Windows 10, A Mandatory update?

So if you're reading this there's a good chance you've already read my rant about Microsoft's clandestine little plan to shove Windows 10 down your throat whether you want it or not. 

It came in the form of an "Important" patch (KB3035583) with a fairly innocuous description that gives no indication of its true intent.

"Update enables additional capabilities for Windows Update notifications..."

Now some of you out there think I'm making much ado about nothing.  I'm told, " People want it, it's no big deal. "

Hey, I want it too but when I get a patch that that tries to automatically install itself and gives no indication as to its true intent, I get suspicious.

Maybe I've just been around this business too long but if there's anything I've learned in 20+ years of being a server jockey it's that you never take anything Microsoft says on face value.

It's a company that's built their business on ambiguity and misdirection.

I've said for years that Microsoft wants your toaster and with Windows 10 they may finally get it. 

That's fine, so long as you know what you're buying into and right now we most undeniably don't.

Which is why I have a new rant directed simultaneously at Microsoft and a certain Windows podcast produced Weekly on a network named after a gentrified term for a moron (TWIT).

This week said podcast (Windows Weekly) was primarily focused on the impending release of Windows 10.  In it we found that Microsoft had for the most part reiterated the obvious and essentially told us nothing new.

Except...

We found out that whether you're a business customer or a lowly consumer, Windows 10 was going to update itself whether you liked it or not.

With Windows 10 Microsoft seeks to put the days of a la' carte updates behind them.  Meaning if Microsoft wants to force a nag screen onto your desktop to promote the latest version of Office or Skype, you are, in the words of Mary Jo Foley, "Going to take it and like it.

Now I've noticed that Skype keeps showing up as an "Important" update over the past 3 months on all my Windows 7 machines. 

Thing is, I only use Skype on one of them and then it's very sparingly.  I don't like Skype, I don't like its constant nagging and I sure as hell don't like Microsoft goading me into installing it when I don't want it!

With Microsoft's new update directives, however, Skype would be considered a new "feature."

That goes for enterprise customers too by the way.  It's just like it sounds guys.  Microsoft has seen fit to take the burden of desktop management off your hands.  I wonder if they'll take the support calls too...

You enterprise guys do get some reprieve, however.  You can choose to "delay" updates for short period of time but if you don't allow those "feature updates" to deploy you run the risk of losing security updates for your entire business.

In their grand plan, to paraphrase Mary Jo Foley, Microsoft is seeking to eliminate third party desktop management and essentially control the desktop build regardless of the needs of your enterprise.

Like Manage Engine instead of System Management Server?  Too bad, it's all or nothing baby...

If you're not quite an "Enterprise" customer then Microsoft lumps you in with all those other "consumers"  Meaning you don't get the option to delay your updates.  No a la' carte either.

It also means that if Microsoft happens to roll out an update that blue screens half the Windows PC's on the planet you have no recourse. 

I'm thinking there's going to be a whole lot of business continuation insurance policies sold in the next year.

Am I blowing things out of proportion?  I don't think so for two reasons. 

1. It's happened before.  Actually it's a fairly regular occurrence but the smart IT pro knows better than to just blindly allow updates to install without at least reviewing the descriptions.  That option disappears for consumer versions of Windows 10 (and largely for Enterprise as well)                                                            
2. This could be disastrous for small businesses who rely on applications that may not be 100% compatible with a given update.  I don't want to hear about how stupid people keep using old software either.  It's not always their choice and it shouldn't be Microsoft's either.

Mary Jo Foley attempted to explain the new update strategy by claiming that some security updates could be dependent on other non-security updates.  Potentially causing issues if the current update model was allowed to continue.

This is where my rant about Windows Weekly starts...

By what stretch of the imagination should a SECURITY  update ever be tied to a FEATURE update?  By their very nature security updates are meant to address an existing security vulnerability not support new features or deal with compatibility issues. 

That's why even Microsoft classifies them.   You see, it's done that way because all those silly IT managers have this bad habit of wanting to know what the hell an update is going to do to their user base BEFORE it gets deployed. 

It's an example of Microsoft marketing speak.  It comes from the same people who describe an update that adds a  nag screen and background downloader as "additional update capabilities."

I have to wonder what color the sky is in a tech journalist's world...

