Microsoft Says Summer's Windows 10 Upgrade Fit For Business (computerworld.com)

Microsoft has moved Windows 10 August update to the Current Branch for Business release track, putting the "Anniversary Update" in the queue for automatic downloads and installation on enterprise PCs. From a report on ComputerWorld: The move will also set in motion a two-month countdown clock on support for the original mid-2015 version of Windows 10. "Windows 10 1607, also known as the Windows 10 Anniversary Update, has been declared as Current Branch for Business (CBB) and is ready for deployment," Michael Niehaus, a director of product marketing, said in a post to a company blog that used similar wording to the first upgrade to the CBB. In April, Microsoft moved the November 2015 upgrade to the corporate delivery track. Microsoft issued the Anniversary Update Aug. 2, even though its numerical designation of 1607 referred to July (07) of this year (16). The upgrade will be released in January through Windows Update, Windows Update for Business and Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), Niehaus said.

Comments

Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it involve removing the "telemetry" AKA spyware?

Re:Define "fit for business"

[blackomegax]

Working for a very large Fortune 500: Our requirements before deploying 10 are essentially that it must deployable with NO telemetry to MS, NO spying, and NO ads.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[sinij]

Do you think MS would accommodate? Sure, sales would promise you anything to close the deal, but would it actually get delivered or are you going to be stuck having to block all that crap at the firewall?

Re:Define "fit for business"

[The-Ixian]

If you are using Enterprise versions then you can turn off telemetry.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[ausekilis]

MS Translation: "We've beefed up our storage capacity, we're now ready to know all about your business."

Maybe that's their new internal slogan "We make it our business to know all about your business".

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad turning off telemetry doesn't actually stop it from spying on you. The setting is just there to trick the user, not to actually do anything.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not want to turn them off. I want them turned off by default. Even better: not being there at all.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

And why exactly should MS give two shits about your "requirements"? What exactly are you going to do if MS tells you to take your requirements and stick them up your ass, and that you're going to use Windows 10 or else?
("or else" being "you're on your own--good luck trying to keep Windows 7 secure after we've cut off support for it".)

I sincerely hope that when Win7 finally gets EOLed, that MS tells companies like this that they're going to use Win10 with telemetry, spying, and ads whether they like it or not. These stupid F500 companies are going to gripe and complain, then they're going to bend over and take it.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

Probably not. That would require people and companies running Windows to finally wake up and smell the coffee after seeing all this stuff with telemetry, spyware, ads, forced updates, etc., and then go to all the trouble of actually switching over (which would involve some pain, mainly due to Windows-only software and a lack of qualified IT people). I have zero hope that that will happen. So, I'm enjoying sitting back and watching all these people and companies suffer with MS's shenanigans. AFAIC, they've brought it on themselves.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You're kidding, right?

If this is a large Fortune 500 business we're talking about, it's probably a household name with many thousands of staff. If Microsoft try to screw them, a few executives from that business are going to have some pleasant conversations over golf with people who also happen to work at a senior level for alternative suppliers like Apple and Red Hat.

First, they're going to cut a nice deal for enterprise-scale everything, because any business that size is worth serious money. Score a win for both the business (big cost savings) and the suppliers (big new customer).

Next, those alternative suppliers like Apple and Red Hat are going to make nice press releases touting their new Fortune 500 customer. Those press releases are going to feature quotes from C-level executives at the Fortune 500 saying how happy they are and what a great supplier they've got. There will be white papers with case studies showing off how much better the big organisation is doing now they've switched to the new supplier.

If this happens once, it's already bad for Microsoft. If it becomes more of a pattern than an isolated incident, the big consultancies and industry commentators are going to start paying attention and using the same sorts of quotes in their own analysis, and that in turn is going to influence other senior executives at other big organisations who are also unhappy with being given the finger by a supplier and interested in what their other options might be.

