Hoffman: Windows Isn’t a Service; It’s an Operating System

Topic

New Reply

Yet another laser-sharp analysis from Chris Hoffman at HowToGeek. “Windows as a Service” is failing. It’s obvious: Windows is not a service, and never
[See the full post at: Hoffman: Windows Isn’t a Service; It’s an Operating System]

11 users thanked author for this post.

Ascaris, FakeNinja, Noel Carboni, sldc88, fk5353, lurks about, Elly, Nibbled To Death By Ducks, zero2dash, Microfix

Reply | Quote

Replies

MacOS versions come out about once a year, but one does not need to upgrade to a newer version (not necessarily the latest), for about 3-n years, where n is how many years ago come out the system one has at the moment in the Mac. I understand something like that is also true of LTS versions of some Linux distros, which are the ones that most people running those distros have on their PCs (again, as far as I know). So, in this as in many other things and as always in the past, it looks as if Windows (10 in this case) is quite in a class of its own.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

LTS releases for Linux are supported typically for 5 years from release with primarily bug fixes and some feature upgrades. But since Linux tends to be much more loosely coupled many of the feature upgrades are actually in applications not the OS. For example, the desktop is not closely tied to the kernel. Users can change desktops or install multiple on a box. Browsers are completely independent applications and are not part of the OS at all.

Rolling release versions aim to keep the entire system updated to the latest stable version of each application within a relatively short time after release. Depending on the distro it might be a couple of weeks to a month before the updates drop as they are doing some testing to make sure they are ready.

Reply | Quote

“‘Windows as a Service’ does get us a few things. It gets us applications like Candy Crush installed on our PCs. It gets us an ever-increasing number of built-in advertisements. And it gets us activation problems when Windows phones home once a day and discovers that Microsoft has a server problem.”

Mic drop. Applause!

11 users thanked author for this post.

FakeNinja, Karlston, Charlie, sldc88, fk5353, lurks about, flackcatcher, BobbyB, Elly, woody, Microfix

Reply | Quote

I’m up to 1803 and have never seen Candy Crush. What am I doing right?

Reply | Quote

Using local account maybe… And W10 Enterprise, I suppose?

Fractal Design Pop Air * Thermaltake Toughpower GF3 750W * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i9-11900K * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 * ASRock RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming 16GB OC * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * Samsung EVO 840 250GB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit Insider * Windows 11 Pro Beta Insider

Reply | Quote

You might have disabled the Microsoft consumer experiences in the group policy? I think though that in theory it doesn’t have any effect except on Enterprise and Education since Anniversary update.

I did that. It is under cloud content.

https://www.windowsmanagementexperts.com/disabling-windows-10-consumer-experience/disabling-windows-10-consumer-experience.htm

https://www.howtogeek.com/259946/how-to-get-rid-of-suggested-apps-in-windows-10/

Reply | Quote

The knowledgeable crowd at AskWoody has commented any number of times that Microsoft’s attempt to foist WaaS and its relentless parade of “features” upon the user base was a major deviation from any operating system’s raison d’etre — To allocate and manage system resources for applications.

MS hubris knows no bounds.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Only one thing to say about Hoffman’s post:

Yea, Verily and Amen!

Now, for a “Extend Win 7 support period” uprising, like we had with XP! C’mon, everyone, we can do it!

Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit, Dell Latitude E6330 ("The Tank"), Intel CORE i5 "Ivy Bridge", 12GB RAM, Group "0Patch", Multiple Air-Gapped backup drives in different locations. Linux Mint Newbie
--
"The more kinks you put in the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes." -Scotty

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

I believe that the frequent updates aren’t the problem, its the fact that they come with so many issues

Back when i was using windows 7, I had automatic updates turned on and I NEVER had a single issue. (2012-2016)

Just someone who don't want Windows to mess with its computer.

Reply | Quote

You should know your doing something wrong when folks like Chris Hoffman of HTG a self confessed enthusiast are becoming an openly vocal critic, its a daily read round here for new tricks and reminders of old tricks but just lately never heard Chris so vociferous in his criticism of Windows as he has been just lately.

Reply | Quote

The tech press is coalescing to the opinion that W10 has fundamental problems. Part of the problems stem from not paying attention to what users really want (a stable, reliable OS primarily) and from mixing two very different release strategies. Users, no matter the OS, primarily want the box to work without much fuss before and after updates.

