3 ms·

If the IT staff for any large organization hasn't reviewed their inventory for affected systems and taken appropriate steps... that's outright incompetence. Th

If the IT staff for any large organization hasn't reviewed their inventory for affected systems and taken appropriate steps... that's outright incompetence. The writing has been on the wall for years and MS clearly documents unaffected systems (which includes Windows 7 Enterprise) and the required Group Policy to block the update[1]. [1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080351

justinclift 11y ago
Senior judges often don't operate that way. ;)
acqq 11y ago
It's the same link I've already given above? And fascinatingly for you, "the writing was on the wall," and for some other commenters, it's unimaginable that it even happens. The perceptions of individuals are really hugely different.
- tekklloneer 11y ago
  The difference in context is important. If you're working in IT, the writing was on the wall.
  - saidajigumi 11y ago
    This is exactly what I was getting at. For individuals and small organizations that often have no dedicated IT staff at all, they're the ones who'll get hit by Microsoft's forced-upgrade policy. But for any large organization with deployed Windows systems, that absolutely requires a managed Windows environment for an ocean of reasons. That means a competent Windows IT staff that handles all those things, including: security configuration and updates, controlled testing and release of updates, data retention and deletion policies, and on and on. For such shops, handling a change like this from Microsoft is already day-in-the-life. They already have to vet updates that may (and do) break business-critical software, while also ensuring that critical security updates are pushed out in a timely manner, etc.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    There are literally millions of businesses with no IT department who bought consumer workstations or laptops running outside of a domain. There are millions of small businesses who literally don't have the expertise (or frankly, the need) to run a domain controller, and who certainly don't have enough money to justify purchasing a server and a Windows server license to do so. I'm genuinely curious as to whether I'll be down voted for this. It's completely the case, and I'm not asking not to be downvote do, but could folks at least explain why they don't like the comment?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
xjay 11y ago
Not sure why someone would downvote this. Incompetence is pretty much a constant in IT in varying degrees, but I'd expect IT professionals to know about kb3080351. It's certainly not "news" given the media attention this subject has had ever since the "explosion" in June/July, when Microsoft chose to ignore that opt out setting, and even re-enabling telemetry prior to the upgrade. Edit: I can take a downvote defending a factually correct point, which was originally posted by saidajigumi (who was downvoted, which is why I posted my somewhat cheeky (in retrospect) response, and why I upvoted his post). I don't think most people disagree about it being unfortunate for normal users to be upgraded, but that wasn't what our comments were about.

justinclift 11y ago

Senior judges often don't operate that way. ;)

acqq 11y ago

It's the same link I've already given above? And fascinatingly for you, "the writing was on the wall," and for some other commenters, it's unimaginable that it even happens. The perceptions of individuals are really hugely different.

tekklloneer 11y ago
The difference in context is important. If you're working in IT, the writing was on the wall.
- saidajigumi 11y ago
  This is exactly what I was getting at. For individuals and small organizations that often have no dedicated IT staff at all, they're the ones who'll get hit by Microsoft's forced-upgrade policy. But for any large organization with deployed Windows systems, that absolutely requires a managed Windows environment for an ocean of reasons. That means a competent Windows IT staff that handles all those things, including: security configuration and updates, controlled testing and release of updates, data retention and deletion policies, and on and on. For such shops, handling a change like this from Microsoft is already day-in-the-life. They already have to vet updates that may (and do) break business-critical software, while also ensuring that critical security updates are pushed out in a timely manner, etc.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  There are literally millions of businesses with no IT department who bought consumer workstations or laptops running outside of a domain. There are millions of small businesses who literally don't have the expertise (or frankly, the need) to run a domain controller, and who certainly don't have enough money to justify purchasing a server and a Windows server license to do so. I'm genuinely curious as to whether I'll be down voted for this. It's completely the case, and I'm not asking not to be downvote do, but could folks at least explain why they don't like the comment?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xjay 11y ago

Not sure why someone would downvote this. Incompetence is pretty much a constant in IT in varying degrees, but I'd expect IT professionals to know about kb3080351. It's certainly not "news" given the media attention this subject has had ever since the "explosion" in June/July, when Microsoft chose to ignore that opt out setting, and even re-enabling telemetry prior to the upgrade. Edit: I can take a downvote defending a factually correct point, which was originally posted by saidajigumi (who was downvoted, which is why I posted my somewhat cheeky (in retrospect) response, and why I upvoted his post). I don't think most people disagree about it being unfortunate for normal users to be upgraded, but that wasn't what our comments were about.