is completely at the whim of the company. If you're accessing Amazon, Youtube, etc through a browser on your phone, you might be running ad- or script-blockers to filter out the shite, and we can't have that can we? No, no,no.
The last thing I wish to run without updates is something that connects to something remote and downloads code to run. Some application fully running locally and used with some degree of control may not matter much - i.e. if you use an old version of Photoshop or Lightroom on your own images - but not a browser.
However, remember to download the offline installer before they EOL the last release of Chrome for Windows 7; otherwise you won't be able to reinstall...
Suggest bookmarking:
https://www.askvg.com/official-link-to-download-google-chrome-standalone-offline-installer/
or
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/how-to-download-google-chromes-offline-installer/
And put a reminder in the diary; remembering XP, the download was removed within a couple of weeks of the final release with XP support.
The download for XP is still available from Google! I used it just the other day in a care home that has their BMS system running on XP SP3. I simply went to the usual Chrome download page, acknowledged Google's warning about it being an old unsupported version, and dowloaded it. No problem at all.
Nothing screams insecurity like these types of comments.
I like Linux, used it for many years in the mid-90s to early aughts, but it's not perfect or the end all be all. It's very good at some tasks, absolutely rubbish at others. Depending on what you're looking to do it could be anything from the best option available to a total non-starter.
It would be nice if just once we could have a story like this that wasn't full of insecure commentards like the OP trying to convince themselves they made the right choice. The story is about Chrome dropping support for unsupported versions of Windows. It's not about Linux. You want to talk about Linux, there are plenty of dedicated places for that. In a few weeks to months the honeymoon period will be over and you'll start realizing that Linux has some warts and annoying habits, same as everything else.
Linux has some warts and annoying habits
Yeah, but sh*t breaks on Linux, and after some effort, I fix it. It stays fixed.
Sh*t breaks on Windows. I spend a lot of effort and I fix it, and it's broken again next week.
And yes, I'm still on Windows 7 because that's the last time I bothered to set up a Windows VM. I'm certainly not PAYING for anything newer.
This post has been deleted by its author
Linux has warts and annoying habits. As a user now for something like 5 years or so, I agree.
One of it's annoying habits is not periodically sending all manner of slurpage to some corporate mothership on the US's left coast. That is reason enough for me to put up with Linux's petty warts and annoying habits.
YMMV, of course. But really, should it?
One of it's annoying habits is not periodically sending all manner of slurpage to some corporate mothership on the US's left coast. That is reason enough for me to put up with Linux's petty warts and annoying habits.
Boy, did I mistype that! What I meant to say was:
Something that is pointedly not an "annoying habit" is it does not periodically send all manner of slurpage to some corporate mothership on the US's left coast. That is reason enough for me to put up with those things that are Linux's petty warts and annoying habits.
There, FTFM (Fixed That For Me).
You may now return to your regularly scheduled forum, which is already in progress....
Just coming up to my quarter of a century with Linux anniversary, I suspect the honeymoon period should be over by now... Linux has a lot fewer warts and annoying habits than it did then and even back then it was incomparably better than the alternatives in every way that mattered to me.
Sadly it's picked up some infections from the Windows mindset over the years, but at least you have a bit of choice as to how you put your system together and can still mostly avoid those.
The comment was clearly supposed to be a joke alusion to the Linuxmanship Howto from 1998. Quote:
"Upgrade: 1. Replacing one version of Linux with a later version. 2. Replacing any other operating system with Linux. Note: Replacing one version of a proprietary operating system with another is not an upgrade. Changing from one proprietary operating system to another is not an upgrade. It is only an upgrade if the computer ends up running Linux."
You mean that there's more than one 8.1 user? Who knew?
How bad was Win8? So bad that I moved to Win 8.1 as fast as possible. (Not very fast on ancient Toshibas...)
How bad was Win 8.1? So bad that I voleneerily went to 10.
How bad isWin 11? So bnad that Win 10 will be l;eaving only to be replaced by Mac and Linux.
Similar story...
New laptop arrived with Windows 8.
Updated ASAP to 8.1, which I hated MORE AND MORE every day I had to use it.
