Windows 10 1903 imminent

Status
Not open for further replies.

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
And if the vendors haven't, what then? MS should release the update despite the consequences or take the hit to the planned schedule and not release it?
I would think the answer to that depends on whether the vendors have dragged their heels before. If they have, and I do recall antivirus issues with some earlier versions, then why should MS delay?

You can't expect MS to keep delaying because other vendors keep dropping the ball. If that impacts customers of those products then perhaps they should vote with their feet and stop using those products?
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
And there's where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't believe in punishing consumers for ignorance, or that inflicting avoidable problems on them is the right way to educate.

People need their PCs for essential daily living activities (say, online banking, welfare, tax, health, financial matters, etc) and deciding that basically it's time they learned some facts of life by locking them out of their systems and letting them fend for themselves is incredibly high-handed and technocratic.

MS shouldn't believe in punishing consumers for ignorance either, though from a different, less humane point of view. If consumers got more savvy about operating systems, as well as (allegedly) truculent AV providers and Windows Updates, a lot of them could just switch to Linux and do all their mundane PC tasks on that instead. You don't really need Windows to use a browser, check emails, stream a movie, do light office work, and look at digital photos. It's not in MS's interest to roll out more 'problematic' updates, for which people will be as likely to blame them as the AV providers. Rightly so tbh; since the decision to roll out an update ultimately lies with MS, even if they have been let down by partners.

And on another note, if MS is meant to be leading others, vendors and consumers, and the vendors aren't following, MS just charging ahead anyway isn't the answer. It would be the answer for a toddler. But if MS isn't persuading partners to work with them properly, they need to reflect on their approach.
 

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
Nobody is being punished, nor am I suggesting anyone should be.

If for example, Ford produced a new model of car but the Michelin and Bridgestone tyres didn't fit it because they had failed to properly follow Ford's development cycle and update their tyres, customers would instead by Pirelli tyres that did fit. You wouldn't expect Ford to delay the launch of the new model to give Michelin and Bridgestone extra time to do work they should already have done.

In a similar way, if Avast and McAffe antivirus doesn't work on 1903 then why should Microsoft delay the release of 1903, and incidentally, inconvenience their customer base who are waiting for it, to give Avast and McAffe more time to do work they should have already done?

I use Comodo CIS for example, which is working well on 1903, so why must I be denied 1903 on time because of Avast and McAffe products which I don't use?
 

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
Exactly.

Except a lot of people have no idea about AVs. They'll have bought their PC from a store, probably with one ready-installed, and that's that. If they know anything at all, it's that 'you need an antivirus'.

Tempting as it is for techies to leave the ball in the users' court, it's simply not a reasonable thing to expect. It should be, but it isn't, because IT literacy (and consumer knowledge more generally) isn't what we'd all wish.

Ah but that's again not on Microsoft - that is down to the companies selling the hardware making extra money by adding on unnecessary products.

I believe even PCS offer an AV product installation at the time of purchase and you have to ask yourself why?

Because, as a partner, they usually get a small fee when the user signs up to pay for it.

PC World will add on any rubbish they can to try to up their revenue and that extends especially to AV products.

The fact also remains that the sheer bulk of MS's profits come from corporate users and with Enterprise versions of Windows 10, you've never been forced to accept updates at all, never mind feature releases.

Ultimately the fault, I believe, is neither Microsoft's or the users but lies firmly in the hands of the AV writers.
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
If for example, Ford produced a new model of car but the Michelin and Bridgestone tyres didn't fit it because they had failed to properly follow Ford's development cycle and update their tyres, customers would instead by Pirelli tyres that did fit. You wouldn't expect Ford to delay the launch of the new model to give Michelin and Bridgestone extra time to do work they should already have done.
That doesn't really work as an analogy for so many reasons :)

But let's stick with the reason that for it to work, the users would have to be already driving the cars - and somehow the car is updated rendering the tires incompatible.

And if users were unaware and didn't swap to different tires (which they could get free, or could pay for, having already paid for the old tires), their cars would stop working.

I think in a scenario like that, people would stop buying Fords at least as much as Michelin tires. I certainly wouldn't buy a Ford if they did that...
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
I use Comodo CIS for example, which is working well on 1903, so why must I be denied 1903 on time because of Avast and McAffe products which I don't use?
because you can still log into Windows and use the PC with 1809, as can everyone else.

If someone gets 1903 and has these issues, they're screwed,

Ultimately the fault, I believe, is neither Microsoft's or the users but lies firmly in the hands of the AV writers.
It may be their fault.

