Surprise! Now Microsoft is Going to Update Windows 10 Even More Frequently

Posted on April 26, 2017 by Paul Thurrott in Windows 10 with 87 Comments

Surprise! Now Microsoft is Going to Update Windows 10 Even More Frequently

I’ve complained many times that Microsoft’s Windows as a Service (Waas) scheme is broken, that Windows 10 is simply too complex to service it as if it were an online service.

Microsoft disagrees. In fact, they seem hellbent on proving me wrong. And the firm just announced that they are accelerating the delivery of updates, in a move that will most adversely impact businesses, especially larger enterprises, its most conservative and update-adverse customer type.

And that’s pretty much Microsoft’s attitude about Windows 10 and updates, folks. Remember how we used to do things? Yeah, we’re not doing that anymore.

“With Windows 10, we simplified the servicing process by moving to cumulative updates [which] are released on the second Tuesday of every month,” Microsoft’s Michael Niehaus explains. “Based on feedback from customers … we will [now] routinely offer one (or sometimes more than one) additional update each month.”

Now, to be fair to Microsoft, the story is a bit more nuanced than is suggested by that carefully edited quote you see above. As it turns out, not all updates are created equally. Or something.

Those monthly “Patch Tuesday” cumulative updates always include security updates as well as non-security fixes, so they are classified as “Security Updates” in Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) and System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM), the Microsoft tools that enterprises and other businesses use to configure how and when their user bases receive updates. Security Updates are more serious than non-security updates, and those cumulative updates are always reboot experiences, which is also disruptive.

The addition one or two updates that Microsoft will ship each month going forward will not contain security fixes, and they will not be cumulative. That means it’s possible that these updates will not require reboots, I suppose. But they are considered less serious as a result, and are classified as “Updates” in those Microsoft software deployment tools.

That said, updates are updates. And even Microsoft is admitting that it may choose to escalate things as needed.

“We may occasionally identify non-security fixes that address more critical issues that could be affecting organizations,” Mr. Niehaus notes. “In those rare cases, a cumulative update would be considered as ‘Critical Updates’ in WSUS and Configuration Manager.”

Yes, “Critical Updates” are serious and will always require a reboot. But they are still different from Security Updates because they can be deferred along with normal (non-security) Updates in WSUS and SCCM.

Long story short, businesses of all sizes now have a lot more update opportunities to worry about each month, and will have to plan accordingly.

End users like you and me are pretty much screwed: We’re just going to get more updates. In fact, we got one yesterday: Microsoft released a (non-security) Update called KB4016240 to Windows 10 version 1607 on Tuesday. Huzzah!

 

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (88)

88 responses to “Surprise! Now Microsoft is Going to Update Windows 10 Even More Frequently”

  1. mindbox

    Enough with the bloody updates MS....Everytime I turn on my laptop I have to wait 20mins for the thing to boot. I work with SCCM and if I scheduled updates like that I would get the sack.

    • Waethorn

      In reply to mindbox:

      They should update it like Chrome OS: two compressed read-only copies of the OS, update the non-running one in the background, and the next reboot flips over to it. Once it boots successfully, the older copy is subsequently updated. This method doesn't slow down boot up or shutdown time.

      • MikeGalos

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Essentially that's how it works now.


        • Waethorn

          In reply to MikeGalos:

          What? No it isn't. That's clear when you see that file replacement operations only happen at shutdown and the subsequent reboot. Chrome OS does file replacement operations at runtime because it operates on the non-running copy of the files. A reboot is necessitated only because it flips the partition to the non-running OS, which becomes the running OS. Windows only has 1 copy. It might have backup files, but it's structured as *ONE* OS copy, not two distinct copies.

      • hrlngrv

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Imagine: a read-only Windows image on a drive mounted read-only except during updates.

        Yes, it'd be a huge improvement, but how much refactoring of everything on C: would that require?

      • Narg

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Chrome OS is a thin client OS. Barely an OS at all. Almost zero features.

      • rameshthanikodi

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Yup, and they implemented the same thing elsewhere too, that is how Android now updates as of Nougat 7.0, and the Chrome browser (all platforms) update too. Chrome was the first to use this method, followed by (naturally) Chrome OS. Google has silent updated figured out.

