Intel To Remove Old Drivers and BIOS Updates From Its Site (zdnet.com) 130
By Friday this week, Intel plans to remove old drivers and BIOS updates from its official website. From a report: "This download, BIOS Update [BLH6710H.86A] 0163, will no longer be available after November 22, 2019 and will not be supported with any additional functional, security, or other updates," reads a message posted to the download page of one of the impacted components. "Intel recommends that users of BIOS Update [BLH6710H.86A] 0163 uninstall and/or discontinue use as soon as possible," the message continues. The downloads are drivers and BIOS updates for Intel desktop components and motherboards the company released in the 90s and early-to-mid 2000s. Downloads for hundreds of components are believed to have been impacted, from motherboards to NIC cards and graphics cards. Most of the drivers are for Windows versions like 98, ME, XP, and older Windows Server editions -- old Windows OS versions that have themselves reached end-of-life (EOL) All components and motherboards reached (EOL) years ago, and Intel stopped delivering firmware updates as a result. Its website was merely hosting the older files for convenience.
So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Since anyone that's having a retro computer that's chasing drivers for their old hardware will now have to download the drivers from questionable sites where they may be infected by various kinds of malware.
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:1)
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually Linux is happily running (up to date even) on my 10 year old machine that Intel no longer supports, and which is affected by this ditching of all firmware. I'll never run Windows of any kind on it, and its running fine as is. But if I want to add bigger drives to it, I'll probably need the latest (obsolete) revision of the firmware. In the past I'd just download it if I needed it. Now I'll have to archive it somewhere in case I do need it.
What I don't get is why remove the old drivers? Doesn't make sense to me. It's one thing to warn users the drivers are unsupported and the hardware is obsolete. But to pull them outright? That's bizarre.
I've been buying Intel for quite a few years now. But this irritates me. Hope AMD doesn't follow suit.
Re: (Score:2)
On the firmware, why would you not update it now if you think you may one day?
As to a justification, I would not be surprised if someone went through and decided that hosting materials to enable users to keep using platforms no longer receiving security updates somehow endorses the behavior and it would be 'safer' if they made the user clearly aware of what they are getting into. I don't think it's a very good reason, but I struggle to think of other good justifications for investing the effort of cleaning
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just dusted down my old D510 mini ITX server that I retired a couple of years ago to install CentOS 8 on for reasons I won't go into here two weeks ago. Everything on that board is supported by CentOS 8, I did a BIOS upgrade as I installed the new OS (it was previously running CentOS 5, replaced with a new machine running CentOS 7). I noticed that nasty warning as I downloaded the BIOS update and thought WTF, why do that.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is why remove the old drivers? Doesn't make sense to me. It's one thing to warn users the drivers are unsupported and the hardware is obsolete. But to pull them outright? That's bizarre.
Maintaining a website is a non-zero cost. Databases of drivers, storage, hardware, backup, not breaking links and ensuring those pages are accessible in the future, as I've pointed out elsewhere most content is dynamically generated these days so changing the template needs to be tested against your site of legacy stuff too.
Things that have zero cost tend to fall through the gaps in most organisations. The only time someone questions anything is when someone has to put effort into doing something they don't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD really did cut the piss out from under them by using HMB tech for CPU's that's for sure.
We need a full list of Intel bad management issues (Score:2)
"... it fits in with their other boneheaded decisions of the past couple of years, like not fully testing stacked 10nm wafers
There are 3 more examples in my comment posted above: Intel has insufficient management, in my opinion. [slashdot.org]
I'd like to see a Slashdot story in which we could all contribute comments about Intel's insufficient management.
Re: (Score:1)
- Why you have such an old crap computer?
- It's A RETRO COMPUTER!
Re:So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:4, Informative)
Up until a couple of years ago you could download freaking System 7 (the Mac OS released in 1991) from Apple's official website. //e, but for a long time I was impressed with that gesture.