It is this fundamental disconnect with the way that IT works that's put me at odds with tech journalists like Paul Thurrott (who still thinks Windows Vista was ok) and Mary Jo Foley.

For god's sake, the woman covers enterprise computing!  Is she just reading the sales brochures??  How could she not understand that taking away control of update deployments from IT departments is a VERY real problem.

Look, I get it.

Until recently, Thurrott and Foley were on the outs with Microsoft.  A condition that only recently changed around the time of Satjay Nadella taking the helm.

Since then I've noticed a far less critical point of view on Windows Weekly.  It's understandable if they don't want to jeopardize their newfound access but really now.

If you can't be objective then don't cover the topic.  That's what good journalists do.  Further, I don't want to hear anybody's ruminations on how enterprise IT works who's never had to do it for a living.  Report what you find but keep your admonitions to yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Windows 10 will be a better Windows OS but to ignore the price it's going to exact is just naive. 

Ignore me if you want, just don't come crying if Microsoft decides that your 5000 seat enterprise should be using Lync for all its messaging some sad Monday morning.

Eyes open kids...

A new perspective on old Operating systems

I see a lot of uproar over Operating systems lately. 

Not the normal Windows versus Mac versus Linux fare.  No, the wailing starts around the time an older version is no longer supported meaning no further updates are produced for it and every request for help is met with the maddening phrase...

"Upgrade to the newer version."

Now truth be told, we rarely hear anyone complaining much about the abandonment of an old version of Mac OSX or a Linux distribution.  Devotees of those platforms are usually breathlessly awaiting the next release. 

It's usually the Windows world that complains the most and with good reason.  Their customer base is always wary of a new Microsoft release especially if it follows a successful predecessor.  That's because success is usually followed by failure.  A short review of recent history bears that out..

• Windows 2003/Windows XP - Stable, easy to manage and user friendly at least after the first service packs.
• Windows Vista - I don't care what Paul Thurott says, it was/is slow and almost completely unusable before service pack 2.  Microsoft's "my way or the highway" stance didn't help it gain many fans either.  It's the reason why Windows XP only recently entered obsolescence.
• Windows 7 - Everything Vista should have been and for many the worthy successor to XP.
• Windows 8 - A sign of things to come in interface design but a bit too much too soon.  Great for tablets but lousy on anything without a touch screen. 

So the trend is evident.  Expect the release of a successful Microsoft product to be immediately followed by a failure. 

Perhaps a change of perspective is needed here.

Operating systems are just "products" and products have a shelf life.  That means after a certain amount of time they go "bad."

So I'm proposing we think of operating systems in the same way we think about cars. 

When you buy a new car you can expect that for at least 5 years you're going to have full support from the factory that made it.  Any little thing that goes wrong will be quickly and cheerfully rectified and you can bet that all the latest features will be there for the taking.

Now moving past that 5 year mark we're getting into the realm of "mature" products.  You may still have a warranty but you're going to find that if the sun visor falls off it's going to be fixed but it's probably going to be on your dime.  If the engine blows up, however, it'll probably be covered.  Don't expect any feature updates from the factory though.  They've moved on to this year's model which more likely than not isn't much different than yours so there's no real compelling reason to "upgrade."

Once we get to 10 years you now own an old car.  You're probably not visiting the dealer to get it repaired anymore mostly because it's too expensive.  If you hold on to it you've either got a trusted mechanic close to home or you've suddenly taken an interest in automotives.

Over 10 years and the words "End of Life" start showing up.  At this point you're into legacy status and the factory could care less about your car.  If you really like the car you'll find all sorts of "aftermarket" parts and services to keep it running.  Chances are the factory and dealer won't be able to do much for you at this point. 

I think the model works pretty well for operating systems too.  At some point you have to accept that nothing is forever.  A 12 year old operating system is like a 12 year old car.  Obsolete, poorly supported by its maker and dependent on an "aftermarket" to support it.  There's nothing wrong with the aftermarket so long as they have good standing but it's a roll of the dice.  Also know that just as an old car may not have the safety features or fuel efficiency of a new model, an old OS may not be as secure or perform as well as a newer one.

So run Windows XP or MAC OSX Tiger if you want, just know that from now on you're going to be on your own.