Its a strategy that they also operate across their Azure platform, which most certainly does include a lot of power users.
Windows 10
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Its a strategy that they also operate across their Azure platform, which most certainly does include a lot of power users.
Isn't Azure sold as a managed cloud computing platform that you rent from MS? That's not really the same as a personal home PC, and there's no reason for one "strategy" to apply to the other. Last time I checked, MS don't own the hardware or are expected to manage my PC.
MS don't reboot your Win 10 phone whenever they feel like, do they? That would be inconvenient if you needed to install an update for 30 minutes just when you needed to call an ambulance or in the middle of a call.
Last edited:
Azure platform isn't even remotely comparable here and its maintenance schedule isn't anything different from any other VPS type hosting which is largely irrelevant to desktop use. Server/cloud type usage is largely very specific and better able to work with a ahead of time scheduled maintenance system.
Really dunno what you are arguing here - an advanced user ability to take more control of Windows updates doesn't hurt anyone and makes the experience much better for a not insignificant proportion of users even if they aren't the majority user base.
Really dunno what you are arguing here - an advanced user ability to take more control of Windows updates doesn't hurt anyone and makes the experience much better for a not insignificant proportion of users even if they aren't the majority user base.
Last edited:
Azure has maintenance windows that you can't change or postpone, and in some cases won't even tell you about them. And you will pay lots for those services.
Microsoft expects you to manage that yourself.
As above, there's no reason for a managed corporate cloud computing service that you rent from MS to be treated the same as a home PC.
Microsoft want to ensure a minimum level of updates across the entire ecosystem. If they open the door to disabling updates, even for 1 person, they then have to account for and support every iteration of the OS all the way back to that point.
While it may be a small number of users, it becomes a disproportionately large issue over the long term. When they are rolling out features and new software packages in 5 years time they don't want to have to cope with the hundreds of different itterations of the OS that might be out there because one bloke might have disabled updates on day 1 and never turned them on again.
Its an entirely sensible approach in ensuring the best platform possible in what is a very difficult ecosystem to have any sort of "standard". Microsoft already has to cope with an almost infinite number of combinations of hardware, why would it also throw in multiple versions of its software too?
Intel are operating the same strategy with their Processors now. There will be a minimum supported version of Software supported to allow them to remove legacy features from their products.
Oh wow...
As a long time user of dedicated servers and various VPS/Cloud platforms I'm quite familiar with the way maintenances schedules work and it has pretty much no application to desktop use :S unplanned events happen, rarely and Azure is no different to any other service in that regard and if it was they wouldn't have many customers. Scheduled maintenance is rarely something you can change or postpone and that is quite normal and a completely different story in that environment.
i.e. example message from awhile back:
And yet they are. The "problem" of uncontrolled reboots exists in both, and yet people are still prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of £s on them.
Your home PC rebooting is utterly insignificant.
If your Azure services are not part of an Availability Set, they won't even tell you theres a scheduled outage. It will just happen.
Really stop and think about what you just posted... what happens when someone say goes into hospital for a few months or working in a remote part of the world for a few years and then brings their home PC back online?
Because if its manual, it might not get updated.
Think about it - you'll have people all over the world with staggered timelines - someone might not have used a system since just after Windows 10 was released and might start using it again in a few months from now - someone else might go into prison tomorrow and not use their PC again for 5 years... MS has no choice but to support a large variety of states to update from.
I don't get what your trying to say?
If Microsoft can ensure that every internet connected Windows 10 PC is updated to at least a minimum level, then they can operate as if that is the level at which the OS is supported. Themselves and 3rd party developers can then operate within that consistently sized supported ecosystem.
If they allow you to disable updates, then they can't do that, and they have to support every possible state of update of that OS.
Windows is very different now. There won't be a Windows 11 in a year or so that they can use as a step up to a totally different platform. The OS is going to grow and evolve. Windows 10 in 5 years time could look very different to Windows 10 now. It could have shifted so fundamentally that there are things that simply wouldn't run on launch day Windows 10 that are being built for 5 years time Windows 10. They can support that style of shift by having a lower bound to how "out of date" your OS is allowed to get. The only way to do that is to enforce updates. Officially allowing them to be disabled would officially mean they would have to support every itteration of Windows 10 from day 1 through to as long as it exists.
The itterative updates and ongoing development model of Windows 10 requires an enforced updates strategy. It simply won't work without it.
If Microsoft can ensure that every internet connected Windows 10 PC is updated to at least a minimum level, then they can operate as if that is the level at which the OS is supported. Themselves and 3rd party developers can then operate within that consistently sized supported ecosystem.
If they allow you to disable updates, then they can't do that, and they have to support every possible state of update of that OS.
Windows is very different now. There won't be a Windows 11 in a year or so that they can use as a step up to a totally different platform. The OS is going to grow and evolve. Windows 10 in 5 years time could look very different to Windows 10 now. It could have shifted so fundamentally that there are things that simply wouldn't run on launch day Windows 10 that are being built for 5 years time Windows 10. They can support that style of shift by having a lower bound to how "out of date" your OS is allowed to get. The only way to do that is to enforce updates. Officially allowing them to be disabled would officially mean they would have to support every itteration of Windows 10 from day 1 through to as long as it exists.
The itterative updates and ongoing development model of Windows 10 requires an enforced updates strategy. It simply won't work without it.
I'm not on about states that can be upgraded from. I'm on about states the OS needs to be in to remain supported and use the most up to date features.
I would expect a 5 year out of date Windows 10 PC to basically lock you out until you updated.
So again what happens when for instance someone comes out of prison with their home PC not having been turned on for the few years they were inside and then they start it up again?
Read what I said.
"Sorry, this version of Windows 10 is out of date, please click here to install the latest updates and continue using the features of this PC".
With the current auto updates model they wouldn't have to even do that. The user would just turn it on an it would automatically update itself.
"Sorry, this version of Windows 10 is out of date, please click here to install the latest updates and continue using the features of this PC".
With the current auto updates model they wouldn't have to even do that. The user would just turn it on an it would automatically update itself.