Steam stopped working in Windows 8.1

[Ahmad]

Now Steam is forcing me to replace my perfectly working Windows 8.1 with a totally unnecessary Windows 10 just to play a game that runs perfectly in Windows 98.

[Niliu]

Originally posted by NakiBest:

Originally posted by lailaamell:

Should be illegal to stop support for software

Then it should be fine to still use & sell Ford T cars, yes!? :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

It is legal to use a Model T. Any vehicle that was approved for road use gets grandfathered in when the rules change. Cars from 20 years ago wouldn't pass the safeties now, let alone classic cars. Yet they all are allowed on the road, without fail.

There's an estimated 10,000-15,000 still on the road today.

[NakiBest]

Okay, great.

Then how many new Ford T cars are manufactured and sold every year!? :)

[Master.Constructor]

Originally posted by RPG Gamer Man:

I am still mad i had to replace Windows XP with crappy windows 8.1

This is not a transition I would wish upon anyone, ever. ... at least it wasn't 8.0??

[Master.Constructor]

All the contents of any release of UpdatePack7 are available for anyone to see, I use 7-zip. All of the Microsoft updates are signed, not fake, not hacked, not modified.

I am eager to hear from anyone who has found a security concern (or any concern) with UpdatePack7.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by Niliu:

Originally posted by NakiBest:

Then it should be fine to still use & sell Ford T cars, yes!? :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

It is legal to use a Model T. Any vehicle that was approved for road use gets grandfathered in when the rules change. Cars from 20 years ago wouldn't pass the safeties now, let alone classic cars. Yet they all are allowed on the road, without fail.

There's an estimated 10,000-15,000 still on the road today.

False analogy.

The fact they are allowed is because they're given LEEWAY. They ARE still illegal to be manufactured to those standards today. That's the correct analogy.

There's various reasons classic cars are allowed on the roads in various countries and it largely comes down to the fact there's few of them, they tend on the whole to be less potentially dangerous due to factors like speed, and because they are owned and driven by enthusiasts they take care of them generally and keep them up. That's also part of the agreement.

They can still break the law while driving them of course, but that's moot.

The fact is it's not the same as saying Windows older OSes should continue to be updated and supported because it's not even remotely the same.

What a more accurate analogy would be would be expecting not Ford to sell new ones, but to FORCE them legally to keep stocking spare parts and service them when they don't want and it's no longer economic for them to do so.

[Niliu]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

Originally posted by Niliu:

It is legal to use a Model T. Any vehicle that was approved for road use gets grandfathered in when the rules change. Cars from 20 years ago wouldn't pass the safeties now, let alone classic cars. Yet they all are allowed on the road, without fail.

There's an estimated 10,000-15,000 still on the road today.

False analogy.

The fact they are allowed is because they're given LEEWAY. They ARE still illegal to be manufactured to those standards today. That's the correct analogy.

There's various reasons classic cars are allowed on the roads in various countries and it largely comes down to the fact there's few of them, they tend on the whole to be less potentially dangerous due to factors like speed, and because they are owned and driven by enthusiasts they take care of them generally and keep them up. That's also part of the agreement.

They can still break the law while driving them of course, but that's moot.

The fact is it's not the same as saying Windows older OSes should continue to be updated and supported because it's not even remotely the same.

What a more accurate analogy would be would be expecting not Ford to sell new ones, but to FORCE them legally to keep stocking spare parts and service them when they don't want and it's no longer economic for them to do so.

Exactly my point. It was a poor analogy for them to use. Thanks for the support.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by Niliu:

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

False analogy.

The fact they are allowed is because they're given LEEWAY. They ARE still illegal to be manufactured to those standards today. That's the correct analogy.

There's various reasons classic cars are allowed on the roads in various countries and it largely comes down to the fact there's few of them, they tend on the whole to be less potentially dangerous due to factors like speed, and because they are owned and driven by enthusiasts they take care of them generally and keep them up. That's also part of the agreement.

They can still break the law while driving them of course, but that's moot.

The fact is it's not the same as saying Windows older OSes should continue to be updated and supported because it's not even remotely the same.

What a more accurate analogy would be would be expecting not Ford to sell new ones, but to FORCE them legally to keep stocking spare parts and service them when they don't want and it's no longer economic for them to do so.

Exactly my point. It was a poor analogy for them to use. Thanks for the support.

No problem

[RedLightning]

What about 3rd party part manufacturers, for parts for the model-T... are they litigated?

