Wanna go all Gandalf – YOU SHALL NOT PASS – on Windows 10? From 29 July, as we've reported, Windows 10 downloads will start to become available. But of course you don't want that: what sysadmin in their right mind wants to pollute their carefully-tended standard operating environments? Or have users flood the network with OS updates? With the first-day release of an operating system? …
I caught this, but not everyone lives in a full on windows environment, and aren't so diligent or glaze over reading bulletin after bulletin which are written in technobabble. I support 10 windows users out of 1300 users on the LAN.
Anyone remember the Windows Search that was installed in XP? I remember the howls and teeth gnashing here on El Reg!
Probably 99% Linux and a handful of Macs. This is pretty similar to where I am. Large academic institution that provides desktops for scientific computing (which basically means Linux or you spend the rest of time fighting with cygwin) and then a few Windows boxen for the admin staff who are stuck with centrally mandated java apps that only run under IE, and a similar number of Macs for the senior management you can't say "Fuck off, you'll use the standard template desktop like everyone else" to.
The rest all use fruity computing. iMacs or MacBooks of some sort. Life is much easier now than when we were a 50/50 house back in the day. EPo gone, WSUS gone... No more subscription to Crackafee...
Have a pint on a warm day like this Friday! We all need it!
Also bear in mind that the KB itself does mention Windows 10 at all.
This is the KB description: 'Update enables additional capabilities for Windows Update notifications in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 SP1'.
A search of the related KB article doesn't mention anything about Windows 10.
So unless a sysadmin knew in advance about this specific KB, or had read about it elsewhere, the details for the KB itself would not really give many clues as to its real purpose.
Boothy beat me to it, but yeah, the text of the KB gives zero indication of what it does. The only reason I knew anything about it was thanks to someone helpfully mentioned it on the TechNet forums (not an MS employee / contractor / etc), who'd obviously gone through the updates one at a time until he got the prompt.
If you absolutely MUST run a Redmond[0] product, airgap it[1].
Slackware on the desktop, BSD on the servers/routers. It just works.
[0] Holds for Cupertino, too, of course (sorry, ifad users).
[1] My one Redmond based machine runs Win2K, only used to run AutoCAD2K. She's been airgapped since 2002, and still purrs along quite gracefully.
As far as I can tell, if you're using WSUS then you won't get this update and in addition if the update is installed on to a domain joined computer it won't run. So this is only a possible issue for sites that have off domain computers updating directly from MS.
Now what would have been nicer would have been not to sneak the fucking thing onto everyone's machines in the first place.
Oh, and for the home users who don't have sysadmins to hand, an update that comes up with a big message when they click on it to tell them to think long and hard before going any further.
But then home users are not relevant are they?
Here's a funny one, The Witcher 3 couldn't save to it's normal folder, had to alt tab to find that Windows 10 preview had changed all document folders and files to read only. Untick the readonly and it appeared to work, but check it again and it's back to read only. Had to change the security options, then untick read only which worked for some folders but not others. Can't export edited video to anywhere on my system still, but at least can save Witcher 3 files (phew). Online, MS advises (on this apparently fairly common problem) to run Command Prompt 'Attrib...', which as everybody angrily states, doesn't work for shit! tho' some folks have had success moving everything into new folders...
As for Windows 10 update, a nice message to end user saying, 'Would you like to upgrade to Windows 10?' is so fucking difficult? Jeez!
I removed it from one windows 7 system (In a VM).
Sure the files in c:\windows\system32\GWX were removed.
However these were left behind.
Directory of C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-gwx-uninstall_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7
2015-03-25 04:22 19,968 GWXGC.exe
1 File(s) 19,968 bytes
Directory of C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-gwx_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.18804_
2015-03-25 04:22 459,264 GWX.exe
2015-03-25 04:22 658,944 GWXConfigManager.exe
2015-03-25 04:24 499,200 GWXUI.dll
2015-03-25 04:22 393,216 GWXUX.exe
2015-03-24 23:20 353,048 GWXUXWorker.exe
5 File(s) 2,363,672 bytes
Directory of C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windows-gwx_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.18804_
2015-03-25 03:59 392,704 GWX.exe
1 File(s) 392,704 bytes
Total Files Listed:
7 File(s) 2,776,344 bytes
The copy of GWX.exe in the amd64 directory is identical to the copy that got deleted.