I finally cracked under pressure and BOUGHT a Windows 7 license.
I still have the disk image as a VBox VM. It runs as a Linux guest OS. Go figure...
8.1 didn't actually sucks in reality, just the UI sucks, many small youtubers including TrigrZolt tested Windows 8.1 and it's boots up, doing lots of stuff pretty fast, and it's was even better with SSD, I also tested 8.1 on this really old 2009 PC with only 3GB RAM and a 1TB SSD (even with SATA 2), its still run smooth and as long you have Open Shell/StartIsBack, you can make this OS looked like Windows 7 while also have the speed advantage of 8.1.
I never used chrome. i still have some win(oldish) boxes for nostalgia games and/or hardware but i never "upgraded" anything beyond Win7. No win beyond 7 ever did anything i actually needed or wanted so why bother at all ?
So a browser i never used and dont ever intend to use can only be on its newest and shin/shitt_iest on an OS i also never used and dont ever intend to use. Both from companies i utterly dislike and distrust.
Seems like some sort of perfect match.
Even with adblockers, piholes, and limited sandboxing, there are things on this wide wide internet that would loooooooove to get their bony hands on a machine like yours. Microsoft stopped providing security updates to regular 7 and 7 Embedded users ages ago. Firefox drops support for 7 next year because they are no longer certain they can harden the browser against future system-level exploits.
7 had a much longer life than anyone expected; it began life in a time when 2GB was more than enough to play simple games and handle spreadsheets on displays limited to 1920x1200, when comouter graphics cards had 256mb of RAM, and where hard drives indeed did go brrrrrrrr.
For much of the era of personal computers, the service life was expected to be about 5 years, with 7 years of security updates expected. Your windows 7 machines have long exceeded that. Unlike Cupertino, Redmond still supports your hardware for a few years more yet, if Internautting is your desire. It's called Windows 10 22H2, and it's available now, at no additional cost.
If your tasks are entirely offline, by all mwans, continue to use Windows 7, which is, in my opinion, the second best looking OS microsoft ever emitted. (Vista, you sly fox. You haven't aged a day.)
For the one Windows package I quite like, and also ripping DVDs since I no longer own a TV. Don't see any point to coughing up currency symbols to replace what I have that works with something fancy and modern that.... would probably object to running the older software that I use.
And before anybody mentions, it's on the LAN but the router specifically blocks access to the outside world.
With a long recession about to slap us in the face PLUS way above inflation tech price increases, much of the hardware we'll be using in 2025 is what we have now and have had for several years.
Windows 11 is IMHO a dogs breakfast and will not be installed on any of the systems here. The boss wanted the new shiny, shiny and after a week, he went back to W7 in frustration.
We are now moving to M1/M2 macs. 40% of the company has already ditched windows.
Unfortunately, if you or your org is ISO 27001 and/or PCI DSS certified, you effectively must use the latest OS to stay compliant, regardless of any other considerations. Churn is so deeply embedded into IT culture that it's really hard to bring common sense to the table.
As to 'other considerations', our commercial scanner and proofing printer have to run from an XP box as there are no later drivers for them. But it's just not practical to spend four figures to replace kit that still works perfectly well.
"Unfortunately, if you or your org is ISO 27001 and/or PCI DSS certified, you effectively must use the latest OS to stay compliant, regardless of any other considerations."
And even if it isn't, you probably have cyber insurance now (if not, you probably should!) And if you are running out of support OSs that's an immediately get-out clause for them should you have a ransomware attack, etc. It's just not worth the risk.
We're still entirely on W10 at the moment apart from some test machines used only by IT staff. I don't much like W11 and am waiting to see what happens - if they've not brought out 'Windows 12' by early 2024 I guess we will need to start looking at moving to W11.
Is anyone else wondering whether Microsoft will pull a Win7 and push the 2025 Win10 EOL forward significantly?! As another commenter said, with the way the economy is at the moment and sub-15% Windows 11 mass-market deployment stats being banded about, it really isn't that long in the grand scheme of things and I can see a lot of Win10 installs still being in existence.