I haven't used an Apple product since the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No malware targets RETRO computing. There is zero value in it. The machines are not useful for cryto mining, they are comparatively useless for spaming and other botnet type operations. They are not where people do most of their business ie keep their finances, personal photos, school works, etc they are going to pay a ransomware scam to get back..
I think malware is probably about the least of your worries if you retro-computing is a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
No malware targets RETRO computing. There is zero value in it.
You're thinking crypto, I'm thinking botnet. It doesn't matter how slow something is, as long as you've got enough of something to do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this not a job for https://archive.org/ [archive.org] ?? This would preserve the drivers and firmware so that retro enthusiasts are not forced to delve into shady www.igotthedriversyousodesperatelyneedplusmalware.whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows the first place you go for stuff like that is Vogons.
I expect that they'll have all the drivers up and hosted within a few days. (You can really find drivers for really esoteric hardware there as well).
Retrocomputing is fairly mainstream now with people building 386 to Pentium PCs and having pretty much everything archived.
About the dodgiest things would be finding copies of MS-DOS or Windows, but short of ancient viruses, no one really infects them. First they're usually 16-bit binaries whic
OK Intel (Score:2)
Users To Remove Intel's Products From Its Vendor List
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah. I will save it on a 5-1/4" floppy disk.
Intel is probably saving the storage space of an $8 thumb drive by deleting this.
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel is probably saving the storage space of an $8 thumb drive by deleting this.
I was just thinking about this last night, as I was re-installing Windows on an 10-ish year old laptop and looking for drivers. The thing isn't supported for Windows 10, and I had to dig through forums to piece together the specific drivers I needed, searching by hardware ID. I was 3-for-3 in getting the driver I needed. The only reason I was able to is because the links in the old forum post, pointing directly back to the file from HP, were still valid. It got me wondering what the level of effort is to maintain those links? How many times has the tech behind HPs website (and all the other pieces and parts required to provide that file) changed in the past 10 years? Yeah, the disk space required to store those is less than a rounding error. But the level of effort to keep the links to them intact is likely significant.
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Informative)
There's zero ongoing effort if they just put them on an FTP server, organizing them initially as one-directory-per-product.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the issue.
How did they organize the files to begin with?
If they were smart back in the day and hosted such files over ftp organized in nice directories. Maybe they keep it.
But what if they bought into some complicated web application to host such files or a custom web site. I just browsed the intel download site and it doesn't look like a straight forward ftp site. It might be non-trivial to just get all the files into an ftp. They might not want to pay someone to do that... and possibly have an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's zero ongoing effort
False. Nothing in an organisation has zero effort, including things which have been forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Further the "1 folder per product" concept sounds great on the surface. For a company like HP it's not that simple. I have an 8560p, by searching using the hardware ID for the specific device, the forum post I found referenced a completely different model number. They just happened to share some of the hardware. It'd be a shit load of work to get the files in the right spots, I can see why they'd say 'screw it'.
It wouldn't be a problem if HP didn't have like 3 different product model numbers for each and every product.
I went through that looking for a driver for an HP scanner. Not fun, and if I'd been a Normal, I never would have found it. Never.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this. Storage is cheap. If you have the modern bios updates/firmware on the same site, there is no additional upkeep.
Intel is just being a dick, plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel is probably saving the storage space of an $8 thumb drive by deleting this.
The cost of the thumb drive is nothing compared to the cost of managing that thumb drive.
Re:So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:4, Insightful)
Support and copyright/patent must be made inseparable. If the first goes away, they latter must follow. This business has to be a two way street. Right now the merchants are making the rules.
That's what I did with my software. No support=GPL (Score:2)
In the license for the main properietary software I wrote, it says that if the web site for the software goes offline for two weeks, the software automatically becomes GPL. I took down the web site down about a year ago, so its GPL now.
