Windows 10: Microsoft's Windows 10 update strategy is showing strains?

Personally, 1 yearly upgrade would not only give margin to enterprises to deploy and fix possible problems, but also, would give Microsoft time to really test the new features and novelties they add to the OS, so they don't get problems like nVidia Cards crashing or showing black screens with DirectX 11, or Start Menu/ShellExperienceHost failures in 1709, or like the blurry text fonts they had when 1703 was first released... I mean, I like the new things every upgrade brings, but having to troubleshoot every release, every 6 months is kinda tiresome... Just my two cents in this matter by the way. *Wink
Read more about this here:
Microsofts Windows 10 update strategy is showing strains | Computerworld


:)

 

Why Can't Windows 10 Home Users Delay Updates, But Business Users Can?

Dear Microsoft Answers,

What is the business reason and marketing strategy behind why users of Windows 10 Home cannot delay Windows Updates, but Windows 10 business users and Enterprise users can? If the goal is to move the world to one Windows experience that evolves over time,
the strategy behind Windows 10, shouldn't updates also be dealt with in the same way?

How likely is customer feedback to allow the delay of Windows 10 updates, regardless of a Home or Business/Enterprise user experience? It seems that most Windows 10 users don't like having any control over their updates.

Jack

 

I have Windows 10. Why do I keep getting updates everyday on my computer

Thats the model of Windows 10, where new updates are always available as soon as they are available. Its part of Microsoft's strategy of delivering Windows as a service and ensuring it is kept secure.

 

My sediments exactly. I've been saying that Microsoft's 6 month cadence, leaves room for many issues. Besides this is new to them. Microsoft is not linux. The linux community took years to get used to the 6 month cycle, and it still is a hassle to keep up with the changes.

Henry

 

I think Microsoft is torn between wanting to advance their core technologies and improve their security posture, and also support big enterprises which cannot move at the pace of normal consumers.

On one hand they get roasted for security issues, and it is expected that they are always improving in that area. But this means they are incentivized to rapidly iterate, and continue to harden Windows. In turn, this cannot be done on a platform that is considered to be set in stone for X number of years.

Enterprises on the other hand are often stuck moving at the pace of their slowest software dependency. This could be anything from a critical line of business application developed in house, or a "security" vendor that hasn't "validated" their product on anything newer than 1507/1511, and takes more than 12 months minimum to complete an evaluation. Releases every six months, and EOL every 18 months is often outright untenable.

Both sides have compelling reasons to want a specific release cadence, but neither are very compatible. I think MS would do best to declare an LTS version of Windows 10 for *general* enterprise customers (this would essentially be their current LTSB with a marketing shift), and allow normal end users to stay on the current release cycle.

The Linux kernel sees a new release every 2-3 months actually, it moves very quickly. However they mark a release as a long term support kernel about once a year, and have now promised to support them with stability and security fixes for 6 years (previously 2).

 

I don't know how they keep up to be honest. Insider builds always seem to be released with a list on known issues. Stop adding new features until all the known issues are fixed. New features just seem to add more known issues to the list. Granted most of those issues are fixed when a build goes public. I might have it all wrong but that's how things seem to be going to me. Break, fix, break, fix.

To be fair though, I haven't had a whole lot of issues. I hardly ever upgrade from build to build though. I prefer to clean install the new build when possible.

IMHO a once a year release cycle would be better.

 

Spectrum and alphanumeric, you both bring up very valid points. I for one agree with the idea of once a year for major updates, if only I still had Windows 7. Windows ten is going in the right direction, but way to fast. Implementing new features is nice, but not when previous features are still buggy.

The last 3 Linux kernels have been a problem for me with the Gnome Display Manager and my Nvidia GTX 1050 gpu. This is the main reason I keep Windows on my laptop. I have given feedback with the issues I have with Windows 10 since the release of CU and they are still there in FCU, at least I have not gotten any BSOB errors. Anyway I will keep sending feedback until I see a resolution to my issue.

