Microsoft explains why Windows drivers often show strange, older dates

[Alfonso Maruccia]

In a nutshell: Device drivers are a cornerstone of modern computing and a critical component of any properly functioning Windows machine. However, navigating the complex Windows driver ecosystem often raises some peculiar questions. Microsoft is now addressing many of these driver-related concerns with a newly published FAQ collection.

In a recently published support document, Microsoft answers questions about how Windows handles this crucial software layer that connects the operating system to hardware devices. Drivers allow the OS and applications to communicate with peripherals, Redmond explains – but that's just the beginning of the story.

Most of the new FAQs focus on driver updates and how they are managed and delivered through Windows Update. Microsoft and third-party providers typically collaborate to ensure a smooth driver experience. Hardware vendors develop drivers according to the functionality they promise to customers, while Microsoft verifies compatibility with Windows.

The most intriguing questions in the FAQs appear at the end. Microsoft is finally addressing one of the quirkiest traditions in the Windows ecosystem: device drivers often carry release dates that seem completely unrelated to the version of Windows you're running.

Drivers can have old – or even very old – dates, Microsoft explains, but it's all nonsense. A driver's date is just "descriptive info" set by the vendor, and companies can apparently choose whatever date they like. Even Windows' own system drivers use some bizarre dating schemes, as any Windows user can confirm by opening Device Manager (devmgmt.msc).

For example, the CPU in my current PC (Core i7-10700K) was released five years ago, but according to Device Manager, its driver dates back to 2009 – six years before Microsoft even released the version of Windows I've been using since 2020 (Windows 10).

Microsoft's latest FAQs also clarify why some driver updates require multiple downloads via Windows Update. Hardware devices can split different functionalities across multiple drivers for efficiency, meaning that updating one component may involve installing several driver instances simultaneously.

Device drivers remain a mysterious and sometimes contentious part of the Windows ecosystem. Even Microsoft can create headaches by rushing the deprecation of driver-related features that many customers still rely on. That said, the company is now actively purging legacy drivers from Windows Update and working to make the entire driver ecosystem safer and more reliable, including rewriting key components in Rust.

Permalink to story:

Microsoft explains why Windows drivers often show strange, older dates

 

[trparky]

The only way I’d trust Windows Update with driver updates is if they stop overwriting drivers with obviously ancient versions.

Until then, I’ll continue to turn off driver updates in Group Policy.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

What a broken system.

 

[TheBigT42]

"To put it simply, you should always let Windows do its thing with drivers and updates"

NOPE I will go with what the hardware manufacturer says

 

[noel24]

Sounds like gaslighting. Nope. Thank You, I will continue to try my best and try use my brain.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Because they have a terrible product that survives due to inertia.

 

[Lew Zealand]

The very first thing I do after a Windows install, even before turning off the Orwellian telemetry, is turn off driver updates.

 

[Phylop]

If I let Windows "do its thing," it often replaces my stable drivers with unstable crap, deploys a "feature" update that re-enables spyware and ads, changes my settings, and generally breaks random things. I can’t remember the last time letting "Windows do its thing" was an actual benefit to the user. Sure, you get security updates, but they come bundled with Microsoft’s endless attempts to bend you back into their ecosystem. Half the time, it feels less like updating your PC and more like reasserting Microsoft’s control over it.

Instead of simply providing bug fixes and security patches, these updates seem designed to redeploy the very spyware, telemetry, and ads many users already disabled. Every major update feels like you’re fighting the same battle again, against features you never asked for, “recommendations” you’ll never use, and settings you already disabled.

Yes, CVEs should eventually be patched, but many of them rely on far-fetched attack scenarios that your machine will probably never face, like requiring physical access or obscure system configurations. Not every “critical” update is critical for every system. Rushing to install everything the moment it’s released often causes more headaches than it prevents.

A smarter approach is to update with intent. Evaluate, test, then apply. That saves far more time, sanity, and stability than trusting Windows to “do its thing.”

 

[LimyG]

Holy Molly. I've had drivers updates off (two settings) in GPO for years.

The reason at first was that they updated NVIDIA drivers. That can be a disaster. I use a third party app, and manual download, configure and install. (NVClean install is good to remove telemetry and other useless or obselete features that are still in update package. - I'm on .566 the final of 2024) The drivers starting from RTX5xxx are appalling on my RTX 3080ti.)

Since then I would never let MS download any driver. The reasons have been mentioned by others.

 

[LimyG]

If I let Windows "do its thing," it often replaces my stable drivers with unstable crap, deploys a "feature" update that re-enables spyware and ads, changes my settings, and generally breaks random things. I can’t remember the last time letting "Windows do its thing" was an actual benefit to the user. Sure, you get security updates, but they come bundled with Microsoft’s endless attempts to bend you back into their ecosystem. Half the time, it feels less like updating your PC and more like reasserting Microsoft’s control over it.

Instead of simply providing bug fixes and security patches, these updates seem designed to redeploy the very spyware, telemetry, and ads many users already disabled. Every major update feels like you’re fighting the same battle again, against features you never asked for, “recommendations” you’ll never use, and settings you already disabled.

Yes, CVEs should eventually be patched, but many of them rely on far-fetched attack scenarios that your machine will probably never face, like requiring physical access or obscure system configurations. Not every “critical” update is critical for every system. Rushing to install everything the moment it’s released often causes more headaches than it prevents.

A smarter approach is to update with intent. Evaluate, test, then apply. That saves far more time, sanity, and stability than trusting Windows to “do its thing.”

Well said. Totally agree.