It also said that if I dissappear, another company I used to work with can pick it up, providing support etc and they'd have all the copyright rights they'd need to new versions and such. That way customers could get support from someone who knows the software. If they don't
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
So, what do you want now?
To terminate the copyrights of the software that is still illegal to distribute. Capiche?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright does not last forever.... they only extend it when Mickey Mouse needs it.
Mickey Mouse will always need it.
As long as Disney or some successor entity exists, we will have more "Micky Mouse Protection Acts". So, probably until x years after humans go extinct, where x is whatever remains of the last extension before that happens.
For all practical purposes, that is forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure BIOS updates are covered by copyright. Just yesterday I was checking if I had the last BIOS for this Q8400 based system.
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Informative)
No, they're probably trademarked, but not copyrighted.
The tech might be covered by patents, but the actual driver code is covered by copyright.
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel has no obligation...
It's not about obligation, Shortsighted One; it's about the wisdom of recognizing the value of good will, or in this case, a distinct lack thereof, as this shows that Intel recognizes there's none fucking left. They may as well run wild - the damage's already done.
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. the world is collapsing because Intel will no longer support 15+ year old hardware. Totally rational.
No, short sighted like parent said. I worked in tech support eons ago, and one thing that stuck: "each customer contact is an opportunity to leave a good impression". Doesn't even matter if actual customer - potential future customer is enough. Make that good impression, and it's like a farmer that does something to improve the soil on his fields. No immediate or obvious return, but there could be a payback later. Do enough of such things, and "could" may be read as "will". Car analogy:
Owner of a 50 year old car visits company's factory. "I'm looking for a replacement set of tires, nobody seems to have them!"
Option A: "Sorry, we stopped selling that model 40 years ago, and don't carry spares any more, or keep track of who does."
Option B: "Wow that's an oldie, great to see it's still rolling! We don't have such tires any more, but let us ask around & we'll get back to you."
Obviously that "ask around" part will cost you time and/or money. But also it will leave a good impression. Which just may tip the scale if customer ever weighs your brand against the competition on a future purchase. Or recommends your name to friends or family. You'll agree that is worth something. But worth the trouble? Obviously that depends on the cost of the "ask around" part versus the value of leaving a good impression.
And there's the kicker: what if it costs you essentially nothing? For digital goods like drivers etc: storage space is dirt cheap. Bandwidth use? Very modest because little of such old hardware is still in use. Site maintenance? Needs to be done anyway for new products. Old product pages needn't be updated, just leave as-is. Same for a knowledge base or similar info.
In other words: for a hardware manufacturer, that's recurring opportunities to leave good impressions (quite possibly turning into future sales) at effectively zero cost. Why would you NOT do that? Short sighted indeed.
Removing customer support that costs you effectively nothing to maintain, is like a farmer that lets the soil on his field wash away. Yes perhaps this year's crop will do fine. And next year's, too. But in the long term: not wise.
Re: (Score:3)
I highly question your "effectively zero cost". In large corporations things with zero cost tend to slip through the cracks. Server maintenance is a thing even if sites don't get updated. In today's world of dynamically created pages code changes can break a lot of legacy links and would need to be tested against it. Want to mirror the site? Well now you have additional installations to look after. Do you include them in your backup strategy? Well now you have time and physical equipment to deal with. Where
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't think the 15-year-old-computer use case is a large motivator, I will say that the 'dynamically created pages for everything' methodology causes a lot of headaches (needlessly incurring extra requirements for trivial changes, server load to dynamically handle requests that are static by nature) compared to an alternative strategy where old content just... keeps living as it lived.
Frequently, the big push is mostly about marketing changing minds back and forth on branding, and that can be handle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increases (Score:5, Insightful)
> "each customer contact is an opportunity to leave a good impression"
Indeed; word-of-mouth advertising has no dollar amount:
It takes 10 years to build a quality reputation
It takes 10 seconds to destroy it
The fact that intel is doing MORE work to actually DELETE the older drivers is telling of their priority. What is wrong with leaving the EXISTING links working???