If you think I'm kidding about all of this, I invite you to research the order-of-magnitude reductions in licence fees that certain big name software companies offer to their enterprise customers in this kind of situation to keep them on side. That is how much these giant customers are worth to them, and the same customers are worth just as much to other potential suppliers who have the scale to operate at that level too. Or you could just notice that Windows 10 Enterprise is basically a totally different product to Windows 10 Home, which doesn't require the telemetry, updates, and so on that have been so controversial, and ask yourself why Microsoft did that.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[thegarbz]

Working for a very large Fortune 500: Our requirements before deploying 10 are essentially that it must deployable with NO telemetry to MS, NO spying, and NO ads.

ORLY? I also work for a very large Fortune 500, actually one in the top 20. Our requirements for Windows 10 are close to none existent. Microsoft is a strategic partner and we already have approval from on high to use Onedrive for confidential data, all of MS's cloud offerings, Office 365 etc etc, and the only reason we haven't rolled out windows 10 yet is that there's still an argument over the hardware platform and we're not preparing the damn image and doing all the testing twice.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

Telemetry can be turned off on enterprise.
and the only ads are a one-line text entry in the start menu that you can again turn off in the start menu settings.

For now. There's no telling what MS will decide to do in the future. It's their OS and they can update it however they want. That could mean requiring telemetry/ads on Enterprise editions, increasing the ads and preventing them from being disabled (including on Enterprise versions), etc.

Also, those aren't the only ads. They have live tiles with ads.

Competent admins do the above things

For now. Competent admins are limited by what MS allows. Competent admins do not have access to the Windows 10 source code with the ability to build their own; they're at MS's mercy.

and that is why corporations aren't really phased by Windows 10.

And that's why they're all sticking with Win7?

For those that are plowing ahead, just wait until MS changes the terms and conditions and requires spyware and ads on corporate desktops. You don't think they could do that? What's to stop them? Threats of switching to Linux? Customers aren't going to do that. Personally I really hope MS tightens the screws on these companies and forces ads into Win10 Enterprise soon.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

So even when Linux succeeds, it may eventually tarnish and such stuff as we're seeing MS succumb to would translate over.

How so? Have you forgotten that Linux is open-source, and anyone can build it or modify it as they wish? That was what was so laughable about the "Amazon Lens" on Ubuntu: it was trivial to remove with an 'apt-get remove' command. Even if they had tried to bake it in somehow, it's not that hard to make your own distro, or use a derivative like Mint. The idea that Linux would somehow pull ratty shenanigans like this is ridiculous: there's a bunch of different distros, so if one turns ratty, it's easy to just switch over to another.

This process of leveraging power away from consumers and into the 'service provider' is a natural consequence in the business world.

If you're a large enough corporation, it should be pretty simple to take an existing Linux distro, modify/customize it some, and roll your own distro, thus becoming your own "service provider" instead of leaving yourself at the mercy of a vendor that does not have your best interest at heart. If a handful of volunteers at distros like Linux Mint can do it, any company with more than a few dozen employees can do it if they really want. Businesses only outsource critical functions like this because they're short-sighted which is why I don't expect to see many companies do anything like this any time soon.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

No, I'm not kidding. How exactly do you propose these F500 businesses get all their Windows-only applications (internal and external) running on MacOSX or Linux? If companies were actually serious about putting this kind of effort into a different OS, many more would have switched by now. They're not. These customers are utterly locked in; the only real competition Microsoft has is with their own older software versions.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[dbIII]

If you think I'm kidding about all of this

No I just think you are being unrealistic about the "care factor" of those execs you think will send in the lawyers with guns blazing.

If this happens once

There was that city in Germany and a few other things over the years. It has happened more than once already.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

History for MS wouldn't suggest that they'd add ads and spyware to their OS, but they've done exactly that. History for MS would suggest a bunch of things based on how they acted with Gates and Ballmer in charge. Those guys are gone now, and Nadella is in charge now, and they're doing things that 10 years ago people wouldn't have dreamed. MS is fundamentally an amoral corporation, and it's going to do whatever it wants to maximize profit. So far, they've decided to do that by adding spyware and advertising to consumer desktops and forcing people to upgrade to Win10 against their will. There's nothing stopping them from going well beyond this.