        Microsoft needs to figure something out ASAP - if user accounts and our apps are truly separate from the OS, there's no reason why the OS can't be updated and swapped out regularly without affecting any user-facing thing.

      • evox81

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Not a bad idea in theory, but I can just imagine the crying and whining about how "bloated" Windows is and it takes too much disk space by having two copies on the hard drive. That also gets complicated for small devices with tiny eMMC drives.

        • Waethorn

          In reply to evox81:

          This is why you have compression. Chrome OS uses multiple partitions - two copies for the OS. The OS is read-only. Settings are saved in a data partition. User data in another. I'm not sure if they still use it, but from what I read before, the OS partitions use SquashFS.


          The OS is easily verified based on the version, so every copy of Chrome OS version xyz is the same on every similar system - except for drivers because they update the whole OS based on device trees. On Windows, you could easily isolate drivers in a separate storage area, which also adds the benefit of isolating the core OS image from faulty drivers.


          If Windows moved to a once-monthly update system for a channel, EVERYBODY'S OS image would be the same if they were on the same update channel, RIGHT??!





          • skane2600

            In reply to Waethorn:

            It can't be quite as simple as the OS being read-only, because if it were, it could never be updated. Some microcontrollers have data and code memory areas with no CPU instructions that can write to the code memory. In general, I don't think ARM chips have that level of protection.

      • timwakeling

        In reply to Waethorn:

        Now that is clever! Not sarcasm; I think that is really ingenious. Of course it increases the disk space needed, but MS could always add an option to disable it if the user wanted to save space. It could be presented as a simple option: "Keep Windows up to date in the background without reboots (caution: this will use more disc space)"... MS, are you listening? :)

    • skane2600

      In reply to mindbox:

      Apparently there are some people here who will downvote any comment that is critical of Microsoft. Fortunately there are others will express why they disagree with a particular comment.

  2. Waethorn

    Here's a summary of my thoughts on solving the Windows update problem, along with some security adds:


    1) Make 2 copies of a baseline Windows install on a drive in separate partitions - virtual partitions using VHD drives might be preferable. Make those copies read-only. Don't allow ANYTHING to touch these, aside from Windows Update.

    2) Make a "libraries" partition of a given size for optional components such as .Net, which gets updated frequently. Include drivers here. System Registry settings should reside here. Don't allow anything here to be able to modify the baseline OS partitions. Virtualizing individual libraries further into sandboxes would probably be a good idea too. Since none of this can modify the OS image, the baseline OS is still "safe".

    3) Make an applications partition that can't modify libraries unless they have permission to (via signature checking). This way, apps can't, say, corrupt .Net and bork your whole machine. Software that requires registry settings should have their settings virtualized as an addendum to the system registry, rather than outright replace system keys, and they shouldn't be able to modify keys of other software that doesn't belong to them.

    4) Have the bootloader enumerate the 2 OS partitions. One is active, the other is inactive.

    5) Make a "user" partition which includes user files, AND ONLY user files!! Application setting files shouldn't be here - everything should be clear and identifiable to the user.

    6) Windows Update downloads a delta patch for the OS. Is applied to the inactive OS while the OS is running. Signature checking is a must here so that the final OS image is "clean". This image should be the same on EVERY COMPUTER in a given update channel (Current, CBB, LTSB, etc.) The update mechanism must finish before the user requests a shutdown or restart, otherwise it continues on the next booted up session. This way, there is no wait for the user to start up or shut down.

    7) Windows Update marks the bootloader to flip the active and inactive OS so that the now-updated inactive OS is the one that is booted properly.

    8) Once the updated OS is verified booted successfully, the inactive OS gets updated too....or not, as this provides always-available fallback to the previous OS image. When a new OS update is applied, it applies to the inactive copy and the process starts over again.

    9) ONLY DO THIS ONCE A MONTH!!

    10) System "refresh" or "reset" options are simple: wipe the user partition and/or app partition, and optionally the libraries partition to revert back to a "fresh from the factory, but with updates" condition.