Liability (Score:2)
We know that Meltdown impacts nearly all Intel x86 processors, but not AMD. This and similar flaws render many of Intel's historical products unsafe for security-critical applications.
Consider ATMs - these commonly ran OS/2 for many years, presumably on x86. Should we consider Intel viable for this market in light of the flaws exposed in the last two years? Many would violently disagree.
When x86 devices are so deeply flawed, why would Intel make any pretence of encouraging their continued use?
Intel is purgi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the context of your workload, performance, and budget.
But personally, NO, I won't be buying any more Intel products.
I just picked up a Threadripper 1920X for $200 -- hell of a deal for 12 core / 24 threads! I'm also looking into the 3rd gen TR 32C/64T and/or the 64C/128T once we have more info.
May I prove your point? (Score:2)
Re: So now the risk for retro computing increase (Score:2)
They lose essentially zero for removing a bunch of 20 year old drivers.
Change your username or write smarter shit??
Re: (Score:3)
Horrible moderation. This should be modded up, not down. Mods on this thread are children.
This Thread?
How about nearly Every Thread on here.
Tough but fair (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that (over time), the Intel driver sites become overwhelmed with the number of drivers and files available that it can make it tougher to find what you want. Imagine 15, 30, 45 years from now: Would they still host the files? Files that are downloaded a small handful of times per year, but continue to bog down the experience of the finding the useful current drivers? Are you going to have an "Select your Operating System?" combo box with 40 versions of Windows?
My feeling is that they should segregate the older drivers onto a separate site that is more static, and allow for the currently supported devices to more easily found.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Easy fix, divide them based on decade, or just stick the lot into "legacy".
Re: Tough but fair (Score:2)
Just don't use a recycling bin as the icon!
Re: (Score:2)
"legacy"? Is that some kind of new maintenance and administration free system?
Re:Tough but fair (Score:5, Funny)
My guess is that (over time), the Intel driver sites become overwhelmed with the number of drivers and files available that it can make it tougher to find what you want.
If only there were some kind of high-speed logic machine that could aid in the process of searching through large amounts of textual data.
I would bet that a making components for such a machine might be a lucrative endeavor.
Re: (Score:3)
I foresee the world having use for maybe five or six such machines.
Demand they be put in the public domain then (Score:5, Interesting)
We shouldn't allow this stuff to be locked away. No support? No copyright/patents!
Re: (Score:2)
This! They can't argue that they would lose economic value since they don't even care to make them available.
Re: Demand they be put in the public domain then (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah there is. The copyrights on the drivers are not expired. Those have to go too. If you had read the post, you would have seen that I said that. All government granted privileges have to be terminated.
Re: (Score:2)
If I am not allowed to distribute existing drivers it's totally bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
If the copyright/patents on a driver expire or patch, then it can still live on even if the company that created it stops distributing it, or no longer exists.
Your old scsi card that a vendor last week decided to no longer support and stopped sharing the latest firmware can now exist on an internet archive, a loyal hobbiest, or even internal company server without legal repercussion.
That alone may make vendors willing to keep all that under /old.
Re: (Score:2)
No support? No copyright/patents!
What's the bet that Copyright and Patents apply very much to current in-support products.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. They most likely are supporting products where the patents still apply. Losing a currently in use patent because you don't support every old product that used it in the past is just utterly absurd.
Planned obsolescence^2 (Score:1)
Don't get me started... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Don't get me started... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But, OK, I get it, obsolete is obsolete
Plan ahead (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who intends to keep a piece of digital hardware for a very long time should archive multiple copies of all software, drivers, bios updates etc
It's not just Intel, and it's not new
Re: (Score:2)
Given how many companies only allow "live" updates, this is no longer possible.
I stopped upgrading a lot of stuff because the new versions don't let me archive anything. Hell if I'm going to let them pull the rug out from under my feet.