As for living in fear, it's just plain good sense to retain as much control over your own destiny as feasible, instead of happily handing it over to some amoral entity that only cares about extracting as much profit from you as they can. You can only feasibly go so far with this, but at least with application software, it's generally not that hard to switch from one to another if you have a big problem, as long as there's some competition in that market, and an application only has so much power over you. An OS is entirely different. And with OSes, we already have better alternatives that respect your privacy.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's simple economics. There's a significant cost to any technology migration in an organisation of that scale, and there's also typically a significant cost to relying on systems for longer than they're well suited for the job. As you imply yourself, this is true whether you're talking about updating to a newer product from the same supplier or you're talking about switching to a different supplier. There is rarely such a thing as being truly locked in for large enterprises, there is only when the cost of switching becomes lower than the costs of upgrading and of keeping the current system.

One of the biggest strategic problems Microsoft has to deal with is the reality that even in huge organisations, the trend in recent years has been back towards more centralised systems, with thin client applications or web interfaces for access. Windows-only software is certainly still a factor, but it's becoming less of a limiting one as time goes by. That means the cost of switching is already lowering, relative to the cost of a full-scale OS upgrade across the organisation. If Microsoft started doing silly things with Windows 10 that made that full-scale upgrade a problem, it would swing the needle further, and at some point it would tip the balance.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No I just think you are being unrealistic about the "care factor" of those execs you think will send in the lawyers with guns blazing.

If Microsoft introduced mandatory telemetry, spyware, upgrades, ads etc. in Windows 10 Enterprise, in the same way that they have in Home and Pro, I imagine a fair number of those lawyers would be the ones demanding that their business didn't move to Windows 10 Enterprise, right next to the senior IT staff.

It has happened more than once already.

In rather different circumstances, and relatively rarely even then. Now compare how often it's happened with how often there has been a credible threat of it happening until someone from a big software company offered someone from a big customer a much, much better deal to prevent it.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[exomondo]

If companies were actually serious about putting this kind of effort into a different OS, many more would have switched by now.

Why would they? If their applications run just fine on Windows or macOS then why would have switched? What extraoardinary advantage does a different OS give them that would be worth the enormous effort and huge expenses involved in recruiting and managing talent to build capable and feature-comparable versions of industry leading content-creation applications? Like say you run architectural firm and your draftsmen, engineers, architects, whatever come in, load up Revit on their Windows machines and do their work what would be the value for them in investing the untold sums of money and effort in building a Revit competitor just to run a different operating system?

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

Perhaps, but I think that it would take a pretty incredible amount of "silly things" to tip the balance enough to make organizations actually leave Windows. Companies aren't 100% rational; they're still run by humans, who have their own biases and prejudices, and organizational inertia is extremely strong.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

They wouldn't need to build their own apps necessarily, just put a lot of pressure on their ISV vendors to make versions of those apps which run on the OS of their choice. ISVs made Windows versions of their apps ages ago when their customers pressured them to because they wanted to move to Windows from whatever they were using before (usually UNIX); this is no different. So the question really is: what advantage does a different OS give them that would be worth the expensive and effort of getting ISVs to make new versions, and of getting your IT department to switch? Well, we can go back in time and ask the very same question of companies in the 1990s, when they all switched to Windows. If they did it then, why is it so hard to imagine them doing it again? Am I the only one here who remembers a time before Windows?

Re:Define "fit for business"

[dbIII]

Indeed, you do imagine that while I imagine that they are not going to care any more than they already have
That spyware is already active on many execs laptops which came with the "pro" versions instead of a wishful thinking "Enterprise" label.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[exomondo]

ISVs made Windows versions of their apps ages ago when their customers pressured them to because they wanted to move to Windows from whatever they were using before (usually UNIX); this is no different.

Of course they did because at that time they expended huge amounts of effort supporting the various different platforms but when the trend of everybody having their own flavour of UNIX on their own hardware died out in favour of a more standardized x86 PC platform that ended up running Windows for better or worse the ISVs saw the value in consolidating on the one dominant platform. Sure they could have kept spending resources supporting SunOS, Xenix, IRIX, HP-UX, Minix, et al but what would be the value in that?