    Did I miss anything?

    • Darmok N Jalad

      In reply to Waethorn:

      Yes, but how much of the above can be done and still have legacy applications work correctly? The things that has made Windows wildly successful and profitable--diverse software and hardware support--have now become its biggest downfall. Fix the legacy cruft and you break the legacy support. It's one reason MS can't even fix font scaling.

    • Jorge Garcia

      In reply to Waethorn: They should have done this ages ago...ESPECIALLY when Windows 10 came out. Windows 10 should have had this feature, and it will perish even quicker because it doesn't. The constant updating nonsense is 50% of the reason why Windows PC's are being eradicated from the home at a steady clip.


      • Waethorn

        In reply to Jorge Garcia:

        Windows 10 is Windows 8.1SE+7SP2 Remix. They won't change it from the legacy core.


        You'll know they've made major changes to the underlying Windows system when they get rid of drive-letters.


        Also, when I say "partition", I don't necessarily mean a low-level partition on the hard drive. All of this can be done by storage virtualization methods. But it doesn't have to be, as low-level partitions have their own levels of security which complicated virtualization layers just plain lack. Adding too many layers of software to something that can be done in hardware means more difficult management and levels of complexity. This is why some companies look at using smaller, real bare-metal systems for rackmounts instead of virtualizing small VM's with more powerful computers. I'm not convinced that things like storage systems should be virtualized for the sake of sandboxing when "bare-metal" partitions can be used, and are far less complicated.

  3. Narg

    Paul, you have concerns. I'd not qualify them as issues though. Frequent updates only shows me that Microsoft cares now, unlike in the past with leaving their biggest piece of software sit stagnant for long periods. And, the "disruption" has yet to be realized, and I don't think it will be. You are in control still far more than you seem to think. You can always install 3rd party tools to do the work you want to do. And, put up with their changes instead of Microsoft's. It's all how you mix it. The only thing that is constant is change....

  4. Luka Pribanić

    While I hate my PC rebooting on me, I do welcome updates, daily if needed. Just PLEASE WARN ME BEFORE REBOOTING! And not just by a popup saying "your pc will reboot in a minute" and that popup itself disappeara in 3 seconds. I want a real option as in old days where I can postpone it for an hour or 6, and only do an reboot when I CHOOSE. Otherwise - the more updates the better!

  5. Jeff Jones

    I think what blows my mind is when I think about how many security patches they've released. I mean Windows 7 has been out 8 years now, and I don't think a single month has gone by without a new security patch. Windows 10 seems to be shaping up the same way. I don't expect to never need security patches, but come on! Microsoft has been refining the Windows NT code base for 20 years now and it is still so full of security holes that it needs patching every single month? That's crazy.


    • hrlngrv

      In reply to Jeff Jones:

      Windows is one of the 5 biggest targets on the planet for malware, and there may be tens or hundreds of thousands of malware writers working against it at all times. The number of security patches is a testament to Windows's populatity.

      Also an interesting question how many of the security patches over time have been for IE or Edge.

    • mrdrwest

      In reply to Jeff Jones:

      Your comment implies you expect perfection from your human brethren. We will NEVER create a perfect ANYTHING. And there are people in the world who will take advantage of any vulnerability they can exploit if they have the will and the means to do so.


      Windows is a H U G E target for the malware community and it always will be. At some point, the cost of implementing countermeasures has to be balanced against the risks; sad, but true. Perfectionists and those with OCD take great issue with this fact ;)