Intel has insufficient management, in my opinion. (Score:1)
Intel CEO apparently has no technical knowledge [slashdot.org] (Aug. 21, 2019)
Intel stuck with $1.45 billion fine in Europe for unfair and damaging practices against AMD. [extremetech.com] (June 13, 2014)
A Slashdot comment of mine from 13 years ago: More Intel employees should say in public what they have told me in private: Intel CEO Paul Otellini is not a competent leader. He lacks social ability. [slashdot.org] (June 09, 2006)
Storage issues (Score:1)
They need to buy more storage if they really need to free up a few kilobyte files.
Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand why this is needed.
Afterall, this will save Intel about a whole 2 GB of space on their Servers.
Good Job, Intel!
Re: (Score:2)
A disaster? (Score:2)
The downloads are drivers and BIOS updates for Intel desktop components and motherboards the company released in the 90s and early-to-mid 2000s.
So, we're talking about support for drivers for hardware 15+ years old. And about those drivers? It was more than just hosting:
This download, BIOS Update [BLH6710H.86A] 0163, will no longer be available after November 22, 2019 and will not be supported with any additional functional, security, or other updates,
Intel would still go through those old drivers, from 15+ years ago, and consider if they needed to be updated. Seriously, there's like, what - 15 people using them? Get a grip, folks... Should we next be outraged that 2G phones are no longer supported by a network AT ALL? That my party-line phone can no longer be used? Fifteen plus years is a LONG time for support, and i
Re:A disaster? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they could do nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
> Intel would still go through those old drivers, from 15+ years ago, and consider if they needed to be updated.
Or, they could do nothing. Just leavr them alone.
If you're using a 12-year old driver for an old raid card to get some data off disks, you know you've got an old raid card that needs an old driver. It doesn't need to be constantly updated, just don't delete he file in order to save a whole 4MB on Intel's SAN. Just leave it the fuck alone would be a reasonable option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of people using old hardware. Our company hasn't bought a new computer... ever. I haven't bought a new computer... hmm... in maybe 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ambulance chasing lawyers (Score:1)
No doubt this is just self preservation. if they are no longer available then no one can come after them because some bug caused a decades old medical diagnostic machine to kill people. Hopefully they are archived by someone other than malware criminals somewhere.
No, I'd guess lazy web team (Score:3)
Complaints going up the chain of command until some clueless manager decides to go with it; imagined legal scenarios are a common excuse, asking a real lawyer is too much hassle or cost... and asking them to come up with a solution costs more; surely they can state (if not already) that unsupported old products are not to be used anymore and it's use at your risk (they basically have that policy for all software already.)
IT complaining or developers complaining about maintaining old stuff is a common reason
At least they are announcing it (Score:2)
The time-honored technique is for old drivers to simply disappear after a website update.
I sold Intel R, S, and X desktops. (Score:1)
And that's way way back, 486 and transition to Pentium. I do not expect those to be supported any more.
But neither do I expect the Socket 478 boards to be supported. Those are insecure today, and no way to fix that.
This is proper culling of old and not very useful support. Sadly, if you're dependent on these, you should already have your software. Keep it. Everything ends.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would Socket 478 boards be insecure? That's the last pure 32-bit desktop socket from Intel. Predates both the Intel ME and the TPM. Probably about the newest Intel socket I'd consider running if you are really paranoid about backdoors into your hardware*. While some major Linux distributions have dropped 32-bit support, there's still a bunch of current, up to date distributions that'll happily run on 32-bit Pentium 4 from that era. Properly set up and up to date, you're arguably more secure than a
Why? out of disk space? (Score:2)
Why bother to do this? Are they running low on disk space? Perhaps AMD should send them some samples of their hard drives as a gesture of kindness if they are in such a pinch.