So the question really is: what advantage does a different OS give them that would be worth the expensive and effort of getting ISVs to make new versions, and of getting your IT department to switch? Well, we can go back in time and ask the very same question of companies in the 1990s, when they all switched to Windows.

Well actually we can't go back in time, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you think that answer was?

Am I the only one here who remembers a time before Windows?

We had many different very expensive workstations that had different operating systems - SGI systems running IRIX and Sun systems running Solaris for example - then eventually it made sense to just buy Windows-based workstations because they were much much cheaper and more powerful thanks to economies of scale.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[rtb61]

There is one huge problem with that, buried way down in the EULA you still agree to it and so it might not come with telemetry and spying and ads but how exactly are you going to keep that shit out, any patch at any time and M$ can stick it right back in there. Hell, the code is right in there from day one and can be activated with any built in buried config change, which can be done with any patch at any time and your security is done. Now consider how many billions can be garnered with insider trading on switching on telemetry and switching it off again to have a quick look at your financials prior to public release.

Sure you can keep them out at time of install but they can break right back in there with any patch or even any access by the operating they own and control to any of their websites. Do M$ provide tailored upgrades to specific users, yes and those upgrades then do very naughty things (including hacking firmware). There is absolutely nothing you can do to keep them out, except to never connect M$ controlled computers to the internet. Windows 10 has factually proven they can never be trusted.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[gweihir]

Working for a small IT security company: Our requirements are exactly the same, because a) we want it and (more important) b) our customers begin to insist on it so their data does not get spied on. If nothing else helps, we will go with Office jailed in a no-network VM and the rest on Linux.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't disagree with you on the being run by humans and having inertia aspects. I just think you're underestimating how damaging trying to force known data leaks and uncontrolled software into a large organisation would be.

The data leak aspect is a concern for the lawyers, as well as the obvious underlying security implications. I'm only involved with smaller businesses, which previously used Pro versions of Windows, but even we don't seem to be able to move to Windows 10 without risking violating various data protection laws, NDAs, and so on. What happens to larger businesses, particularly those who work in regulated industries and who really do get audited from time to time, if Windows 10 Enterprise imposes the same vulnerability?

The forced upgrades also have obvious stability and reliability implications. Microsoft has long provided tools for corporate system administrators to manage large numbers of Windows desktops and deploy updates (or not) according to their own schedules and testing requirements. I have never encountered a large organisation using Windows whose administrators do not use these tools, and the answer to many problems with Windows updates for these organisations has essentially been "If it took out the 10 dummy PCs in the test lab, don't deploy it to the rest of the organisation". Again, if Windows 10 Enterprise took away that flexibility and allowed (or required) users to start upgrading their own systems, I can't imagine corporate IT tolerating that at all.

In short, it doesn't necessarily take an incredible amount of silly things to tip the balance. Even one or two things will still do it, if those things are silly enough.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What large corporate IT department has their executives running any version of Windows Pro on their laptops, rather than Enterprise connected to their centralised update servers etc?

What corporate IT department has allowed any machines under their control, even running Windows 7/8/8.1 Pro if it's a smaller organisation, to deploy the telemetry updates?

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

I'm not underestimating how damaging those things are, I'm maybe overestimating how willing these organizations are to put up with these shenanigans so they don't have to switch away from Windows. As you say, a lot of stuff is in "the cloud" or has a web-based interface these days, but a lot still doesn't, plus MS Office seems to be irreplaceable to just about every business and it only runs on Windows. Plus in so many companies, their IT departments seem to have been all-MS (even for applications that don't really need it) for ages, to the point where it seems like those IT departments are branches of an MS cult. I just have a very hard time seeing any significant number of companies actually switching away from Windows if MS steadily made the Enterprise version more and more business-unfriendly by taking away the flexibility and features you speak of.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If we were talking about updates to the Enterprise version of 7 or 8.1, which organisations might already have deployed widely, presumably it would be tougher for those organisations to justify the switch. Maybe only those who were concerned about serious legal/regulatory issues would do so. But then in that situation, the sysadmins could just block the other updates they didn't want, so concerns about updates introducing ads or removing features or whatever don't really apply.

