Do you agree or disagree with Microsoft's new servicing plan for Windows?


Microsoft has revealed their plans to provide monthly cumulative updates for Windows 7 (SP1), Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012, and Windows Server 2012 R2 beginning this October.

This will mean a significant shift for system admins because these updates will be released in one large update package instead of a collection of individual updates.

That in turn means that if one patch included in the cumulative update causes an issue on a system then the entire package will have to be uninstalled while waiting on a fix instead of just an individual update.

System admins have been talking about this on social media over the last few days and expressing their concerns about this shift so we would like to hear from you on this as well.

Do you agree or disagree with the changes being made by Microsoft and their servicing plans for supported versions of Windows? What are the pros and cons in your eyes to the new procedure?

Vote Agree or Disagree and then let us know in the comments what influenced your decision.


Discuss this poll 9

on Nov 7, 2016

I think that the main reason that Microsoft is moving to this type of update is that when they tried to force feed everyone Windows 10, then certain updates were NOT applied and therefore the Windows 10 nagware and application was never seen.

I support about 150 workstations for different clients and none of them ever saw anything related to Windows 10.

This will be Microsoft's work around for this sort of blocking in the future. It is going to get real ugly when Windows 7 comes to an end in 2020. I am curious what kind of shenanigans Microsoft will try to pull off.

on Aug 24, 2016

We are concerned about not being able to remove individual patches that can break our vendor applications that run on our servers. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. We a MS patch breaks a previously working vendor software package, good luck getting the vendor to fix it. They love to point fingers at MS and MS likes to point their finger to the vendor.

on Aug 17, 2016

I guess we'll have to wait until someone can't run their business because of a bad patch which forces them to remove the whole CU and then they get hit by hackers. When it costs Microsoft $millions in lawsuits they may change things. This is the problem when MBAs run corporations that Engineers and Entrepreneurs used to run: they only care about profit and customers don't matter except how they impact profits. Look at every older Technology company and you find the same thing. It's never about helping customers and reaping the benefits that result from helping. No Business School teaches that. The MBAs aren't evil, just ignorant.

on Aug 18, 2016

Satya Nadella is an engineer actually.

on Aug 24, 2016

I thought he was a software developer. That isn't the same thing as an Engineer/SysAdmin. Can someone confirm?

on Aug 16, 2016

If this month Microsoft publishes a Critical Patch with quickly available consistent exploits and a second Moderate Patch, which unfortunately has side effects affecting business but can not be fixed in a timely manner (for example you have to wait for an update), then you can prioritize the patches today in a adequate way: Deploy immediately the critical patch and deploy the moderate patch later when the issue has been fixed.

In the future with one single rollup patch you would have a big problem in the same situation. Either your organisation will be paralyzed by malware or you crash your organization yourself out of the business by deploying the rollup patch. It does not depend on what you will do: You will be screwed anyway.

on Aug 16, 2016

As with the Windows 10 rollout, this is just another example of Microsoft donning the mantle of the neighborhood bully. Their "official" explanation will undoubtedly be that they are attempting to provide better, secure, and more user-friendly service, when in practice what they are doing is trying to completely control YOUR environment.

This continued shift toward a paternalistic, I-know-better-than-you mentality, makes Big Brother look like your favorite uncle.

The powers-that-be at Microsoft are truculent because they couldn't coerce the masses into moving to Windows 10, so they are going to punish the hold outs by breaking their systems.

Sounds pretty par-for-the-course to me.

on Aug 16, 2016

"That in turn means that if one patch included in the cumulative update causes an issue on a system then the entire package will have to be uninstalled while waiting on a fix instead of just an individual update." Do NOThave time for this and the extended downtime if there is a problem.

on Aug 16, 2016

I'm already holding deployment of 3 different security patches released over the last 3 months where each is incompatible with an app or drivers for 3 different groups of machines. All I can see is this change making more work for me and impacting our security stance since we'd have to hold back an entire month's worth of security patches if one of the included patches broke something.

Please or Register to post comments.

Join the Conversation

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×