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by RedLightning:

What about 3rd party part manufacturers, for parts for the model-T... are they litigated?

Nope, because that's not part of the analogy.

To equate that it would mean that thord party supporters patching Windows would be thing that Valve could rely on wouldn't it? And they can't.

[RedLightning]

Those parts do not make the cars any more legal.. they are only supported well because of reasons already stated in this thread.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by Master.Constructor:

All the contents of any release of UpdatePack7 are available for anyone to see, I use 7-zip. All of the Microsoft updates are signed, not fake, not hacked, not modified.

I am eager to hear from anyone who has found a security concern (or any concern) with UpdatePack7.

That's not true at all. The actual code from whom ever random person on the internet that created UpdatePack7 is NOT available to the public. We can inspect the update files yes but not the code in the installer program that UpdatePack7 uses, no. This is what "closed source" means.

It doesn't matter what you say or how hard you try to convince people to use this program: UpdatePack7 can't possibly be safe as long as they don't release the code for their installer program.

No one should ever blindly trust something like this for their computer for any reason. UpdatePack7 is a random program from 1 random stranger on the internet installed into the kernel level of our operating system with no way to know exactly what it's doing when it's installed. Extremely dangerous and super scary.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Originally posted by Master.Constructor:

All the contents of any release of UpdatePack7 are available for anyone to see, I use 7-zip. All of the Microsoft updates are signed, not fake, not hacked, not modified.

I am eager to hear from anyone who has found a security concern (or any concern) with UpdatePack7.

That's not true at all. The actual code from whom ever random person on the internet that created UpdatePack7 is NOT available to the public. We can inspect the update files yes but not the code in the installer program that UpdatePack7 uses, no. This is what "closed source" means.

I just thought of a Catch 22 in their assumption.

If this update were open for people to see, sure that would be great at making sure there's nothing insecure in it. But the other side is that means any scammer CAN ALSO see it and write malware to accommodate this.

And vice versa. If they can't see in, you can't tell if it's secure, but the scammers can't either.

Either way, you lose.

[🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

That's not true at all. The actual code from whom ever random person on the internet that created UpdatePack7 is NOT available to the public. We can inspect the update files yes but not the code in the installer program that UpdatePack7 uses, no. This is what "closed source" means.

I just thought of a Catch 22 in their assumption.

If this update were open for people to see, sure that would be great at making sure there's nothing insecure in it. But the other side is that means any scammer CAN ALSO see it and write malware to accommodate this.

And vice versa. If they can't see in, you can't tell if it's secure, but the scammers can't either.

Either way, you lose.

Sadly we already have a scammer using it. They are scamming people by claiming that UpdatePack7 updates Windows 7 when it does not update anything for Windows 7 users.

[crunchyfrog]

Originally posted by 🦊Λℚ𝓤ΛƑΛᗯҜᔕ🦊:

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

I just thought of a Catch 22 in their assumption.

If this update were open for people to see, sure that would be great at making sure there's nothing insecure in it. But the other side is that means any scammer CAN ALSO see it and write malware to accommodate this.

And vice versa. If they can't see in, you can't tell if it's secure, but the scammers can't either.

Either way, you lose.

Sadly we already have a scammer using it. They are scamming people by claiming that UpdatePack7 updates Windows 7 when it does not update anything for Windows 7 users.

Unsurprising. Scammers are ALWAYS quick to jump on these things because that's where the success lies.

[Master.Constructor]

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:

I just thought of a Catch 22 in their assumption.

If this update were open for people to see, sure that would be great at making sure there's nothing insecure in it. But the other side is that means any scammer CAN ALSO see it and write malware to accommodate this.

And vice versa. If they can't see in, you can't tell if it's secure, but the scammers can't either.

Either way, you lose.

I suppose it's the same as downloading the update from Microsoft. You can download, inspect, install the updates yourself if you'd like but I don't have time to test / evaluate everything that Microsoft puts out. Simplilx / UpdatePack7 has already demonstrated to me that they are reliable and dependable in 2019. Nothing has changed about that since then.

To be sure, the first time I heard about it I was skeptical and curious but it didn't take long to see it's vast history and use to know it was serious business. After testing it on a few sideline PCs, I was in awe. There truly has never been anything like this available to Windows users before that I am aware of. Not only is it convenient but it's save so much time and bandwidth in setting up a new Windows 7 system. It's also an impressive security check between my PCs and Microsoft. Many updates have not made it into UpdatePack7 due to issues or marketing / spyware / bugs. I can't express enough how thankful I am for this.