But it's consumers who don't know better who will get hit hardest, at least in the first instance.

And I can't believe anyone in their right minds would want to see that kind of harm befall other people tbh.

Microsoft can probably absorb the hit of not releasing a new version for a while better than 1 person can not being able to use their PC for a day or longer while they try to work out what's happening, or take it to a PC repair shop, etc. Multiplied by however many people are affected.

You both seem to be arguing that because Microsoft are blameless, they have an inviolable right to forge ahead with their plans and, effectively, cause a lot of quite serious problems for a lot of end users.

Maybe they do have that right, but they really shouldn't exercise it....

But somehow it's being argued that triggering massive problems for people that could have real and detrimental effects on their lives (e.g. missing application deadlines because they can't use their PC) is okay, because it wasn't MS's fault - even if MS have the power to stop that happening... Blows my mind tbh. It's downright cruel.
 
Last edited:

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
because you can still log into Windows and use the PC with 1809, as can everyone else.

If someone gets 1903 and has these issues, they're screwed,

It may be their fault.

But it's consumers who don't know better who will get hit hardest, at least in the first instance.

And I can't believe anyone in their right minds would want to see that kind of harm befall other people tbh.

Microsoft can probably absorb the hit of not releasing a new version for a while better than 1 person can not being able to use their PC for a day or longer while they try to work out what's happening, or take it to a PC repair shop, etc. Multiplied by however many people are affected.

You both seem to be arguing that because Microsoft are blameless, they have an inviolable right to forge ahead with their plans and, effectively, cause a lot of quite serious problems for a lot of end users.

Maybe they do have that right, but they really shouldn't exercise it....

But somehow it's being argued that triggering massive problems for people that could have real and detrimental effects on their lives (e.g. missing application deadlines because they can't use their PC) is okay, because it wasn't MS's fault - even if MS have the power to stop that happening... Blows my mind tbh. It's downright cruel.

However. You're missing one massive point - from 1903 there is no FORCED feature release update.

Ergo, no one is being made to take the update this time round.

Granted, that's dependent on MS keeping their word on that.

Also, you are effectively arguing that that the AV writers have the right to hold MS to ransom. If MS give in and say fine - have a few more weeks to put right what you haven't been able to/wanted to for the last 6 months.

Where does _that_ stop?

Next up, it's because there's an issue with Firefox? Or WinZip? Or...?

Because it's the same argument- there's a perfectly functional web browser (well, two) built into Windows 10 as well as a perfectly functional (for most people) unzipping utility.
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
Where does _that_ stop?
I don't claim to have the answer to that. Frankly, that doesn't concern me. That's a problem for another day.

The big picture for me isn't MS's business relationships with its partners, it's the end user.

lso, you are effectively arguing that that the AV writers have the right to hold MS to ransom. If MS give in and say fine - have a few more weeks to put right what you haven't been able to/wanted to for the last 6 months.
MS being forced to change their plans still beats users being this seriously affected by an update.

We're not talking about "Wahh... my Start Menu's tiles have gone again!" here...

However. You're missing one massive point - from 1903 there is no FORCED feature release update.

Ergo, no one is being made to take the update this time round.
I'm missing nothing. Even if MS keep their word (and it depends what exact form it takes too - if it's not forced, will it be pushed and if so how?) people will still take the update, unaware of what it will do to them.

Because it's an update, right?

If MS release the update as strictly optional, provide 0 encouragement for users to take it, and include a clear warning that it will break people's systems if they don't change Antivirus first (not an obscure reference on a website, but a popup that stops people installing the update until they've read it, then fair enough. Maybe. I say maybe, because some users will still manage to shoot themselves with this.

MS aren't gonna do that anyway, either, let's be real...

So what are you advocating? It's totally cool for MS to release this update, because if users do get screwed it wasn't MS's fault?

It's not fair to MS if they have been let down by partners, but they can weather it a whole lot more than some people can the unexpected loss of access to their PC.

If that's your opinion, you're entitled to hold it, but I can't disagree with it vehemently enough.
 
Last edited:

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
I don't claim to have the answer to that. Frankly, that doesn't concern me. That's a problem for another day.

The big picture for me isn't MS's business relationships with its partners, it's the end user.

MS being forced to change their plans still beats users being this seriously affected by an update.

We're not talking about "Wahh... my Start Menu's tiles have gone again!" here...

I'm missing nothing. Even if MS keep their word (and it depends what exact form it takes too - if it's not forced, will it be pushed and if so how?) people will still take the update, unaware of what it will do to them.

Because it's an update, right?

