4 ms·

> It’s cheap. Until you cannot use your system at a critical time because MS decided you needed an update. Then the cost may be anything between what you paid,

> It’s cheap. Until you cannot use your system at a critical time because MS decided you needed an update. Then the cost may be anything between what you paid, and the total value of your entire business. > Not buying any electricity from the grid today? Or any internet or cloud services, or any rented office space? There are regulations to protect people from arbitrarily loosing access to those things, and to provide them a means to dispute bogus eviction / cut-off notices. You cannot simply walk into a space you have leased and tell everyone to pack up and leave that moment. Except for the cloud services bit, but I contend that many businesses could avoid the use of cloud services if they so choose. > or just ignoring the group policy options and the months of time you could choose to update If I paid for it, it should be my prerogative to never update if I so choose. The fact that you can use an obscure GPO that may or may not work on this weeks minor revision doesn't sound very compelling. > ignoring the “update at times I’m not using it” options I have read many reports of Windows and it's users disagreeing what constitutes "using it". > ignoring the bandwidth metering options If I am not on a metered connection, I should not have to use settings relating to that to manage when my computer updates.

jodrellblank 6y ago
It’s been standard since the days of windows 2000 if not NT to manage business installs of Windows with group policies. There’s no way a business choosing to run Windows should be calling GPO “obscure” - how else are you setting policies on your business windows machines all this time? > Until you cannot use your system at a critical time because MS decided you needed an update. Then the cost may be anything between what you paid, and the total value of your entire business. Which could also happen if you put off a year’s worth of updates and get exploited. > it should be my prerogative to never update if I so choose. MS released a feature update a year ago, you’ve been unable to find a time to install it all year, now it’s being pushed on you. This is a reaction to the previous state of the world where windows machines all around the world never installed updates and we all suffered when they got malware and became spam bots, DDoS sources, bot farm members and worse. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. > If I am not on a metered connection, I should not have to use settings relating to that to manage when my computer updates. No you shouldn’t have to. But whining “there’s no way to stop it this could cost me my entire business!” Then given a way to stop it you say “I don’t want to” is ridiculous.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  > There’s no way a business choosing to run Windows should be calling GPO “obscure” - how else are you setting policies on your business windows machines all this time? Not all businesses are big.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  There are many small businesses that have a handful of machines with local accounts that used to be on Windows XP, Vista or 7 (Professional/Business editions) and worked fine for a decade. They do not need, and don't have the resources to install and manage an Active Directory domain and Windows 10 Enterprise licenses, and yet still deserve their workstations to work predictably and not get in their way. Accepting the idea that you need to invest in Active Directory, Server and Enterprise licenses and an entire IT team to manage all that just to have the privilege of your computers not constantly getting in your way is nuts.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    > worked fine for a decade. Lots of things which worked fine for a decade, don't work now, or aren't good ideas now. If they want to reject the present, and in this context reject updates, they can still use XP. It's also a bit weird to say Windows 10 which is on something like a billion computers worldwide, doesn't "work fine". And it's a bit weird to suggest that a small business with a handful of machines, is extremely disadvantaged by having a Windows Feature Update once a year, after being prompted for it and ignoring it for months. > "don't have the resources to install and manage an Active Directory domain" If they have an internet connection, Azure Active Directory[1] starts at $Free. > and yet still deserve They deserve more and different than the contract they entered into says? > their workstations to work predictably What exactly is unpredictable about this? It's not voodoo or random, feature updates have come out every Spring and Fall for the past five years, as it was documented that they would, and the Autumn one is a long-term-supported one. > "just to have the privilege of your computers not constantly getting in your way is nuts." Describing a predictable, short, /controllable/ reboot once in months as "constantly getting in your way" is nuts. Has Microsoft really done nothing else worth frothing at the mouth about that it's come down to "they install updates" these days? [1] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/active-directory/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/active-dir...

jodrellblank 6y ago

It’s been standard since the days of windows 2000 if not NT to manage business installs of Windows with group policies. There’s no way a business choosing to run Windows should be calling GPO “obscure” - how else are you setting policies on your business windows machines all this time? > Until you cannot use your system at a critical time because MS decided you needed an update. Then the cost may be anything between what you paid, and the total value of your entire business. Which could also happen if you put off a year’s worth of updates and get exploited. > it should be my prerogative to never update if I so choose. MS released a feature update a year ago, you’ve been unable to find a time to install it all year, now it’s being pushed on you. This is a reaction to the previous state of the world where windows machines all around the world never installed updates and we all suffered when they got malware and became spam bots, DDoS sources, bot farm members and worse. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. > If I am not on a metered connection, I should not have to use settings relating to that to manage when my computer updates. No you shouldn’t have to. But whining “there’s no way to stop it this could cost me my entire business!” Then given a way to stop it you say “I don’t want to” is ridiculous.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
> There’s no way a business choosing to run Windows should be calling GPO “obscure” - how else are you setting policies on your business windows machines all this time? Not all businesses are big.
Nextgrid 6y ago
There are many small businesses that have a handful of machines with local accounts that used to be on Windows XP, Vista or 7 (Professional/Business editions) and worked fine for a decade. They do not need, and don't have the resources to install and manage an Active Directory domain and Windows 10 Enterprise licenses, and yet still deserve their workstations to work predictably and not get in their way. Accepting the idea that you need to invest in Active Directory, Server and Enterprise licenses and an entire IT team to manage all that just to have the privilege of your computers not constantly getting in your way is nuts.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  > worked fine for a decade. Lots of things which worked fine for a decade, don't work now, or aren't good ideas now. If they want to reject the present, and in this context reject updates, they can still use XP. It's also a bit weird to say Windows 10 which is on something like a billion computers worldwide, doesn't "work fine". And it's a bit weird to suggest that a small business with a handful of machines, is extremely disadvantaged by having a Windows Feature Update once a year, after being prompted for it and ignoring it for months. > "don't have the resources to install and manage an Active Directory domain" If they have an internet connection, Azure Active Directory[1] starts at $Free. > and yet still deserve They deserve more and different than the contract they entered into says? > their workstations to work predictably What exactly is unpredictable about this? It's not voodoo or random, feature updates have come out every Spring and Fall for the past five years, as it was documented that they would, and the Autumn one is a long-term-supported one. > "just to have the privilege of your computers not constantly getting in your way is nuts." Describing a predictable, short, /controllable/ reboot once in months as "constantly getting in your way" is nuts. Has Microsoft really done nothing else worth frothing at the mouth about that it's come down to "they install updates" these days? [1] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/active-directory/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/active-dir...