Newly revealed dialogs show how Windows Update can be stalled in the next version of Win10

Topic

New Reply

Ed Bott, who’s become the voice of Microsoft, has just posted a couple of interesting screen shots and an explanation of how Win10 Pro/Enterprise user
[See the full post at: Newly revealed dialogs show how Windows Update can be stalled in the next version of Win10]

Reply | Quote

Replies

well woody the creators update that Ed’s talking about is still missing the crucial “Include driver updates when I update Windows” WU option that was there in the 15002 beta build and was taken out in the 15019 beta release.

I still long for that essential Windows Update setting to control device driver updates without having to resort to using the gpedit.msc group policy, wshowhide.diagcab tool and metered connection trick.

Reply | Quote

I’ve already asked MS to respond to the questions/comments in this post.

That “Include driver updates when I update Windows” is my next question. There’s a group policy in 1607 with the same phrasing that doesn’t work the way many people think it should. If it’s promoted to the Settings app, I predict mass confusion will result.

Sure wish they would document this stuff in some variant of plain English.

3 users thanked author for this post.

abbodi86, Pepsiboy, PhotM

Reply | Quote

woody wrote:

….

Sure wish they would document this stuff in some variant of plain English.

Say Woody,

Whatsu smoken’ thar????

Yous pacen’ it????

PS I gave up smoking anything in the nighties…

--------------------------------------

1. Tower Totals: 2xSSD ~512GB, 2xHHD 20 TB, Memory 32GB

SSDs: 6xOS Partitions, 2xW8.1 Main & Test, 2x10.0 Test, Pro, x64

CPU i7 2600 K, SandyBridge/CougarPoint, 4 cores, 8 Threads, 3.4 GHz
Graphics Radeon RX 580, RX 580 ONLY Over Clocked
More perishable

2xMonitors Asus DVI, Sony 55" UHD TV HDMI

1. NUC 5i7 2cores, 4 Thread, Memory 8GB, 3.1 GHz, M2SSD 140GB
1xOS W8.1 Pro, NAS Dependent, Same Sony above.

-----------------

Reply | Quote

If feels like to me that when Microsoft released Windows 10 they forced the updates because the vast majority of users didn’t install them, and now it feels like they going back, slowly returning control of updates.

If it were up to me, you wouldn’t get any control. Simple on or off. You either get all updates or no updates. That’s what they should have done from day one with Windows 10. That way people who don’t want to update wouldn’t have to update, and those who want to update will get everything.

Reply | Quote

That’s largely the case.

But folks inside Microsoft are convinced that individual updates – where you can pick and choose your patches – are a relic of a bygone era, when bandwidth was a major concern and Microsoft was less able to control updating (as they do now in Win10 with their staged waves of upgrades). They feel that bunched, cumulative updates are the modern “as a service” approach.

In other words, we should all patch our PCs like they’re phones.

There’s some validity to the claim. I don’t agree with it, of course.

Reply | Quote

May I ask what is wrong with the cumulative model? It helps keep the number of updates down. Helps keep scan times to a minimum. I feel it’s more efficient that having the updates be individually selectable. And that’s why I say it should be all or nothing with Windows 10. Since updates are cumulative it’s not like you’d be able to choose what to install anyways.

Reply | Quote

Beyond Microsoft pushing unwanted behavior, to say that updates should be cumulative and forced assumes Microsoft would never get anything wrong.

What have they done to make anyone assume that?

Even when they had a huge testing organization they didn’t get updates right every time.

And just because there isn’t a “GWX campaign” going on right now through Windows Update, do you honestly feel there will never be anything they’ll do like that again?

Bigger picture-wise, following a thought process where one considers the update process as at the center of attention is simply wrong. FUNCTIONALITY needs to be at the center of attention. Updates shouldn’t even be needed.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

We are right at this moment seeing exactly what’s wrong with the Cumulative Updates model. Microsoft in February of this year might just as well have quoted Moon Mullins:

“Somewhere, somehow, something went horribly wrong!”

And POOF! we have no updates this month.

That in a nutshell is what’s wrong with Cumulative Updates.

 

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

That is absurd. This approach would be cool if the system itself would change all the time. Security updates – OK, let them shove it up our throats, but any new “features” should not be forced.

1 user thanked author for this post.

rc primak

Reply | Quote

woody wrote:

I’ve already asked MS to respond to the questions/comments in this post. That “Include driver updates when I update Windows” is my next question. There’s a group policy in 1607 with the same phrasing that doesn’t work the way many people think it should. If it’s promoted to the Settings app, I predict mass confusion will result. Sure wish they would document this stuff in some variant of plain English.

Woody,

Do you really think Microsoft would even TRY to use plain English???  I would say it only happens in our WILDEST DREAMS ! ! !

Dave

Reply | Quote

Defer a version change for up to a set number of days. Bott implies that you’ll be able to defer a version change for up to 365 days after it reaches CBB level.

Two things about this:

1. A whole year seems like a long time now, after having a Windows 10 that wouldn’t wait at all, or would wait only for CBB status. But it’s not. In the recent past (and currently) many businesses used the same OS for 3 to 5 years on a given PC. They did/do that because it makes sense for them.
2. Given an 8 month cadence, allowing deferral of a version change for up to one year allows a business to skip up to ONE version release of Windows 10. The reality is that it will mean instead of any given system having to be given a new OS version every 8 months, it will require a new version every 12 months. It’s not enough!

No one but Microsoft themselves needs the pace to be faster than 3 years. There will always be early adopter / gamers / whomever who will get the latest sooner. That isn’t the same as requiring it of everyone.

I can’t help but think all these “concessions” are planned to get the actual release cadence down to 1 year via an “it feels better when it stops hurting so much” technique, simply to suit Microsoft’s fiscal goals.

At some point, we’ll probably lose the ability to override all of this “forced” stuff. The OS simply won’t run if you don’t allow it to do what it wants online, and we won’t be able to do a darned thing about it. Then where will we be? Is this all that much different than ransomware?

-Noel

Reply | Quote

There was a time when MS did things for reasons other than revenue. Not that revenue wasn’t Job 1–but there was sometimes a Job 2. But the current MS (MS v2.1?) no longer has any other priorities; there is only Job $. So if they’re tweaking Windows Updates and talking about changing the current Win 10 update model, it can be only because they have figured out that there is revenue to be gleaned from holdouts like me who will not adopt Win 10 for ourselves or our clients as long as we have no control of the updating process. This newest idea is a (tentative) step in the right direction, but for the moment it’s just a trial balloon. When it’s actually implemented, I’ll take a serious look at Win 10 to see if there’s anything worthwhile in there. In the meantime, my enterprise clients are and will remain blissfully happy running Win 7.

Reply | Quote