If MS release the update as strictly optional, provide 0 encouragement for users to take it, and include a clear warning that it will break people's systems if they don't change Antivirus first, then fair enough.

MS aren't gonna do that...

So what are you advocating? It's totally cool for MS to release this update, because if users do get screwed it wasn't MS's fault?

If that's your opinion, you're entitled to hold it, but I can't disagree with it vehemently enough.

Well you have the right to be wrong in the same way users have the right to not educate themselves about things and in the same way AV providers have the right to not fix an issue known about for months.

And actually MS are doing just what you say they aren't, including a new publicly available issues dashboard to flag prominent problems:


Edit: I should add in the same way I have the right to be viewed as wrong in the eyes of others.
 

Oussebon

Multiverse Poster
Well you have the right to be wrong in the same way users have the right to not educate themselves about things and in the same way AV providers have the right to not fix an issue known about for months.
And there it is. Spoken like a true techie. Thought we weren't blaming the users... but we are, because "users have the right to not educate themselves about things "

Except it was always obvious you were doing that.

Don't even bother trying to suggest that remark was non-judgemental.

And as for being wrong, the blog appears to 100% confirm what I was saying?

I'd suggest you try learning some basic English if it was a comprehension issue, but it's alright; users have the right not to educate themselves.

We may notify you when a feature update is available and ready for your machine.
So they are advertising updates. Which is obvious, because if they put that much resource into it, they're not going to not do some level of pushing. Asking them not to advertise an update would be rather unreasonable in fairness (which is part of why I'd suggest not releasing yet it is the smarter play).

And the information provided to users, if as advertised on that page, is still very much putting the onus on the user to look for issues.

If you're a user, and you get told there's an update, there's a fair chance you'll take it without going to that website to trawl and see whether it might lock you out of your system because your AV developers were lazy (assuming that was the cause; still not established).

Microsoft really aren't blameless here though either, even if they have been let down. If their partners aren't pulling their weight, then the partnership isn't working. It;s not okay for MS to then pass the burden of that onto consumers, rather than trying to fix the partnership. MS also have a lot more clout than any individual AV company (probably fair to say all of them put together?). If Microsoft feel they're being held to ransom, they could try leveraging some of that clout in the future to be more robust with their partners - or perhaps re-examine the partnership to make it more effective and understand what has gone wrong.

If you have a team of 5 people and 2 of them aren't pulling their weight, it's not because you have 2 layabouts (even if you do) it's because the team's flawed, and perhaps the setup was not right. And absolutely the wrong approach would be to ignore the fundamental issue and leave the customers with worse service - even if that means the 3 members of the team who personally did their utmost don't get to see the fruits of the labours realised so fast.

But no, poor little MS take so much flak. It's time they stood up for themselves, and if there are consumers as casualties along the way, well, more grist for the mill! It was their fault for not educating themselves.

I'll let you and others have the last words on this, as there's no point discussing any further from my end; I think we've all been very clear about the level of contempt or otherwise we have for the end user. Some people including you seen happy to 'let them eat cake'. That mindset disgusts me; it's poison.

This is the kind of attitude that I truly despise. Sadly, it's very prevalent in the IT industry, and also certain Govt. departments like the Home Office (which is guilty of atrocities like the hostile environment, more or less because of that technocratic zealotry).

Still, if you're happy that people will get screwed, and that MS have the power to make that not happen but will forge ahead regardless, bully for you. I want nothing to do with awful people like that.
 
Last edited:

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
And there it is. Spoken like a true techie. Thought we weren't blaming the users... but we are, because "users have the right to not educate themselves about things "

Except it was always obvious you were doing that.

Don't even bother trying to suggest that remark was non-judgemental.

And as for being wrong, the blog appears to 100% confirm what I was saying?

So they are advertising updates. Which is obvious, because if they put that much resource into it, they're not going to not do some level of pushing.

And the information provided to users, if as advertised on that page, is still very much putting the onus on the user to look for issues.

If you're a user, and you get told there's an update, there's a fairly good chance you'll take it without going to that website...

Microsoft really aren't blameless here though either. If their partners aren't pulling their weight, then the partnership isn't working. It;s not okay for MS to then pass the burden of that onto consumers, rather than trying to fix the partnership. MS also have a lot more clout than any individual AV company (probably fair to say all of them put together?). If Microsoft feel they're being held to ransom, they could try leveraging some of that clout in the future to be more robust with their partners - or perhaps just be more effective.

If you have a team of 5 people and 2 of them aren't pulling their weight, it's not because you have 2 layabouts (even if you do) it's because the team's flawed, and perhaps the setup was not right.