Henry

 

Totally agree. Once a year is much better. Hey I’d rather once every two years! The feature updates are a PITA creating new issues on top of as mentioned. They need to slow right down. I don’t think the average user likes playing Russian roulette with their pc every six months. I’d rather known issues are dealt with over some pointless new feature I may not even ever use. To be fair to MS though they are not the only offenders. Apple are just as bad. Every year a new iOS or Mac OS which break things (plus countless incremental updates throughout the year) The whole tech industry needs to slow down and consolidate. But I think they like to pump out as many updates as possible for bragging rights

 

I'd like to see some finality in respects to leftovers. Control Panel versus Settings for instance. Have one or the other, but not both with things spread out between the two interfaces. Finish what you started already. New features are nice but clean up some of the unfinished bits. I better stop before I get on an off topic rant, lol.

 

This could all be solved if under the Windows Update options you can select your version of Windows 10, 1603/1607/1703/1709/etc.

And provide decent number of years support for the editions they release just like any other OS they have released in the past.

 

My best friend was on the phone with me when the fall creators update restarted his computer before he was "ready" with a full backup of everything. I told him not to worry that MS has been doing great lately with problem free updates. A couple of days later he sent out a e-mail to his other tech brethren and praised Win10 for such a painless update and with no issues of other programs not working right.
Us old farts can remember the bad old days of taking your chances with updates in the older version of Windows. Remember having to download and install 60-70 updates to a Win7 clean install just to be able to get the service pack to install? For a OS to have all of the old baggage still around to let me be able to run a program that I first installed on Win95 is a remarkable feat.
If I had a choice of a "stable" win7 or the huge improvements that Win10 has, I would go with Win10 every time.

 

IMO that article is just unsubstantiated bs that could be written by any journalist. It makes a crass statement about showing strains. I see no evidence whatsoever to support that. Each build has probably been better than previous one.

People keep saying once a year would be better but this is muddled thinking.

They FORGET if it is only released once a year, you will just get twice as many features, and twice as many issues, and if an issue is significant, you will wait TWICE AS LONG for it to be fixed. It is a fact of life that no matter how much Insider and internal testing is done, many issues do not manifest themselves until the program is in the wild.

In another words, it will not make any real difference unless MS SLOW DOWN rate of development by 50% and, even then, it will take a year for next upgrade to come along.

I for one do not want the development pace to slow down.

The REAL solution here is to allow users to defer updates for say up to 18 months EVEN on Home. That way, those of us who want to live at the sharp end can do so, and those wishing to be cautious can do so, but they get the benefit from us wonderful TRAIL-BLAZERS who are willing to unselfishly make builds more stable for them when they decide to upgrade on a later sub-build version.

In summary - it is not the build frequency that is the issue, but the "forcing" of everybody to upgrade frequently that is the problem.

Many of us would continue to upgrade frequently, and others would choose less frequently.

If MS allowed upgrades to be deferred longer, this would,in effect, be like a Slow and Fast Ring for releases (and any shade of grey in between). So you can have your cake and eat it.

 

The REAL solution here is to allow users to defer updates for say up to 18 months EVEN on Home.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

 

I think it's one of those things where people can agree to disagree on. Some people enjoy dabbling and being involved in the insider builds etc. Personally I have very little time or enthusiasm for such regular updates. I want to be fully up to date but the pace of them is frustrating. I have very little spare time to use the PC (which I've always enjoyed) let alone worry about big feature updates and worry about making time to possibly troubleshoot the side effects. So I would welcome far less regularity. But looks like it's not going to happen for the forseeable.

Of course if there was an update that was purely about bug fixing and getting rid of the all the irritations i have with daily pc usage i'd be all over it but in reality they don't do that too very often. There are bugs still in there that I remember from Windows 7. And the windows / microsoft store and those native apps continue even after all this time and all those feature updates to be as fragile as an egg (but that's a whole different grumble).

 

MS could still keep its "permanent beta testing" program.

The only reasons the 6 month cycle exists are:

• Mobile phones are buggy and disposable
• To justify the claims:
  • That Windows is a service
  • There will never be another version of Windows

Since MS won't supply updates for the early W10 versions, is the current version of W10 still really W10?

For the majority of users, W7 was "set and forget".
Even now (despite MS' efforts to make it painful) W7 is easier to keep running than W10.

Since almost no one uses Windows phones, the real solution is for Windows to return to the old "3 years per version" model.


The "6 month upheaval" model is also becoming an issue in Linux Distros.
If you read Linux blogs/forums, you'll notice that there are complaints that now the OS is more mature, the rapid schedule is just "change for change" sake and it's reducing the quality of the OS (due to regressions, new bugs, pointless changes, etc.).