You have been warned. Windows 10 will not go away. You will be nagged until you comply and join the W10 Borg collective.
See Icon for what I'd like to so to the person in MQ who thought that GWX.exe was a cool idea
Don't need to remove the KB - just kill the GWX process, then rename the GWX folder in C:\Windows\system32 out of the way, which stops it running again.
We have a lot of small businesses that we support that have a handful of pcs in a workgroup and this nicely gets rid of the icon and halts the process.
What is it with you people? I mean, how can you work your little Linux brains to such a state of frenzy over something that is not going to happen?
Do you seriously think that MS is going to install W10 on legit W7 and 8 machines without telling anyone? Don't answer that - what you think is scary enough already.
No need to be so insulting,mate. Speaking purely for myself, I think the probability of Microsoft automatically upgrading people is low. But not zero.
The thing is, they've already shown a significant level of arrogance and sense of ownership over people's machines by putting this feature in in the first place. The updates were not flagged truthfully for what they were, so I think it's fair to say they were installed by deception.
I should also add that there were a number of other updates which 'prepared' machines for upgrade. Again, these were unnecessary and delivered by deceitful means.
So, I'm thoroughly pissed off with Microsoft and, while they would be pretty stupid to actually force upgrades on people, I'm not so sure that some idiot in their organisation won't decide to push the button.
>Do you seriously think that MS is going to install W10 on legit W7 and 8 machines without telling anyone?
Obviously, you didn't have to deal first hand with the mess created when MS initially 'offered' the Win8.1 Update (via the Store) to Windows 8 users (using a "Get Windows 8.1" app that had been downloaded via WUP and then put the update natively on WUP for all those still running Win8 and thus catch out all those who had ignored the "Get Windows 8.1" app.
I suggest this effectively was a trial run of the "Get Windows 10" app.
I also note from this article and the articles it references, MS are not distributing anything that easily disables/removes the "Get Windows 10" app (eg. a "hot fix") that an administrator/IT expert could easily deploy across an estate.
This post has been deleted by its author
>A Win x to win x.1 upgrade is nothing like the same as Win x to Win y
Well:
Windows Vista was version/build 6.0.nnnn
Windows 7 was version/build 6.1.nnnn
Windows 8 was version/build 6.2.nnnn
Windows 8.1 was version/build 6.3.nnnn
and
Windows 10 was version/build 6.4.nnnn before MS revised their version/build numbering and called it 10.0
So it is unclear whether Win10 really is a wholly new version or if it really is a point upgrade....
This post has been deleted by its author
Trust is earned, and Microsoft have done absolutely nothing to earn it.
In addition, real Windows administrators with actual experience in the field will remember many an instance of Windows downloading and installing updates despite both GPOs and local settings telling the damned thing not to. This causes all sorts of havoc when it reboots with a program running that doesn't autosave what it's doing, as so many older programs are prone to.
But sure, we're all crazy conspiracy theorists.
This post has been deleted by its author
"What you're saying is once a criminal, always a criminal, right?"
No, I'm saying "screw me over once, shame on you. Screw me over twice, shame on me."
"The reality is that although Microsoft might get it wrong sometimes, they don't actually set out to do that"
I do not believe this to be true.
"There isn't some meeting somewhere going "oooh! How can we screw things up on purpose now?""
Yes there are. Several someones. I knew a few of them. For example: there are people whose job it is to screw over service providers so that Azure uptake will increase. There are people whose job it is to screw over those selling software so that Azure uptake will increase. There are people whose job it is to screw over small organizations so that they go elsewhere and Microsoft doesn't have to support them. And there are those whose job it is to determine the exact maximum that Microsoft can get away with licensing in areas where Microsoft has effective monopolies so as not to trigger scrutiny.
Microsoft employs many people whose sole job it is to screw us all over.
"All large companies - even... the ones who handle Linux... shock, horror - make mistakes. Screw up. P*** people off."
And? Do you think I am hugely enamored of Red "fuck you, bitches systemd ahahhahahahahahah" Hat? Or Canonical's "Amazon will destroy your sense of privacy because you suck ahahahahahahaha" Ubuntu? You're pretty funny.