  6. Jorge Garcia

    Windows is dead outside of the office. Normal people (not us) no longer have no time to deal with: the constant and absurd Windows 10 Updates that completely hijack the PC for long periods of time, and even more notably, an app store that doesn't have the apps you want. They also don't want .exe installers anymore, they don't want two-click away viruses and a whole lot of other things that unfortunately define "legacy" Windows. Unless Windows 10 Cloud runs Android apps natively, it is pointless. (Well, in fairness Microsoft may actually be able to muscle a few million "cloudbooks" into classrooms, but the kids will GLADLY leave them there at night). It is high time for "true" Android desktops, and especially Android laptops. It sickens my stomach to walk into Best Buy in 2017 and still see tables and tables of gorgeous laptops that all run an OS nobody wants anymore. Chromebooks don't help the situation much either...they look too childish and are still very confusing to many normal people, notably the millions who were raised on Windows, but are now very sick of it. Google is having such a hard time implementing Android on Chrome that it is obvious it is no more than a HACK. A native Android PC OS would be much better. If I were HP, I'd be buying PHOENIX OS right now, and calling it HP OS. It would have everything (most) "casual" laptop users would want in a laptop...a productive windowed interface, double-click, every app you could want. (Most people would not care if Snapchat, etc. only open up in phone-shaped windows, at least they'll be there and would work very well.

    • Daniel D

      In reply to Jorge Garcia: Jorge, I think you are ahead of your time, but yes, I too can see the relevance of Windows slipping. As a developer and someone who teaches coding I already see Windows as a legacy platform. Yes its still used and code is still written for it, but the days of innovation and growth are over.


      The operating system to replace it isn't yet here, but the opportunity for it, which is what I think you can see too is certainly there.


      • Jorge Garcia

        In reply to Daniel D: "The Operating System to replace windows isn't here" Microsoft, despite creating a delightful Mobile OS, has shown us that developers are not interested at all in supporting three separate OS. But the only entity that could create a standalone, from scratch OS to replace mighty Windows is Microsoft itself. But unless they have some trick up their sleeve to get ALL the apps people want on it, it looks like one giant circular argument. Normal people who are looking for a non-Apple desktop, or especially a laptop, just want a machine that does every single thing their phone does, but in a more comfortable, more productive, big-screen kind of way. Android, warts and all, does this TODAY. Samsung created DeX OS in recognition of this, and other asian manufs. will be on board soon. It's not THAT hard to make Android workable on a laptop, and as I say, HP better be working on something like that ASAP for the consumer space..


    • PanamaVet

      In reply to Jorge Garcia:

      "Windows is dead outside of the office. Normal people (not us) no longer have no time to deal with: the constant and absurd Windows 10 Updates that completely hijack the PC for long periods of time, and even more notably, an app store that doesn't have the apps you want."

      When discussing reality we should not assume our experiences are typical.

      History shows that when things work they do not get reported. Take that into account and don't let the pessimism of the press dominate your thought process.

      Here is what you don't hear.

      I enjoy using Windows at home and at work. I am thrilled with the improvements to DirectX. Pinball FX2, available in the Windows store free of charge is fantastic with a USB Xbox control pad. You can cherry pick pinball games from the store for chump change.

      When I run Windows updates I expect them to work because they do work for me. Paul is having a positive impact on Microsoft's update policy. Apple has been doing what Microsoft should eventually get to and Apple is not criticized for doing it.

      It took me ten minutes via DuckDuckGo and a simple web page to adapt to the metro interface in Windows 8. I enjoyed it, 8.1 and now 10 based on what I experienced, not what I read.

      Now we find that antivirus software products running outside the operating system bring their own security flaws making machines more vulnerable. Security experts are advising that Windows 10 running Defender within the O/S is the best defense. 

      I had to chuckle when I thought about defending that position during audit.

      No platform is safe any more. Updates are more important now than ever before.


    • FreeJAC

      In reply to Jorge Garcia:

      Tell that to the gamers! LOL! A new gaming app store just released last week to compete with Steam. Look at the competition in the graphics card space between AMD and Nvidia. These things wouldn't be happeing if there was no customers. Clearly you are just seeing what you want to see. Sure Windows is not the dominant platform it used to be, its now shared more equally amongst a variety of vendors. Competition is a good thing.

      • Jorge Garcia

        In reply to FreeJAC: I personally use Windows and will for years (8.1 with Stardock Start8), but I am speaking from what I see and hear every day from normal people. I very rarely encounter Windows Gamers, yes, I know there are a lot, but everyone I know seems to be a Console Gamer. Android is still slightly better than crap, but I don't see any other ecosystem catching up to it, other that iOS, but that is too exclusive, and US-centric to call it the "World's OS, as I do, because it is. Android is going to mature at breakneck speed from here on in, it's time to make Desktop Android a legitimate thing.


