Microsoft Is Deleting Old Drivers from Windows Update and It Might Break Your PC(nerds.xyz)
nerds.xyz
Microsoft Is Deleting Old Drivers from Windows Update and It Might Break Your PC
https://nerds.xyz/2025/06/microsoft-driver-removal-windows-update-legacy-hardware-breaking/
13 comments
Source blog post from Microsoft: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardwaredevcenter/r...
That should really be the URL here, not the blog post that just sensationalizes it and adds an AI image.
The article (https://nerds.xyz/2025/06/microsoft-driver-removal-windows-u...) is so misleading that I flagged it.
[deleted]
This article is alarmist clickbait and doesn't stand up to scrutiny:
> 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So only outdated drivers with replacements will be removed.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.
> 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So only outdated drivers with replacements will be removed.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.
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.
>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.
> You can still go download the legacy drivers directly.
Directly from where? This is likely to be an issue too for older hardware.
Directly from where? This is likely to be an issue too for older hardware.
From wherever the hardware vendor (or anyone else who has copies of the driver) wants to upload them to.
That's going to be a lot of drivers that you can't directly download.
Windows ecosystem already has numerous third party driver repositories, ironically because Windows Update was fairly late to the party as the primary source of drivers. Even very old and obscure stuff (e.g. from the Win9x era) is usually possible to find.
If your hardware vendor fails to provide you working drivers for your old gear, it's a stretch putting that blame on Microsoft.
As if my ATI video card doesn't lose its Windows driver every other reboot.
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.
Time to download old drivers from OEM website and create fresh system drivers backup.
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
And that's why I don't use Windows.
Does Linux have a better story for old drivers?
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).
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/...
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/...
Well, in my experience, the most important thing to worry about is whether the driver is there in the first place.
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.
I was wondering the opposite... why doesn't Windows have most drivers built in like the Linux kernel?
To a large degree Windows offers a lot of generic drivers for everything from wifi to trackpads to bluetooth devices. Hardware vendors can still offer advanced drivers and tools to tweak special things about a particular trackpad or a wifi device.
But also because NT interface is mostly stable unlike linux. last really major version was 20 years ago and there Microsoft doesn't need to maintain 3rd party drivers in-tree. Also, the licensing and distribution mechanism and vehicles make certain things too complex.
Also plenty of people don't like these linux kernel images and build stripped down ones.
But also because NT interface is mostly stable unlike linux. last really major version was 20 years ago and there Microsoft doesn't need to maintain 3rd party drivers in-tree. Also, the licensing and distribution mechanism and vehicles make certain things too complex.
Also plenty of people don't like these linux kernel images and build stripped down ones.
If something doesn’t need kernel access, is it good for it to have kernel access?
I've always assumed that it actually does, and in both cases people are installing drivers from outside for less common peripherals. Maybe I'm wrong.
Even old versions of the driver?
There’s no such thing as an “old version” for an in-kernel driver.
As the kernel is maintained, polished, and updated, all drivers are maintained as well.
Proprietary blobs otoh, will break quickly, and have to constantly keep up with new kernel releases.
As the kernel is maintained, polished, and updated, all drivers are maintained as well.
Proprietary blobs otoh, will break quickly, and have to constantly keep up with new kernel releases.
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.
Windows isn't going to brick your device. The article is twisting words, because according to the official announcement: (https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardwaredevcenter/r...)
> The first phase targets legacy drivers that have newer replacements already on Windows Update.
> The first phase targets legacy drivers that have newer replacements already on Windows Update.
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.
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.
Oh you're right, I was thinking of the OS X days when I'd get a million updates like https://support.apple.com/en-us/106418
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.16-SoundBlaster-AWE32
> Linux Delivering Driver Fix For 30 Year Old Creative SoundBlaster AWE32 ISA Sound Card
> Linux Delivering Driver Fix For 30 Year Old Creative SoundBlaster AWE32 ISA Sound Card
Drivers generally go into the kernel code repo so yeah it's a lot better.
Yes, they are maintained as a part of the open kernel source and have been proven to remain usable for long periods.
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.
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.