"The simple fact is that the things that go "wrong" seem to stir up the anti-MS brigade far more than the normal population"
Wrong. The simple fact is that most people are far too forgiving of Microsoft's mistakes but tend to get really pissed when Microsoft does something deliberately assholeish. They should really be crucifying Microsoft for both.
"even to the point of said brigade predicting things will go wrong even before they've happened"
That's not a "brigade". That's people able to learn from history.
"In fact, the anti-MS sentiment even anticipates things will go wrong before they've been thought of!"
And yet, Microsoft rarely proves the cynics wrong.
"And that's precisely my original point."
That you don't actually understand how social dynamics works? Or that you are a raging brand tribalist who can't understand why people don't love your brand daddy and care about things like value for dollar, not getting screwed over and not being herded into choices they don't want by an arrogant company that doesn't care about them, their privacy or the security of their data?
Learn from history. Take a bit more cynical view of the companies to which you've attached your sense of self worth and you might not be constantly surprised by the companies in question or the reaction of everyday people to how they're treated by those large corporations.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Microsoft ISN'T going to install W10 on everyone's machine on D-day+1 as the Linux boys are suggesting. Jeez! Think what you're saying."
Microsoft most likely will not install W10 on everyone's machine on D-day +1. But you're a complete idiot if you rule out the possibility altogether. Not only that, D-day +1 is very limited.
Machines spontaneously installing Windows 10 on D-day +1 is probably a technical glitch. But the farther out we get from D-day+1 the more likely it is that some arrogant twunt will decide they know "what's best" and simply push it out as an auto update.
Now, that likelihood may be going from 0.0000000001% to 0.0000000002% with time (for etiher malice or incompetence,) but the possibility is emphatically not zero. There are examples in Microsoft's history of both malice and incompetence on the scale required to to something that egregious. Only a complete idiot would ignore the possibility.
Trust is earned. Microsoft have done nothing to earn it.
So you don't take the risk, no matter how small. You put the time and effort in to blocking the update as best you can. That way, if in the exceptionally unlikely event you are ever hauled in front of a judge to explain why you allowed something like this to occur (which caused license violations/citywide traffic jams/cats and dogs living together/whatever) you can say with absolute certainty you did everything you possibly could have to prevent it from occurring.
"I'm sorry, your honuor, but I trusted Microsoft not to screw up" won't fly.
If you cannot understand the above, please don't have anything more to do with computers, ever.
This post has been deleted by its author
Oh, yes. Sorry. I mean Microsoft PROBABLY isn't going to do that. So probably, in fact, that it bloody well certainly won't.
You are absolutely, completely and utterly delusional. Your brand tribalism is beyond hope of compensation. You are willing to trust a company - and not just any company, but Microsoft, who have done much to cause a loss of trust and nothing to earn it - with absolute faith. That's not only every single possible bad practice in risk management it's actually insane.
Yes, it is entirely possible that Microsoft will, in fact, force Windows 10 onto the world. Accidentally or otherwise. It may not be likely, but it is raw insanity to proclaim it as an impossibility.
Thus we have a possible event with a low probability but a potentially massive impact. The event can be guarded against with so minimal an input of time and resources as to be inconsequential. It is thus criminal negligence (in at least some jurisdictions) to ignore this possibility and do nothing to about it.
Whether I believe Microsoft will or won't do something is completely fucking irrelevant to the discussion. This discussion is about risk management practices in IT. Specifically it is about taking basic, pain-free steps to avoid possible calamity involving a vendor who is manifestly untrustworthy.
Personal opinions about a vendor should not enter into this at all. There is no room for them. It's a very simple risk management exercise.
As for why people feel the need to engage in risk management assessment and to be rather cynical about Microsoft's turstworthiness as part of those assessments, well...I'm going to leave you to ponder that on your own. Assuming you can overcome your brand tribalism enough to do it.
Oh, and next time you try to find some neat little cultural box to stuff me in so that you can malign me as part fof a group you have a religious hatred for, don't choose Linux. Presuming that I am somehow a Linux fanboy does nothing but demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance.
Cheers
This post has been deleted by its author
"Trevor, a large number of users will not have Windows as a "free" upgrade, so they're definitely going to be bricked if they get auto-updated.