The thing with Windows 10 is that it's a big upgrade anyway. Enterprise-scale IT departments are already going to need plans for a full migration if they want to go to Win 10 Enterprise. They're already going to have to check compatibility with all the software they rely on, maybe upgrade some of their hardware, and so on. So the cost of accepting Windows 10 if Microsoft were also to push stuff like telemetry and automatic updates in the Enterprise edition would just be that much higher.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[Grishnakh]

Ok, that makes sense, but I'm not proposing that MS push these shenanigans any time too soon. What if they wait until everyone's finally moved to Win10 Enterprise, perhaps in 3-5 years, and *then* they start tightening the screws on their corporate customers, mis-feature by mis-feature? Remember the old tale about the frog in boiling water.

Re:Define "fit for business"

[dbIII]

What large corporate IT department has their executives running any version of Windows Pro on their laptops, rather than Enterprise connected to their centralised update servers etc?

Any of them that allow their execs to buy their own stuff, which is probably most of them.

For the second there are a lot of MS Windows shops out there that trust Microsoft without question. Sometimes I argue with those sort of people but it is really pointless - the only solution is to firewall them off as much as possible to stop them from getting burnt a lot by the outside world.

I made the mistake of installing it.

[Snake98]

Just search for wsus server update windows 1607. After updating to 1607, it won't connect to the wsus server until you manually apply patches to the machine. I made that mistake of installing, but luckily I did a test run of only 10 computers.

This should be entertaining

[ilsaloving]

We were trialing a handful of Lenovo laptops running Windows 10 Enterprise. When the Anniversary update came, almost all of them got hosed. Most were recoverable after wasting a couple hours fiddling. One was so hosed that I gave up, reformatted the drive, and installed Windows 7 Pro.

It was that event that solidified my loathing for Windows 10. Microsoft cares more about siphoning your personal data now than putting out even a minimally viable product.

Re:This should be entertaining

[The-Ixian]

Wait... you are using Enterprise versions but you are not using WSUS to manage updates?

Re:This should be entertaining

[ilsaloving]

Like I said, it's was a limited experiment. We actually use Windows 7 Pro generally, but since Microsoft has decided to take away fundamental controls from every edition lower than Windows 10 Enterprise, I refused to experiment with anything lower.

But even if we had been using WSUS, what would that have helped? The Aniv Update would have still hosed the machines, no?

Re:This should be entertaining

[__aaclcg7560]

Reimaging nearly a thousand machines with a single IT person is just going to be a disaster.

That depends on your setup. I did a PC refresh project where I replaced 750 old workstations with new workstations. Reimaging 150 systems per hour over the network was easy, but the data transfer and installing non-common applications took forever. I got the one year project done in nine months.

Re:This should be entertaining

[chispito]

At least Microsoft allowed you to upgrade to 10. Our main investor is a former Microsoft SVP so we are required to use their garbage software, and one product until a few months ago wouldn't allow you to use any newer version of Windows than Vista. I don't understand their decision on that, but that means every single desktop and laptop in the entire company is running Vista, and Microsoft decided to screw their users by not allowing an upgrade 10. I don't know what we're going to do. Reimaging nearly a thousand machines with a single IT person is just going to be a disaster. I just don't get why they refuse to allow us to upgrade.

Your company chose to use software that only runs on a 10-year-old operating system. Your company apparently feels like one technician to 1000 machines is a good ratio. How is either of those Microsoft's fault? How does this add up to Microsoft not allowing you to upgrade?

Re:This should be entertaining

[Grishnakh]

Why should MS care about putting out a "minimally viable product"? It's not like customers are going to switch to something else, so it's perfectly rational for them to concentrate their efforts on siphoning your personal data.

Re:This should be entertaining

[The-Ixian]

Like I said, it's was a limited experiment. We actually use Windows 7 Pro generally, but since Microsoft has decided to take away fundamental controls from every edition lower than Windows 10 Enterprise, I refused to experiment with anything lower.

But even if we had been using WSUS, what would that have helped? The Aniv Update would have still hosed the machines, no?

No, as this very article is explaining, they only JUST released 1607 (anniversary update) into the WSUS channel.

