Windows 10: MS explains disappearance of the Win 10 Nov. Update from Media tool

No offense, but you have no clue what you're talking about

New versions are new builds, and new builds are new versions. There is no difference.

The public has gotten only one new build since 10240. The current public build is 10586.11. According to Microsoft, there will be a minimum of 2 new public builds per year, with a goal of 3 or 4 public builds per year.

My statement is accurate according to Microsoft. Everything you've said is conjecture, at best, and completely made up in your mind, at worst.

 

No, new builds are not new versions unless you are going well outside of how Microsoft defines a version. An new version of Windows is a major milestone. There are things a user cannot do when crossing version boundaries that he can do within one. Windows 7 and Windows 7 Sp1 are two different versions of Windows. That certainly means something in the Windows lifecycle table as well. In the same way Windows version 10 and Windows version 1511 are different versions of Windows. Different in the same way Windows 8 and 8.1 are different versions of Windows. The reason for the withdrawal of the version 1511 downloads was the impact that the version change was having on some users when their software was upgraded from version 10 to version 1511. Mere build differences do not have anything like that kind of impact. There are hundreds of builds between version releases. Obviously there are not hundreds of versions of Windows. Windows NT had the most versions (7) and I think XP was next with four.

 

It's pretty ridiculous that they expect someone to install Windows 10 and then download/install an entire OS as an "Update". Who @ Microsoft is making these decisions and what exactly was wrong with the previous Service Pack model that worked for years?

A lot of people out there are dealing with data caps and barring that, asking users to download/install the OS twice initially and then another 1 or 2 times per year for every device they own is idiotic and time consuming beyond the point of reason. A service pack would've been what 300~500MB vs. 3GB? It seems like they just don't want to put the extra work into creating an actual patch. so they just put the whole OS on WU and the user simply has to deal with it.

 

Okay, I won't be replying to you after this because it's obvious that you've decided to think what you want, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. This will be my last reply.

Build differences ARE different versions. There is no such thing as a "mere build difference." A different build is an entirely different version of Windows; when you go from any build of Windows to another build of Windows, you have to upgrade.

The versioning crap that you keep crowing about is nothing but marketing. Version 1511 is consumer language for build 10586 -- period. They didn't want consumers to have to refer to big, meaningless numbers like 10586, so they called it the "November 2015 update" instead. But make no mistake: 1511 is 10586. Version 1511 (AKA 10586) is a new build, just like any other new build that has been released to Insiders. There is literally no difference whatsoever.

The only difference is that Insiders get more builds because they've signed up to be beta testers, whereas the public gets fewer and more tested builds because the general public expects its computers to work. They added the 1511 moniker to the 10586 build as easy marketing to consumers so that they more likely remember it as the "November 2015 update." There is nothing separating version 1511 from build 10576, 10550, 10240, 9884, or any other build -- except that Microsoft found 1511 (10586) to be stable enough to release to the public.

The problems that many people are having are caused by the upgrade process itself, which has been historically broken in Windows and continues to be now. The only difference is that now we have to go through the upgrade process every 3 to 5 months instead of every 4 or 5 years (and honestly, few people even did it every 4 or 5 years because they did clean installs instead of upgrades). It doesn't matter how few differences there are between two builds; the upgrade process breaks installations and causes problems.

The end.

 

I agree that a better description of the "November Update" is "November Upgrade." I don't know why "update" is even used in this context. That is a distiction Microsoft has usually been stricter about. It is in fact an upgrade. The insider fast ring participants did the whole upgrade thing six times between the July 29 general release and the November 12 release of 1511. It takes a couple of hours each time. At least the computer gets to do all the work. But the public has only had to do the 1511 upgrade and the next one isn't projected until mid summer when Redstone is supposed to be finished. Insider fast ring folks have a LOT of upgrades to do between now and then.

 

I was thinking the same thing (what was wrong with the service pack system?), but they have apparently been trying to get away from that for a long time. Win2k had 4 SP's, XP had 3, Vista had 2, and Win 7 had 1. The trend is obvious I guess. But make no mistake about it, their new and present system is ridiculous, and it will NOT work. MS will have millions of people screaming bloody murder at them before 10 is even a year old.

 

I think you're right on the money.

It's easier for Microsoft to basically crap out a new build of Windows with all their changes in one package than make the changes with an update. On paper, it sounds nice, but there are serious ramifications from doing this, and we are seeing those consequences now with upgraded builds being less stable than cleanly installed builds.

Service Packs and other updates worked. This "wipe and reload" crap is like stepping back into the 1990s.

Also, Microsoft thinks they can get away with it because Android and iOS work similarly to this. The difference is that Android and iOS are, primarily, not serious work devices, so if an app stops working after an upgrade, or something doesn't work quite right, big deal -- wipe it and carry on. But Windows machines are not like that; wiping them can be extremely disruptive.

 

Upgrades have always been "less stable" as you put it than clean installs, but it isn't Windows that is causing it. The Windows is the same. It is the crud that has accumulated in the system and carried forward. Sometimes poorly written third-party junk that manages to run in one version has all its weakness exposed in the next and adversly affects how the new version performs.

 

I have saved 2 versions of the MCT, one is for 10586.0 and the newer is for 10240 and they both still work.

 

This isn't completely true. While it's true that the more an installation has been used, the more difficulty the upgrade process will have at getting the upgrade "right," there are severe deficiencies in the upgrade process itself. You can take a new and unused installation, upgrade it, and there will be problems. The upgrade process in Windows is broken.

If the upgrade process were 100% (as it should be, in theory), it could account for anything that was thrown at it and make the new build work exactly as should be expected. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Windows.

 

This is exactly right in my experience thru the years too. And it's what happened to me when I did the November 1511 "upgrade" recently... The process is fundamentally broken, and it just won't work out. I think MS is just trying to cut costs and save money, and I don't think they really even care if it works for users or not.

 

I don't see what the big fuss is about here. A update is a update no matter how it comes out to you.

 

The Microsoft division that's in charge of Windows is in disarray. It all started when the company suddenly decided to insult the intelligence of its user community.

First, by not mentioning what was coming on "patch Tuesday", or even acknowledging that this day of the month existed any longer. Second, no longer describing updates in any detail...we're too dumb to understand. Third, well...just read this thread.

New Microsoft CEO took the helm in 2014..and it's been all downhill for users since. From what I read in various forums, employee moral is heading south as well.

 

I'd be shocked if any Westerners are even in charge at Microsoft anymore, to be honest. Look at all the top brass now. Look at Microsoft's support forums. Probably why they have so many communications problems.

 

I have all of that as well. I have responded to the .iso issue through the Windows Feedback app with this suggestion:

Windows Update needs to offer an .iso creation tool once the current version of Windows has been in use at least 30 days. Some users need an .iso file that can reinstall or repair install Windows on another computer or offline. With the official Media Creation Tool site now only offering build 10240 at least provide a tool controlled by Windows Update.

My thought is that Windows Update ought to provide a button to do this under the Advanced Options so that users don't have to go to a website but can do it right in Windows Update. Or, even better for those on metered or slow connections, simply provide an ESD to ISO function to generate an .iso file directly from the files already stored on the computer. I hope a few people upvote it.