        • Tony Barrett

          In reply to Jorge Garcia:

          Harsh. Android is maturing very fast, and I'm sure there will be an 'official' desktop version sometime (check out RemixOS in the meantime). iOS is too closed a system, and that will bite Apple at some point as they keep tightening control.


          Android is far from perfect, but it's 'open' (AOSP is free), devs love it and consumers love it. It covers all price points and it's incredibly customizable.

          • Jorge Garcia

            In reply to Tony Barrett: Remix felt like a "good start", but Phoenix OS looks a bit more polished...I have to give that a run. Still, we shouldn't have to go to Chinese companies to get what is an obvious piece of software for many. HP like making low-end laptops, but they almost all run Windows. I suggest that it would be far better for their low-end sales to have at least a few variants that run Android, but in a desktop/mouse-friendly semi-pro manner.


    • Simard57

      In reply to Jorge Garcia:

      The dichotomy seems to be Windows (or MacOS, Linux) for productivity and iOS or Android for consumption.


      Until iOS or Android can compile themselves and support development without Windows, Mac or Linux, then they remain consumption OSes. Most consumers are well served by consumption devices that permit light content creation.

      • Jorge Garcia

        In reply to Simard57: Last year I would have agreed with this. But Android is too dominant now. Normal people do 99% consumption with some very light content creation thrown in. Give Android a proper windowed interface and you satisfy 95% of people's Laptop/PC desires. Conversely, normal people now find windows unnecessarily aggravating, and they are right. What was OK in the 90's is no longer OK, because mobile has shown us how painless "basic" computing can be.


  7. Tony Barrett

    Funny how MS always justify this based on 'customer feedback'. Would any Windows 10 customer in their right mind actually request even more frequent updates?


    No, this is for Microsoft's benefit only. Nobody would actually ask for this.


    Windows 10 - the O/S you can't actually use because it's in a perpetual state of patch and reboot.

  8. MikeGalos

    What I said last week about the major updates being twice a year applies equally to Microsoft updating their many year old Patch Tuesday monthly model for minor updates:


    Not a bad compromise. Any more frequent would get complaints about the cost of managing the changes, any less would get remarks about Microsoft thinking this is the '90s and not understanding the Internet-based, Agile world.

    Odds are, though, this 2x per year will just end up getting both complaints


  9. chaad_losan

    I for one welcome our new update overlords.

  10. rh24

    I am seriously update "fatigued". I can't tell you how tired I am of that damn "You need some updates" alert. With the demise of Windows Mobile, I finally caved into iPhone. I'm about to cave to a Mac on the desktop.



    • TheOneX

      In reply to rh24:

      As someone who uses both Mac and PC, Mac isn't any better.


      Honestly I rarely if ever see any update notifications in Windows 10. About the only time I know an update is need is when I go to shut down my PC for the night and I see it says update and shut down instead of just shut down.

      • VancouverNinja

        In reply to TheOneX:

        We just got the i7 Surface Studio for our Lead Social media person...the Graphic Designers have been walking around like they have had their cat kicked. One of them spent 3 hours on it and proclaimed it was amazing - he drew an awesome forest scene on it. The old argument of Mac OS being better is long in the tooth and doesn't hold true anymore. Windows 10 is excellent.

      • Darmok N Jalad

        In reply to TheOneX:

        How is Mac not any better? My mini goes for 30 days of uptime before the next 10.x.x update. My user experience has yet to suffer, and I'm running a 2010 Core 2 Duo model.

  11. ayebang

    The more Microsoft do their job, we still complain.

    I wonder if Microsoft do not update much like apple due to there is something else to pay attention more , will we even complain ?

    I am personally fine with it due to it shows that Microsoft is very serious in what they offer.