W10 seems to be mixing rolling release with versioned releases and getting the worst of both. MS has typically used versioned releases with a well defined support (lengthy) period. This approach does mean the release will get long on the tooth and will eventually poorly support newer protocols for USB or Bluetooth for example. Rolling releases continually release updated applications as they become ready. The problem with a rolling release is the various bits should not be tightly coupled (browsers are not part of the OS, etc.) as this makes it much easier to update individual bits independently. However rolling releases can get out of sync with dependencies (application a needs this version of b and may not work with the newest version of b, or a finally drops an obsolete feature that others are still using in production systems). An issue an experienced user can learn to handle but takes more alertness by the user to understand what is happening. Using a rolling release distro (Manjaro) I have seen this issues on occasion.

My experience with both types release methods is for the vast majority of users an LTS release with a decent support period is best. Rolling releases are fine but they require a little more TLC for the user and more willingness to get one’s hands dirty. I personally prefer a rolling release but for non-technical family and friends I recommend an LTS release with a reasonable period (5+ years). MS needs to go back to the LTS type release with support for 5+ years and with LTS versions release every 2 or 3 years (Ubuntu releases every 2 years with 5 years of support). This ends the constant update treadmill and gives users the stability they need with the option of moving to the new LTS version every 3 or 4 years as they see fit.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Noel Carboni, AlexEiffel, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

lurks about wrote:

The tech press is coalescing to the opinion that W10 has fundamental problems.

Wouldn’t it be something if Microsoft all of a sudden reversed direction and went back to their old way of doing things. ALL of the press, and I mean ALL, would immediately start singing their praises. Think of the boost in sales that they would have. Their reputation would be restored instantly.

I wonder if this isn’t what they had in mind. We shall see, because if that’s their plan, they need to do it soon.

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

lurks about wrote:

MS needs to go back to the LTS type release with support for 5+ years and with LTS versions release every 2 or 3 years (Ubuntu releases every 2 years with 5 years of support).

It’s now ten years of support.  For free, and then the replacement is supported for ten years more, and it also will be free.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, Microsoft.  Do you answer the challenge?

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

Reply | Quote

According to Gregg Keizer, if you have Software Assurance and LTSB, you get 10 years of support on the same version of Windows 10:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3250464/microsoft-windows/faq-windows-10-ltsb-explained.html

Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 10 running in a remote session on my file server

Reply | Quote

Now all MS has to do is offer that to everyone, not just enterprise customers with software assurance, and to do it for free.  I’m not talking about “support” in the sense that if you have a problem, they will help resolve it… that always costs extra, and I would not expect anything different.  Update support for 10 years, though, should be free and apply to all editions of Windows, including Home.  I mean, if MS is going to copy Ubuntu, copy all of it, not just bits and pieces!  It’s the LTS support that makes the every 6 months release schedule of Ubuntu tolerable.

Sound like a deal, Microsoft?

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

Reply | Quote

A lot of folks who were die hard Windows afficionados – with good reason – have taken a different stance.

When Vista came out, I was on solid ground with XP x64 and there I stayed for a couple of years until 2006 when I finally felt it had had enough service packs to make it worth using – not to mention hardware caught up and made it fast enough to stand using.

I felt my footing shifting when I first looked at Windows 7, though I only slipped a little, and I bought Windows 7 Ultimate in 2009. I dealt, over time, with the various shortcomings by configuring and augmenting around them. I’m glad I bought it – it ended up working very well for me, coming into its own after a year or two of stabilization and 3rd party developer tool development.

When I first saw the Windows 8 preview my cheek nearly hit the pavement. But I got back up, stood and waited it out, and Microsoft chose to return to the straight and narrow just enough with 8.1 to make it worthwhile – around a year after Windows 8 was released. By a few years after the first preview the 3rd party developers had written enough code and Microsoft had fixed enough bugs, so I bought it. I’m glad I did. It serves me well to this day.

The common thread in the above is that each version took a year to be worth considering and another year to actually be Good. That time was necessary because it’s a complicated system, and it takes time for developers to get to know it and write useful software for it.

Now each new Windows 10 “version” never gets a year. It only gets 6 months.

Isn’t the problem obvious?

-Noel

8 users thanked author for this post.

Ascaris, Bill C., Karlston, mindwarp, Charlie, lurks about, sproket90, MrJimPhelps

Reply | Quote

Indeed, it’s not like this is any different with any other operating system family… commercial support tends to come about one year behind, on average.