Up until now (or next patch Tuesday), 1607 has not bee in WSUS. If you wanted to deploy it, you had to grab it manually and deploy it.

Even if it was in there, with WSUS, you simply put the test laptops into a different rollout group and don't approve the update for that group.

Re:This should be entertaining

[thegarbz]

This sounds more like a proof of concept in stupidity. Why would you even play with an Enterprise version of Windows if you're not carefully managing updates via WSUS?

Why would you do an uncontrolled release of a full new OS image, something which normally is done only after considerable testing?

Re:This should be entertaining

[antdude]

That is why my workplace's IT did not release this update. It's buggy and not ready.

Re:This should be entertaining

[ilsaloving]

You're missing my point. Okay, so I delayed the update. Then what? I apply the update now, instead of before, and the laptops get hosed now instead of earlier.

How do you predict that a major OS from the defacto OS vendor in the world, is going to put out a major update that trashes a bunch of computers that have been certified to run said OS?

Ready?

[zuxun]

The Anniversary Update deleted the grub bootloader of my debian desktop when it was released a few months ago for desktop computers. I don't know if they fixed it since then.

Re:Ready?

[NotAPK]

Windows has always abused Linux bootloaders, but generally only during installs.

So one has to wonder: wtf is a Windows update messing about with the bootloader at all? Perhaps the update damaged the installation, and the mindless "auto repair" features at the next boot mangled the bootloader? What a productivity killer...

Re:Ready?

[sexconker]

Every major update to Windows 10 is essentially performed via a dirty reinstall.
They call this progress.

Re:Ready?

[Predius]

The Anniversary 'update' is essentially an upgrade install hence why it mucked with the bootloader, just like an install.

Re:Ready?

[thegarbz]

They call this progress.

It is. Far better than the previous utter clusterfuck of an ever expanding and increasingly spagettied windows code base.

TBH I would prefer Linux updates come through the same way. Dependency hell is just as much of a problem for Linux as it is for Windows when there's a jump in major versions. The only good thing about Linux is they actually find and fix the bugs quickly so waiting but a few weeks is usually enough to ensure a reliable upgrade.

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

As a sysad wrestling with 1607 at this very moment...
We don't choose what gets used, we're just the grunts in the field told to "Make it work".
People well above our pay grade make blind decisions and we end up paying for it.

I really wish Linux was more prevalent as an Enterprise desktop platform, but as long as people fear anything resembling change, it is what it is.
It's hard enough getting our aging data entry mooks to use Office 2010 without them falling over themselves, let alone Open Office/Libre.

Re:Nope

[__aaclcg7560]

The network guys at my job put in a rule at the gateway to prevent the Window 10 upgrade message from popping up in the first place. Not that any of the users have admin rights to upgrade Windows 7 to Windows 10 if they did click on the link.

It's only NOW fit?

[SeaFox]

So... the Windows versions before the one that isn't even coming out for half a year are not fit for business then?
That will be such a comfort for all the SMB's who were forced onto the current version, regardless of their wishes.

Re:It's only NOW fit?

[Leslie43]

You expected this to be the first Windows version where users were not beta testers? If anything, it's gotten worse.

Re:It's only NOW fit?

[thegarbz]

So... the Windows versions before the one that isn't even coming out for half a year are not fit for business then?

Yes but only if you have no idea how to use a Windows computer. There is no version that's not fit for business. There's only staggered release versions. The current build that most people should be on is 1607. That has been Current Branch and also the Long Term Service Branch since it was released in August, and 3 months later became the Current Branch for Business.

Just tick defer updates in the Settings. That will put you on the CBB branch release cycle. This is an option available to EVERY Windows 10 version, including your poor marginalised SMBs who have this option available to them.

Re:Nope

[NotAPK]

Why would anyone upgrade a single day before the long term extended support period ends in 2020?

Re: Excellent

[110010001000]

I'm just kidding. I wouldn't touch Windows with YOUR ten foot pole.

It's always summer ...

[PPH]

... at Microsoft.

Re:Excellent

[LifesABeach]

Well, at least we now know, or have always known, what Microsoft thinks of your business.