But no, poor little MS take so much flak that they deserve the odd bit of shilling.

I'll let you and ubuysa have the last words on this, as there's no point discussing any further. As for the users, you're clearly quite happy to 'let them eat cake'. That mindset disgusts me; it's poison.

This is the kind of attitude that I truly despise. Sadly, it's very prevalent in the IT industry, and also certain Govt. departments like the Home Office.

Still, if you're happy that people will get screwed, and that MS have the power to make that not happen but will forge ahead regardless, bully for you. I want nothing to do with awful people like that.

You have your opinion. I have mine. I also see what happens when you run product release cycles - or projects - either by committee (we will wait until everyone is ready - translation, we never get there) or with weak leadership.

Sometimes you have to quite literally force people's hands. It's a poor situation but happens. Far more often than it doesn't.

I've designed solutions and run projects from a handful of users to - well, my biggest to date was around 240,000 but I'm about to top that at around 395,000 on crazy tight deadlines.

Trying to wait for everyone to be aligned is suicide because as I say, you simply hit gridlock.

It's not my job - and perhaps it bends my perspective some when talking about issues like this - to hold hands, to wait , or even to make friends - it's mine to design and deliver and, to date, I have.

And that's not arrogance, either, because I surround myself with the best people and if, per your example, 40% of them weren't pulling their weight, they're gone, because allowing that isn't a flawed team, it's flawed leadership. And you are letting the 60% down terribly but allowing it to continue.

Hers what will in all probability actually happen: 1903 will release around May and pretty much every AV will work when it does.

And since when did we get into personal insults? Calling me am awful person because I have a different point of view about a software release?

Shame on you, and a terrible example for a moderator to set.
 
Last edited:

ubuysa

The BSOD Doctor
I do understand Oussebon's point that non-technical users should not have to suffer their computer becoming non-usable when a Windows upgrade is installed - regardless of whose fault that is. But, and this is a big but, Windows-based computers are not a black box that just works. I'd agree that they probably should be, perhaps in time they will be, but they're not today. Because they're not, the ideal situation where upgrades 'just work' is simply not yet attainable. The big question, and what I think we're really discussing here, is how do software vendors and Microsoft best manage that?

We all know I think that the concept of thoroughly testing everything is an impossibility, there are just so many hardware and software variables in the Windows world. That means that, try as they might, there are going to be some users experiencing problems following a Windows upgrade. It comes down to 'how many broken systems is acceptable'? That number is always going to be greater than zero of course.

The purpose of the Windows insider program is to allow users and vendors to test their systems on the upcoming version. It seems to me, that those vendors using features or interfaces that are non-standard, and especially if they are undocumented, need to very thoroughly test their products as soon as they can and as much as they can. These are primarily the anti-malware vendors, which is why I find it surprising that on the eve of release, when the 1903 version has moved through all the lower rings, we still have issues with their products. What have the anti-malware vendors been doing all this time?

It is unfair that users should pay the price of their chosen anti-malware vendor dropping the ball, but the solution is simple; uninstall the anti-malware product! Most ordinary end users don't need third party anti-malware products in any case, Windows 10's firewall and Defender works very well.

If a user complained on these fora that the latest Windows upgrade broke their computer because of their anti-malware product we'd all advise them to uninstall the anti-malware product...

The main reason why ordinary end users have third party anti-malware products installed at all is because they came bundled with their new computer, a money making 'scam' by third party anti-malware vendors to trick users into paying a subscription for anti-malware services that they didn't ask for and don't need. I do wonder how many units companies like McAffe would shift if they weren't bundled with new computers?! And how many computers have we all seen where a third party anti-malware bundled product is out of the free period and the user chose not to pay the subscription? They then have a computer with probably worse security than if they just used Defender!

Of course I don't wish to inconvenience users, but if we keep asking Microsoft to delay and delay so that vendors, who produce products that most users really don't need these days, can play catch-up then this kind of problem is going to keep occurring. Microsoft would be better served by advocating for their own security products and weaning basic users away from expensive third party versions that they don't need, rather than delaying an upgrade because of these same third party vendors.
 

Tony1044

Prolific Poster
Of course one simple solution, that they've done before with OS upgrades is to detect the incompatible software prior to installing and (in this case) offer three options:

1. Continue, uninstalling the problem software and reverting to defender;

2. Warn that the software might cause and stop the install;

3. Warn that the software might cause an issue but continue anyway at your own risk.

But I still expect these issues to be gone by the time it's released to the public.
 

moosEh

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
I am not happy with the way this thread has been going so its locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top