  12. FreeJAC

    I see this more as a "Tick-Tock" upgrade as far as the bi-yearly Windows 10 upgrades go. Considering Windows Server 2016 and Windows 10 LTSB (Long Term Servicing Branch) do not have a creators update at all. (I "assume" they will get Redstone 3 and skip Redstone 2.) I would say Enterprises should only worry about one update a year and that is whatever update comes along for Server. That said, MS hasn't said what is happening to Server or W10 LTSB yet. (or at least I haven't seen)

  13. JaviAl

    Note that .NET Framework 4.7, included in Creators Update, is broken a lot of .NET applications that simply not run or produce errors,

  14. JaviAl

    We have 3 years until the Windows 7 support finish, to search, migrate and test another OS in order to leave out from Microsoft, from Windows, and from an OS as a service with no control by the user, only controlled by Microsoft.

  15. Roncerr

    The update was for 1703, not 1607.

  16. red.radar

    I just want the ability to schedule the updates. Major upgrades or any reboots. When in School, I can't tolerate the risk that Microsoft Bricks my machine or makes applications I use inoperable. Let me schedule the weeks between semesters and Microsoft can upgrade my machine all they want. But during semesters. NO updates ...NONE. I rather take the risk with the boogie man, because I am more likely to have down time from Microsoft updating my computer than getting thrashed by a virus.


    Point is my risk profile is such that I need to be in control of the software on my computer. Not Microsoft.






  17. Ugur

    whether this is a good or bad thing depends entirely on the quality/reliability of the updates. So far, i'd rate windows 10 updates overall as shaky. Some were ok, some brought many issues for lots of people.

    I have many things i'd like to see improved in windows, so i'm not against updates in general at all.

    But yeah, if it's nonsense that gets changed/added while the long not fixed/added important things are not done and/or the updates bring more trouble than improvements, no good.

    MS has to get it to a level where people are happily looking forward to updates and are then also happy after using them for a while.

  18. lordbaal1

    Paul complained many times in the past, Microsoft don't update fast enough.

    Now Microsoft wants to update faster.

    Guess what, Paul complains.


    Doesn't Paul own a BMW? You know what that stands for.

  19. JerryH

    Speaking as someone with some input into this in a large company with 90,000 Windows machines - there is no impact. We will continue to run the cumulative updates after a 1 week test cycle. No real point to running the interim non-cumulative ones unless you are experiencing a major issue that is fixed by one of them (in which case you evaluate deploying a one-off). This just gives a little more flexibility, but doesn't require any wholesale changes for what businesses are already doing.

  20. Engineerasaurus

    To be fair, how many companies are running "Current Branch"? They will all be running "Current Branch for Business". Clearly with the initial few months of CB there are a lot more updates as MS are responding to issues raised by the telemetry of the rollout. Only once these issues are ironed out does the build go from CB to CBB, and then there are unlikely to be anything more than the usual Patch Tuesday stuff.

  21. Bart

    Guess even Enterprises learn it's not 1984 anymore. Get it?! ;P


    In all seriousness, these extra updates will most likely be security patches. Though inconvenient, we can only applaud this as we can self determine when to install the updates. End of.

  22. bbold

    Frankly, I welcome the extra updates. If 2 major updates a year means my PC is more secure and new features are added, as a MS fanboy and tech enthusiast/writer/artist, I think that's a good thing. For businesses, I can see how that can be a problem, so point taken. They will be running a different branch of Windows, though, will they not? Of course, this is MS so this could very well change next year, as it seems to every year :D

    • TheOneX

      In reply to bbold:

      In my experience in IT the only time updates have been an issue is with the Anniversary update. The issue there was many of our PCs needed a BIOS update. That was only a major issue because it was not clear as to why some of our PCs updated without issues, while others updated then subsequent updates would often hang on reboot then it was a 50/50 chance on if it would complete the update, and others just rejected the update outright. Since upgrading the BIOS's on the majority of PCs we haven't had any issues.


      Sometimes a Windows security update will cause a third party software to stop working, but I'm of the opinion that if a security update is causing your software problems you were probably doing something you should not have been doing.

  23. BoItmanLives

    What an absolute mess. And for no apparent gain to businesses, like the whole of 10.

  24. Darmok N Jalad

    I'm not a Windows 10 user. Is there really that many updates always going on? I remember back in the Windows 7 or 8 days, once you got your clean install fully updated, the updates weren't coming in that often. What has changed that Windows 10 requires so many more? Is it the constant adding and changing of features, or just the lack of working from a static framework?