Liability issues? (Score:2)
Perhaps Intel is worried about liability issues. If they continue to offer BIOS updates that have some sort of vulnerability, they could potentially be sued. Sure, they could have disclaimers, but that still doesn't stop lawsuits. This is likely economics. There is nearly zero gain from offering these, and between the cost of hosting, organizing, managing, troubleshooting issues, and potential litigation; its a no brainer to pull the files.
How long should they keep them available? As others have stated, you
Re: (Score:2)
There is nearly zero gain from offering these, and between the cost of hosting, organizing, managing, troubleshooting issues
The gain is goodwill. I shall think twice about buying Intel stuff in future.
you can't go to Suzuki and expect to buy parts for a 1986 Samurai
I don't know Suzuki, but actually I would have expected it. In any case it is a bad analogy because physical parts need manufacturing , significant storage volume, and transport. Tthose old drivers requite no manufacture, no transport and almost zero storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I would expect to still find parts for an 86 Samurai also.
I can still buy many parts from John Deere for tractors that were made over 40 years ago, even 60 years ago. But I concede I can't say this for a lot of other brands of equipment.
For automobiles, there are always-after market parts for old and even antique cars. Even if the original company is long gone and patterns are nowhere to be found, someone can look at what was done and replicate it. A lot harder to do that with proprietary compute
Re: (Score:2)
"The gain is goodwill."
Goodwill for all those customers who want to flash the BIOS on 20+ year old hardware. The only people interested in dinking around with that old hardware are super tech nerds who are not customers and likely have zero authority for purchasing beyond their household. And before someone chimes up and says they handle $2M of PC purchasing per year, are you letting your decisions be based on whether a supplier supports their product for decades past EOL? You know that does have a cost and
Please work with archive.org (Score:2)
Dear Intel, Apple, and everyone else:
Please work with archive.org and other non-profits to host stuff like this.
Mixed feelings on this one.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you do eventually reach a point where it's ridiculous to keep expecting to be able to download something like a BIOS update for ancient hardware. If you've got some PC from the 1990's, for example? It's honestly at the point where A) it's not likely to keep running much longer before a capacitor or two fails on the main board, or a keyboard controller chips blows, or ?? They may last many years, but not indefinitely. B) It's so slow by modern standards, there aren't many workloads left that would even cost justify continuing to use it vs. something more recent that can do so much more with the same (or less) electricity.
There's a point where you're either a outlier, trying to preserve obsolete systems for the nostalgia of it, or you're just not being financially smart vs recycling the thing and upgrading. I don't feel like vendors have to keep supporting the people in the nostalgia camp.
On the flip-side? I see a lot of older drivers and apps removed too soon, in what's clearly just an effort to motivate people to buy new hardware. The cost to keep the "vintage / obsolete" support files around in their own set of folders on an ftp or web site you're maintaining anyway for current stuff is really minimal.
Devil's advocate here (Score:3)
It is not about drivers themselves, but being unable to keep up with updates. I think Intel got itself in a pretty bad place for cutting corners in security design for decades to win some performance gains. Now their entire legacy systems are vulnerable, with no end in sight for newer attack types.
So they would probably "wish all of it to go away". I do not think they have the manpower to fix it anymore. Those BIOS updates and drivers need actual security reviews and endless patches, and this announcement is Intel saying they are throwing the towel.
Good thing I don't need these drivers (Score:2)
I've gotten rid of all my Intel CPU systems, I haven't had an Intel motherboard in absolutely ages, and I don't even have any Intel NICs any more AFAIK. If I did, I'd only be using them with Linux, so I wouldn't need the Windows drivers.
I actually do have drivers for every machine I've had for over a decade, so this wouldn't affect me anyway. What kind of fool doesn't download and save all the drivers for all their systems? Corporate customers have many machines, but they normally have many machines which a
The Future of Retrocomputing is with VMs (Score:2)
As time marches on, drivers disappear, so even if you never connect the legacy machine directly to the modern Internet, the ability to find drivers for things becomes tougher, and will soon