Microsoft...
...doing Microsoft things.
Microsoft has offered a Known Issue Rollback (KIR) for users affected by the many and varied problems with the KB5043145 build of Windows 11. The September 2024 non-security preview update is threatening to overshadow the release of Windows 11 24H2. While it has gone smoothly for many users, the experience has been anything …
Always have been...it's just in much older versions of Windows there weren't automatic updates.
Personally, I don't mind being a guinea pig for update testing (so long as I have enough information to know what an update is changing, which is the main pain point for a lot of people I think), even with the resources Microsoft has they can't test every conceivable combination of hardware / software out there...but I can see why some people would be put out by it...they should have a flag in the OS that can be set to highlight willingness to access updates early. Give this group access a week early before making an update mandatory (except for security updates).
But it is worth noting that the article states that the update is an optional non-security preview - therefore users had to *voluntarily* click "[download and] Install" in Windows Update to grab it.
It sounds like the guinea pigs were willing to *be* guinea pigs in this instance.
This year I've had more Linux updates that stopped a computer from booting (one update) than Windows ones (currently zero).
Maybe next year will be different. So it goes.
It's usually not FOMO...it's usually because a user has a long standing issue and a "big update" presents hope that it might be fixed. If you're already using something that is technically knackered, the risk of introducing more problems over actually receiving a fix is diminished.
> a user has a long standing issue and a "big update" presents hope that it might be fixed
Please give me his telephone number, I have that bridge which I'm sure he will be interested in...
Seriously, I rather think (from experience), that once burned, you will rather wait for other people to confirm that the newest update is harmless, even potentially beneficial. No, the people who download the latest and shiniest are those who also will always buy the latest model of their favorite phone brand (ideally the very day it is released), and so on. People who need to prove (themselves) they are on the bleeding edge, always one step ahead of the pack (of "sheeple", which they are not, because they lead, they don't follow, you see?).
To be fair, overheating is par for the course for an X1 running Windows.
I dual boot on an X1 and the thermal difference between Windows and Linux is night and day. I'm using an older Gen 6 X1 (because so far there has never been a compelling reason to upgrade, my current X1 has been all over the world and taken some beatings and yet still performs as well now as it did on the first day I bought it)...I've had to replace the battery in it once, but that's not a big deal and I re-pasted it a week after I bought it because the stock thermal compound was crap...re-pasting using a better compound dropped my average temps by 4c just by itself...I also upgraded the NVME drive at some point to a WD Black for added capacity and better performance.
Yes Lenovos need repasting but don't believe that the paste of your choice is the best for the situation. It took me 4 different pastes to find the best one on my P71, and I hold the XTU / XTU2 record to show for these efforts (my temps on the best paste dropped 15c+). But taking apart the unit 4 times is a royal PITA so most won't know, and most won't try.
25 years ago Microsoft let MCSEs get beta releases. We installed them knowing the bugs were there but that was the risk we took to stay up to date on the next release of major systems. And our reports were accepted my Microsoft and handled professionally.
Today these betas are released to the entire world and major changes are opening all the time. And only once major problems make the news cycle does Microsoft blink and respond.
The big difference (IMHO)? Microsoft evicerated their bets testing team in the early 2000s. And why not? They have the entire Internet user base as a distributed test pool.
25 years ago professionals involved in deploying Windows actually cared about Windows...not only because Windows 2000 was a solid OS and well thought out, but also because MCSEs could access commission from Microsoft as well as discounts for their customers...there was a reason to care because the quality of the product affected your ability to sell it and thus earn a kick back from the licenses.
Microsoft shot themselves in the foot there taking away commissions because all that is left is the direct cost to the customer and the suitability of the tech being deployed. Microsoft can't really compete there. It's been a long time since I was forced to deploy Windows Server for back office solutions...and I'm quite happy about that.
These days, if I have to login to a Windows Server to do something once in a blue moon, I'm always struck by how slow and clunky it is.
Remember when software had to pass its unit tests before the patch was merged in to the build, when the shiny new build had to pass QA and regression testing before it got the visibility of becoming an alpha or beta release, when once it was anointed as a RC there was a full UAT cycle before it got blessed for an actual "release"?
Don't get me wrong, I LIKE agile development models - when implemented well they tend to outperform waterfall-style development in MOST cases. But they do tend to introduce a subtle pressure towards this "The end-users are our test environment" situation. In a lot of scenarios that's (almost) fine, a large user-base will find quirks, bugs and misfeatures faster than most QA teams could and if you're agile ENOUGH that pain won't last long, you'll have them fixed promptly.
But for the OS itself, or for other software in (for example) a highly regulated environment, one has to wonder. The inherent increased stability (where the released software is concerned, at least) of a waterfall development model still has much to recommend it.
There's nothing wrong with Agile, as long as you have user stories for "specify unit tests", "write unit tests", and possibly ones for component-testing, grey-box tests, and integration testing too.
I wish I could be an advocate for test-driven-development, but until I've had the experience of working in an organisation that not only allows it, but encourages it, and actually devotes resources to it, that remains a pipe-dream.
The real problem is that in most places, those in charge do not have a background in development or a scientific or an engineering discipline, but rather in a typical type-A bullshit field, such as sales or marketing, and thus they don't even care that they don't understand, as long as they can bullshit their way into their next "leadership role," and leave their last set of dumpster fires behind them with no consequences.
I don't think Microsoft can win when it comes to updates. They either need to be speedy (with risk attached) or they need to be slow (with risk attached)...fewer people will be angry with quickly released buggy updates than slower released less buggy updates...especially when it comes to security patches.
Sure, but it would be nice if Microsoft could respect system settings and not blindly reset them. For example 24H2 which dropped yesterday resets 802.1x. Today as users reboot they're finding 802.1x is wiped and they can't authenticate onto the LAN, so can't pick up GPO policy to configure the connections. All it would take is for the updater to backup the config then reapply it. Even using netsh would do.
So tired of Microsoft and the lazy, sloppy couldn't care less approach to paying customers.