    • CaedenV

      In reply to Darmok N Jalad:

      No, typically there is 1 rollup update a month on 'patch tuesday' and the occasional new system driver or seperate security update.


      I am not really sure why Paul is making a big deal out of this; This is mostly saying that when there is a big issue (like Google publicly announcing that there is a serious flaw in Windows) that they will push the patch immediately rather than waiting a whole month to get it out to users.


      As for business users, all updates need to be pushed from the WSUS system anyways. Don't want an update going to your users every few days? Just push updates to your network once a month instead. Find a driver that kills things? Don't approve the update. I really don't see the problem.

  25. Ron Diaz

    Sigh, sometimes it seems Microsoft wants nothing more than to drive away all of their customers.

    seems like a strange business model to me....

  26. Lewk

    Wait, what? All I got out of this article was that Microsoft still have no idea what they're doing and are hoping it works by delivering it more frequently.

  27. SherlockHolmes

    Great. That means more opportunities where things can go wrong.

  28. Pierre Masse

    Updates are good. Updates are beautiful. Since there is no way to ship a finished product in the WaaS system, updates are necessary and I feel rejuvenated every time it happens and you should be too!


    Don't you like the invigorating sensation of purification occuring when crappy parts are being replaced by spirited Mozartesque lines of code?


    Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit.

  29. david.thunderbird

    Now that Ubuntu is bashed into w10, time to quit fighting and switch?

  30. nwebster

    Why would MS add a removal tool for services they want to sell people on? That would make no sense.


    As for more frequent updates, why is anyone surprised? As more and more companies (and software products) go to a faster release cycle, the more common this will be. And really, it should make some things easier. Testing/verifying software that was last updated 3 years ago was a giant pain. Now when something changes, you know exactly what it is, and its a lot easier to roll back. I would much prefer smaller, more frequent updates to quickly identify issues than massive rolled up fixes that you don't know what really caused the potential problem.

    • BoItmanLives

      In reply to nwebster:

      That "faster release cycles" may be popular with some other companies does not create in the windows user an obligation to tolerate an inferior product and more frequent inconveniences for no clear benefit.

      • bbold

        In reply to BoItmanLives:

        Companies and businesses are not on the same consumer branch that most of us are on, so their updates are less frequent. Correct?

        • dfeifer

          In reply to bbold:

          That depends on the company. We are an smb on the open license model and atleast through our partner the only enterprise option we have is ltsb which is not recommended for user use. We buy systems one at a time from dell and Lenovo with windows 10 professional. And also unlike most other businesses, I presume, we have a fairly small budget. Basically the 16 servers and 146 computers are treated like your home computer and I get to run around and make sure everything is still running up to snuff.

          Of course I just purchased a new system for an employee and noticed that windows professional creator edition had the servicing branch for business. Is this new in the build or has it always been there and I missed it for some reason?

  31. rameshthanikodi

    Updating and the following reboots take too long, the whole process needs to be re-engineered. Even on a fast high-end i7/Ryzen 7 PC with a nvme ssd takes a while to update, and the vast majority of computers are much slower than that.

    • dfeifer

      In reply to rameshthanikodi:

      Weird, I just built a ryzen 1800x system for home with an intel u.2 drive and the last couple of builds have taken maybe 15 minutes to install. Now, the dell system I had to install windows 7 on last week.. 4hrs and probably 20 restarts and many more checking windows update for updates to the updates of the update. Personally I can't wait till I have the whole domain on windows 10.

  32. edboyhan

    When an enterprise is large, they tend to use a WSUS server. That allows the enterprise complete control of when they apply an update. Since the updates are cumulative. It's possible for an enterprise to wait. One thing I don't understand is their provision of an update with the security updates stripped out. It would seem to me that they should provide cumulative updates that contain only security fixes. In that way one could stay current with security, and take their time with other fixes.

    The best approach (it seems to me) would be for MS to deliver three monthly packages: one containing both security and stability fixes, one containing security only, and one containing stability only -- this would give enterprises the flexibility to precisely manage the timing of update applications.

Leave a Reply