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

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

  1. Posts : 266
    Windows 10 x64 Home 1703
       21 Nov 2017 #1

    Microsoft's Windows 10 update strategy is showing strains?


    Analysts argue that Microsoft should cut the number of Windows 10 upgrades in half and pledge to support each version for 24 months.

    Windows 10's rapid release machinery and short-lived support schemes showed some strain in 2017, as Microsoft reduced the number of annual feature upgrades and felt enough pressure to extend the lifespan of a 2015 version well into next year.

    But the radical release-and-support strategy, which Microsoft asserts has transformed Windows into a service, has not resonated with every customer. Windows 10 upgrades come too frequently, leaving too little time for adequate compatibility testing of critical applications. Support is too fleeting, with each upgrade maintained for just 18 months, theoretically requiring seven migrations during the same timespan when previously only one was necessary.

    Microsoft can, and should, address the stress, industry analysts said in interviews and emails, by sanding off the sharpest edges of its policies. The result? A more palatable "service" that would retain the benefits of a commercial operating system able to respond to an evolving digital world.
    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.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  2.    21 Nov 2017 #1

    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
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  3.    22 Nov 2017 #2

    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.

    Hewjr100 said: View Post
    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
    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).
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  4.    22 Nov 2017 #3

    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.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  5.    22 Nov 2017 #4

    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
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  6.    22 Nov 2017 #5

    alphanumeric said: View Post
    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.
    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
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  7.    22 Nov 2017 #6

    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.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  8.    22 Nov 2017 #7

    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 ComputerSystem Spec

  •    22 Nov 2017 #8

    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.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

  •    22 Nov 2017 #9

    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.
      My ComputerSystem Spec


  •  
    Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

    Related Threads
    Read more: More changes coming to Microsoft's Windows as a Service strategy | ZDNet
    Read more: Microsoft May Already Have a Reliability Strategy - Thurrott.com
    Read more: Inside Microsoft's build-a-bot strategy | ZDNet
    Read more: Microsoft sets stage for massive Windows 10 upgrade strategy | Computerworld
    Source: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2015/05/26/microsoft-expands-cross-platform-services-strategy-through-agreements-with-additional-device-partners/
    Our Sites
    Site Links
    About Us
    Windows 10 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 10" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

    © Designer Media Ltd
    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:53.
    Find Us