Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, HN may want to just consider banning any site that runs this news article from being posted on HN, because this claim is basically proof they did not do even cursory research before posting.

Here's the 2015 story covering this date announcement, which bears no relation to recent rumors at all: https://www.ghacks.net/2015/07/20/microsoft-to-support-windo...

View on HN

I don't think this article is based on the 2015 date announcement.

It seems to be based on a recent change in Microsoft's product lifecycle documentation.

Here's the story in the Register, published earlier than the BBC article: https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/14/microsoft_windows_10_...

The OP's point is that the October 14, 2025 end of support date was announced in 2015.

It's not clear from any of these articles what has changed because the date hasn't.

There has been no change in their product lifecycle documentation. A bunch of dumb bloggers are reposting each other after one guy found the page, decided it meant Windows 11 was imminent, and posted it.

You want to ban.....the BBC?

I mean, this is an example of where their technology reporting isn't even close to adequate. They're reporting an 11 year old fact as "news", that doesn't actually reflect the reality of today.

For a technology-focused community, BBC reporting on technology isn't adequate. And a bunch of blogspam articles have "covered" this "news" as well. I think it's a sign of bad journalism.

I agree with your point for the HN crowd reading it but it's not intended to be read by us soley. Yes, there have been some real shockers, I'll grant you that but I have read some decent scientific and some IT articles that do generally capture the specifics and ELI5. I think there's been a shift in the quality of the output, for sure, especitally around politics there too (although that's an entirely different story). Tangentially, I used to work at the beeb a few years back, in a technical department (non journalistic). There's some fantastic people there that are extremely talented and do try to uphold Reithian principles, it's just unfortunately spoilt by others with different motives.

I vote for the ban and suggest France24 instead.

You get karma fast on HN by reposting BBC and Reuters.

You're still operating under the notion that the BBC is Real Journalism, a grand institution that can be trusted as a source of well-researched, professionally vetted information. This hasn't been true for a long time, and this article is only a mild example of why. Most mainstream news sources have rotted away to being glorified tabloids at this point, and while the BBC may have rotted less, it's still in poor shape.

Sadly this is true. The BBC is staffed with some truly incredible talent and some of the output is world class - however, the news sub-desks are more or less a few freelancers copy/pasting from Reuters/syndicated news at this point, and articles are certainly not thoroughly vetted.

Sheer inertia and brand cachet are carrying the BBC.

I'm not sure which outlet is entirely trustworthy in the UK currently.

> I'm not sure which outlet is entirely trustworthy in the UK currently.

Ahahahahaha.

In the past I would have said The Guardian is okay, but right now they really hate trans people.

The Guardian seem very lost: chasing the same slice of advertising pie as DM/Telegraph.

Channel 4 news are a small team with a heck of a punch - but there is not a lot of daily output.

BBC = British slanting , RT = Russian slanting , France 24 = French slanting, NYT = US slanting.

They all have a slant but if you know you can still read their articles and get something out of it.

Slanting is moderately ambiguous, what do you mean? Obviously national news orgs are centric to their country where their readership is. The bbc is hardly a Nationalistic or propaganda or even aligned with the government

I don't think it should be banned but the Beeb is emphatically not a good news source.

Here is the Microsoft support document that this article is based on: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-...

Windows 10 Home and Pro has a "Retirement Date" listed as 10/14/2025.

Indeed, but that support information was set back in 2015. (You won't find a Wayback going that far, but only because docs.microsoft.com is a newer website.)

Furthermore, it's just the default commitment Microsoft makes to businesses when they release new software. The statement isn't really taking into account the reality of the Windows-as-a-Service approach Microsoft takes now.

For instance, Windows 10's original build, 1507, you can see, ended support back in 2017, only about two years into the lifecycle.

The next version of Windows, whatever they call it, releasing this fall, will carry the same 18-24 month support cycle, have new feature releases released every 6-12 months, and "Windows 10" will seamlessly upgrade into it.

Apart from LTSB/LTSC releases, which have their own retirement dates (Windows 10 2019 LTSC is supported until 2029, for example), basically everyone will be off of "Windows 10" as it's currently called long before 2025, but your PC licensed for Windows 10 will still be updated and supported on the newer OS.

> Honestly, HN may want to just consider banning any site that runs this news article from being posted on HN, because this claim is basically proof they did not do even cursory research before posting.

You have made a strong claim of incompetence here and I would like to see you present some equally strong proof.

Note that the BBC article states:

> Mr Nadella and chief product officer Panos Panay will launch the new OS at a virtual event on 24 June, with Microsoft now facing stiff competition not just from Apple but also from Google

... which implies they have direct information about the launch of the new version.

Why would the BBC fabricate this information about the upcoming event? If you have evidence that this statement is incorrect, I encourage you to present it.

> October 13, 2020 marks the end of mainstream support.

Pretty sure that article's been out of date for a while.

So, it's basically just the default commitment Microsoft makes for new Windows versions, according to their Lifecycle Policy. It doesn't reflect the Windows-as-a-Service model at all, so is almost certainly not relevant to their actual plans.

The newer understanding is that Microsoft will release a new feature update every 6 months, and support each of them for 18 months. Almost certainly, this big refresh being announced soon will continue that model: All Windows 10 PCs will be eligible, support for existing releases will be for 18 months from their release, etc.

I don't see anything inaccurate in the story. It seems to reach all the most reasonable conclusions give the current EOL date for windows 10 and the event in less than 2 weeks that will announce the ”biggest change to windows in a decade”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com