Anyone else who updates without backing up first runs a fairly high risk of losing data. That applies to ANY update of ANY operating system. "
Don't disagree with you, for evidence we need to look no further back than the W8->8.1 update.
I had a client with a number of HP laptops that shipped with W8, but even a year after the release of 8.1 HP hadn't shipped 8.1 drivers and stated on their website these systems didn't support 8.1. This didn't stop MS via WUP attempting to update these systems...
And yes at the point WUP told the user it was updating to W8.1, it gave them a maximum of 4 hours to do whatever before it forceably went ahead with the update... Interestingly, MS didn't ask at this point whether the user had backed up their system prior to it going ahead with the update, so they must have been confident that they had minimised the risk of data loss directly caused by their action.
"Microsoft is NOT going to take that risk on everyone's behalf by upgrading them while they're asleep. Surely you don't think it will, do you?"
So in answer to your question, Microsoft will take a risk on everyone's behalf if it deems it acceptable.
However, the biggest risk (in my experience wrt to the loss of user data) isn't Microsoft, but the approach taken to recover the system. The on disk recovery tools tend to direct the user into doing a re-image without first giving the option of recovery, so a total loss of user data. If the user takes the bricked system to the professionals, the majority of these will simply reformat the HDD with a new install without first bothering to mount the disk under another OS and recover the user data...
I think I'm following your logic here. What you're saying is once a criminal, always a criminal, right?
No! Just that MS have yet to demonstrate that they have learnt from their mistakes, so the amount of trust I'll extend to them will be limited.
So whilst I don't anticipate MS pushing W10 out via WUP on "D-day+1", it would not surprise me that they do quietly put it out on D-day+circa 365 ie. when W7 exits the OEM sales channel (given that those with greater knowledge of Win8 and W10 regard W10 as W8 SP2 - hence why they believe MS can't really ask existing customers to pay for it), just as they did with the W8.1 update (aka W8 SP1) to W8. This is a RISK, now you can fully accept the risk and do nothing (ie. simply allow W7/8/8.1 to auto update) and carry on as if nothing has changed or you can mitigate the risk. The extent to which you take mitigating actions, is largely determined by the extent to which you trust MS and the extent to which you are prepared to accept pain (either of the mitigating actions or from having to clear up if the risk actually materialises).
So my approach with all my clients will be to minimise the risk of them getting unexpected forced updates of stable W7/8.1 systems to W10, because on current information there is no pressing reason to upgrade these systems before 2019 as MS will continue to honour its support lifecycle promise and provide security fixes until Jan 2020. But then as they did with W8, they treated the W8.1 update as a W8 Service Pack and hence have discontinued providing security fixes for W8 without this service pack... As you can gather my approach is to keep day-today IT operations uneventful, rather than allow fires to breakout and then try and look a hero.
So it is unclear whether Win10 really is a wholly new version or if it really is a point upgrade....
I'm puzzled that you appear to believe that's a meaningful distinction.
There's no standard - official or de facto - for any difference between "major" and "minor" version-number changes. Version numbering for software is a loose industry convention with highly arbitrary choices made by vendors.
What would be good is the icon disappearing once you've reserved the upgrade. It's not like you can use it to change your mind afterwards.
Also, stop overriding the setting to hide the thing. It gets reset to 'Show icon and notification' every time the machine starts.
if you are a business, chances are you are running the Enterprise version of whichever windows you currently have (for example we are on Win7 Enterprise).
If that is the case, there is no 'free upgrade' for Enterprise users, only for 'consumer' version users.
Job done.
I can understand that some (very) small business might be running 7Pro in which case they might have problems, but they are *probably* small enough for it to be easy to manage.
Why would I use Windows Enterprise? It costs way more than Pro and requires a subscription. The subscription gets me nothing of any benefit and the total cost delta is insane. XP gave us 14 good years. 7 will give us 11 great years. In what universe is there value in buying Windows Enterprise?
In what universe is there value in buying Windows Enterprise?
Hey, there's ... um ... some kind of VPN thing. And BitLocker, for people who don't trust TrueCrypt. And the latest incarnation of what used to be Services for UNIX, for people who want to pay for an alternative to Cygwin.
If you don't want to pay more money for stuff with good free alternatives, I don't know what to tell you. That's crazy talk.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