I suspect they will leave it as long at they can before announcing anything, but if it gets to a year before the deadline and W10 still has a high market share they probably aren't going to have any option but to extend the support period. That would also be an acknowledgement that W11 had failed, so they would need to bring out a successor quickly as well.
With so much hardware unable to run it, and less tolerance for upgrading old but still performing more than good enough for the need just to upgrade the OS, they may find there's too much pushback against that 2025 deadline. This isn't the old days where hardware improvements happened fast a 7 year old PC might as well be an 8086. These days other than games there's not much in the application world with ever increasing performance demands like there used to be.
Couple that with the fact that Windows 11 doesn't really provide anything new, it is just an arbitrary line in the sand where Microsoft decided to make it a new OS rather than another H2 xxxx update.
People aren't upgrading because they don't see the point. With Windows 7 you wanted to upgrade because XP was a creaky and ever more unstable pile of patches upon patches, or you had the nightmare called Vista you wanted to escape as quickly as possible. With Windows 10 people wanted to upgrade if they were unfortunate enough to have been saddled with Windows 8, though the Windows 7 users had to forced into it kicking and screaming. Now EVERYONE will have to be forced into it kicking and screaming, and I think big companies that don't see a need to replace perfectly adequate hardware will be pushing back pretty hard.
This article has all manner of stuff that requires rebuttal, if not basic "fixing".
"If you are currently on Windows 7 or Windows 8.1, we encourage you to move to a supported Windows version before that date to ensure you continue to receive the latest security updates and Chrome features," Google said.
You say that it were a bad thing. Seems to me that most of the folks still on Win 7 are there for a (good) reason, like, I dunno...perhaps less slurpage? Doubt those folks will see updating to Slurpmaster's latest opus so that they can receive the latest stuff from the other slurpmaster as a positive thing.
Microsoft echoed that language when it announced the end of Windows 7 and 8.1: "Remember that using unsupported software may increasean organization's exposure to security risks or impact its ability to meet complianceour inability to meet our shareholders' profit obligations."
There, FTFY.
Windows 11's adoption has been glacially slow, and for good reason:around 40 percent of devices that run Windows are unable to upgrade due to the onerous, yet apparently arbitrary, hardware requirements Microsoft put on the OSMost folks just don't want that warm steaming heap on (what is ostensibly) their machines.
There, FTFY also.
Oh, I don't know, I'd say the original phrase was pretty spot-on even just based on comments here on El Reg. I haven't even bothered to look into it much myself, the fact that Win11 apparently flat-out refuses to let you create a purely local account is a complete nonstarter for me. Chasing after the downright bizarre hardware requirements is just an extra helping of "Yeah, fuck no".
I expect that all the malware creators are writing for Windows 10 and 11 - these are the most common operating systems on new computers purchased by people with plenty of money ... typical targets. But how much malware and virus infections are being created for Windows 7 these days? I expect that most people using those older operating systems are not busy posting on Twitter, Facebook, etc., and are not using online banking accounts so the amount of malware out there aimed at Windows 7 and 8 is probably low, potentially making the older operating systems not "more secure" but maybe less risky for most users.
Since an OS contains a lot of code that was already there before (no OS is re-written from scratch every new version...), a vulnerability found in a new version could have been there before as well. Moreover, old versions might still be used in high-profile targets (hospitals, factories) for crooks wishing to be paid ransoms - or state actors wishing to take down enemy infrastructures. I wouldn't really expect to be safer using an old OS unless it's really so old it can't run actual executables - if you run Windows 3.1 your risks are surely lower (but the OS itself, of course).
Oooh, hospitals,... in 2015 I had an interview with a hospital trust, I misheard what the chap said at first, given Windows 10 had been released a couple of months earlier, and thought he said he was planning his migration from Windows 7,,... but no, it was _to_ Windows 7, from XP.
It’s not unclear. Windows 10 - as in “the last Window’s you will ever need” will still be going and actively supported until 2027 in LTSC shape (formerly Embedded… as in on PoS and other devices).
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-10-enterprise-ltsc-2021
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