Still seeing a lot of things only support Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, with the 18.04 LTS being ~7 months old, for example.

Now, it *is* theoretically possible to do rolling releases right, but the way to do that is close to full virtualization and transparent versioning of the application and device driver space. Pretty much requires a microkernel architecture and hardware assists.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Noel Carboni

Reply | Quote

Noel, back then Windows basically only had an LTS release. So waiting a year for the new version to get a service pack was a reasonable option. They you moved when you were ready and felt comfortable with the latest version. Also, new versions came every 3 or 4 years with effectively 10 years of support. So you had time to get used to new version and when the new version dropped more leisurely read up on it. Now, depending on the version you might get up to 30 months before you must upgrade to a newer version (realistically much less). So by the time you are getting comfortable another version drops and you must start all over again.

Even without all the bugs in each release this is cadence is aggravating to users who only care about having a working computer (most users) and are not interested in the latest and greatest ‘feature’.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Noel Carboni

Reply | Quote

So all you guys like to <kvetch> about this but what can you do? You’re at the mercy of Microsoft and they are not listening. The day will come when the ‘service’ will cost money. This is where Microsoft wanted to be all along. For myself, I switched to Linux years ago. If I’m unhappy with my desktop I can choose another. If I don’t like the direction of my distro I can switch to another. I love having options.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Bill C., Charlie

Reply | Quote

Yes, well, it’s a complicated problem. Business users tend to have some business-critical application or another that isn’t “supported” enough (for their peace of mind, I guess) on anything but Windows.

Now I have managed to make some of those run even better in Linux but since that’s not officially supported… heh, some of the things that were internally Java-based, I managed to run on commercial UNIX and get a lot better reliability too in internal testing, to go with superior performance. Still wasn’t good enough.

Reply | Quote

I seem to remembering writing words to that effect a bunch of times myself!  Not that it takes any super insight to realize this– it’s painfully obvious if you’re not in Microsoft upper management.  Actually, I’m sure they do know it’s not a service, but this is what they’re claiming publicly to justify all of the changes no one asked for, but that they’re getting anyway.  It’s what they’re claiming to make the investors ooh and aah over how trendy and cool Microsoft “now with its mojo back” now is.

I applaud every one of these articles that have been increasing in volume and number lately, especially from former stalwart defenders of Windows 10.  All I would say to them is, “What took you so long?”  All of this was evident (to me at least) by New Year’s Day 2016; that was why I had already started my migration away from Windows.  It was not a decision I’d made lightly… I’ve used Windows since 1990, and I’m not one who loves change for the sake of change.  Even though it was evident where all of this was going even five months after Windows 10’s release, much of the tech press was busy singing Windows 10’s praises back then.

I’m still pessimistic about the odds of Windows 10 really getting better.  If the complaints from high-profile commentators like Ed Bott, Chris Hoffman, and Susan Bradley (and Woody, of course) keep it up, MS will probably make some token changes that reduce the worst of the excesses with Windows 10, but I don’t think it will be the fundamental change at least I would hope for.  This entire idea of WaaS is flawed from its conception.  The idea of an OS that is designed to monetize its users rather than serve them has to go.  An OS that can’t fully be controlled by its users is not acceptable.  The rapid pace of releases should be abandoned, and the support period for each release should be greatly extended.

These are huge, fundamental changes that go against everything MS has been doing lately.  It’s essentially asking them to admit that everything done with regard to Windows since Satya Nadella came on board was a mistake.  He’s in charge, so how likely is it that this idea would even come up, let alone be adopted formally?  Anyone suggesting it would be saying his boss had taken a formerly successful product and wrecked it with dumb ideas that are ignorant of what an OS is and what an OS does.  It’s true, but who is going to stand up and say so?

If MS didn’t realize that this was a boondoggle before, when WaaS and Windows 10 were new and more easily redefined into whatever MS wants it to be, they’re not going to now, either.  We’ll get some minor changes, the tech press will settle down and tell us we’ve been heard and things are getting better, but the underlying dysfunction of the entire WaaS model will not have been addressed.  The improvement will stop just as soon as the complaints stop, since that would be the real intent of (marginally) improving Windows.  MS will change Windows/WaaS as little as possible, since it suits their goals so well being as it is now.

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

3 users thanked author for this post.

AlexEiffel, Elly, Bill C.

Reply | Quote