Re: Excellent

[LifesABeach]

I agree, every time m$ chirps, I watch to see the comedy that forms the chorus.

Hyper-V??? on a desktop os?

[Joe_Dragon]

Hyper-V??? on a desktop os?

Server 2016 is same base OS but with less UI and other stuff running. Now 2016 may have a newer Hyper-V core then windows 10.

Re: Hyper-V??? on a desktop os?

[Billly Gates]

No it's identical except for some tuning and server manager. Don't believe me Google turning NT 4 workstation into NT server by 2 registry changes. Or maybe that was Windows 2000.

Hyper-V has been part of Windows desktop since 8.0. Same core and everything from server. Only difference is lack of clustering, replica, and nic teaming.

Just enable it under add or remove windows features if you don't want to pay for VMware workstation?

I use it because VMware workstation sucks majorly on my Windows 8.1 desktop

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, any shop with more than 10 users won't let you authorize ordering office supplies, let alone software, unless you are pretty high on the org chart.

Re:Funny

[JamesTRexx]

Server 2016 is same OS base too. No thanks until MS hires a QA department back.

What I experienced this week; the update service crashed other services out of the blue without a clue, found out nic teaming doesn't work as expected after nic 1 was disconnected, losing connections from half the network, and DHCP loadbalancing made clients disconnect from the network often for several seconds.

Applause for Microsoft and their wondeful job of delivering a stable, high quality server OS with critical services to synchronise an administrator's email, documents and media files online and use XBox online services. *claps slowly*

Re: Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Your job is to provide the right services for the rest of the company. If I need Photoshop or AutoCAD or Solidworks then frankly I don't give 2 shits about your religious ideological views on computer software development methodology or whether you abbreviate Microsoft with a $ sign because you don't like them. If you're not capable of doing the job of supporting the other people in the organization then you don't get the job.

I'm sorry, but what's your job again?

[Leslie43]

If Linux was more prevalent, you probably wouldn't have a job.
Hate MS all you want, but if your job there is to fix these problems. No problems = no job. Stop trying to make your job redundant, you should be praising MS for keeping food on your table.


And no, you aren't paying for it, you're paid to deal with it.
It may seem like a subtle difference, but your paycheck says otherwise.

I'm downgrading to 7

[t0qer]

A little late for some quality karma whoring here but....

We have some NVR software for our IP cameras. I thought it would be a good idea to upgrade the VM running it to windows 10. Huge mistake.. I can't fsck'ing control when the damn things reboot. (This is 10 pro)

So I'm downgrading our NVR machines to win 7. Sorry MS, 10 works great on the desktop, my GPO objects mostly work, but this reboot thing is a HUGE issue.

Finally!

[dbIII]

Finally!
It's about time that they made that piece of shit fit to be used in the business environment since it's getting more difficult to get MS Windows 7.

Re: Funny

[Billly Gates]

Come on! Grandma tested it. Look Facebook loads just fine on her Acer. Go release server 2016 as we had 2 million testers and no telemetry of a single NIC teaming failure!

I know MS is bashed here often but server 2008 r2 thru 2012 r2 are actually Ok and .... RELIABLE. Yes you heard that. But without a QA department I do not know what to do when Server 2012 R2 goes EOL?

I hate being those old whippersnappers afraid of change that scatter the IT community, but with more Oracle like per core licensing of 2016 and this shitware with 10 I am afraid to move forward. If Windows 8.1 had a start menu for my users I wouldn't mind upgrading 7 to that when EOL hits soon.

But I will be fired if I deploy 10 or server in it's current state. I cannot have only 3 months to stop a feature update that breaks something??!! Worse cumulative security updates means I can't ever run legacy software and stay secure?? If one bad update from 2014 breaks a website ActiveX control I cannot have a cumulative update as it will break that control etc.

Time to think long and hard about my career as I will be fired anyway when I can't meet my 97.97% uptime required by my annual performance evaluation. Thanks Microsoft

Windows 10 for business?

[Toshito]

I work for a 50,000+ employees company, and we're currently completing our Windows XP to Windows 7 upgrade...

So Windows 10? Maybe in 5 or 6 years?