If you want it to be comparable to the partner-provided drivers in Windows Update, there must be situations you install them from outside, right? Like Canon and HP have printer driver downloads for Linux. Or maybe the built-in generic one is good enough already.
It's been decades for me since I've had a machine with an important device that is completely "unrecognizable" without a custom driver. Generic drivers work for almost everything.
Because Windows gets direct support from most HW vendors, it's generic drivers don't have to be as good as Linux's in general, but still they work fine.
Printers are very special case. They are a shitshow in different ways between Windows and Linux.
Windows printer support is from like 1920s or some shit and they can't change it and it's just bad. BUT, if you have weird ass Xerox or HP with crazy features like a printer that will print, stable, copy, re-copy, and then automatically shred the documents and their copies is likely to only ever be controllable through some HP software from 2006 that hasn't been updated since then but somehow still works on Windows.
On linux, you get much better printing service and generic support, but depending on the popularity of your office printer and the popularity of particular feature you're trying to use, it might not be in the drivers.
Because Windows gets direct support from most HW vendors, it's generic drivers don't have to be as good as Linux's in general, but still they work fine.
Printers are very special case. They are a shitshow in different ways between Windows and Linux.
Windows printer support is from like 1920s or some shit and they can't change it and it's just bad. BUT, if you have weird ass Xerox or HP with crazy features like a printer that will print, stable, copy, re-copy, and then automatically shred the documents and their copies is likely to only ever be controllable through some HP software from 2006 that hasn't been updated since then but somehow still works on Windows.
On linux, you get much better printing service and generic support, but depending on the popularity of your office printer and the popularity of particular feature you're trying to use, it might not be in the drivers.
Well I also just realized, Linux kernel is only going to include open-source drivers which some vendors annoyingly won't give, while Microsoft doesn't care.
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.
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.
Because they don't distribute old drivers with known security vulnerabilities?
Every bad day for windows is another great day for Linux.
You have choices. Make them.
You have choices. Make them.
Driver problems, of all things, isn't on my list of reasons to switch to Linux.
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.
That should happen less as Windows Updates reduces the amount of outdated drivers they ship, right?
No. Without any driver many devices will fall back to generic drivers. An old driver is usually far better than none. Think of a graphics card. With an out-of-date driver your screens should at least function at their designed resolution/number. With literally no driver, you will likely be back at VGA on a single screen. Have fund finding and updating drivers from a website in 640x480.
The "that" here being:
> the Intel graphics driver keeps getting downgraded by Windows Update
Windows Update won't remove your already installed driver and replace it with nothing. Not that I'd find that shocking but that's not what's supposedly happening here.
> the Intel graphics driver keeps getting downgraded by Windows Update
Windows Update won't remove your already installed driver and replace it with nothing. Not that I'd find that shocking but that's not what's supposedly happening here.
With literally no driver, you will at least get SVGA VESA modes, same as in Linux.
not yet :)
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.
[deleted]
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....
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....
Good, they are security risks. They should also prevent them from being installed.
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.
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?
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 am not sure if we read the same article:
> 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.
> 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.
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/hardwaredevcenter/r...
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.
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.
What about hardware from vendors that are no longer in business or don’t care to take on support?
One would think they must have a process to deal with partners going our of business https://partner.microsoft.com/en-us/partnership
I don't know what their process is.
I don't know what their process is.
[deleted]
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?
Arbitrary code execution.
Here's one recent(ish) example:
https://support.hp.com/ro-en/document/ish_11892982-11893015-...
Here's one recent(ish) example:
https://support.hp.com/ro-en/document/ish_11892982-11893015-...
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.
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.
> Good, they are security risks.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's impossible to know without understanding how the PC is used.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's impossible to know without understanding how the PC is used.
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.
I was wondering, when vendors submit drivers to Microsoft, does Microsoft audit the code from a security standpoint? Cause these are often not open source, but maybe they're just letting a few people see it. All I could find is the WHQL thing.
I don't think so, unless you're sponsoring new hardware for those affected.
Ya, bricking old hardware just because MS cannot be bothered.
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.
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.
Hence the "not bothered". These are a tiny little part of their delivery. They are not doing this to save a few megs in their next multi-gig update cycle. They are doing this to, again, make running older hardware more difficult.
This comment should be at the top