"There is rage on the internet, my friends. It's all about the dreaded replacement cycle that we are facing now."

No, it's not Jason. You're missing the fundamental problem with the Windows 10 debacle, and it stems from these two tenets:
1.) The user is sacrosanct. Warn, of course. Recommend, of course. But the system should never defy the user.
2.) Newer is not always better. Oldversion and Oldapps wouldn't exist if they were.


"My Facebook and Twitter feed is littered with hemming and hawing over prompting to upgrade."
No, not prompting. Incessant nagging, turned into a requirement without an opt-out. THAT is what the outcry is about.


"Refusal to capitulate to the prompt that it needs to be done"
See tenet #1.


"Anger over invasion of one's personal space."
See tenet #1.


"Desperate pleading to be left alone"
See tenet #1.


"despondence over presumed unnecessary workday and life disruption."
See tenet #1.


"There's a final stage to Kübler-Ross after bargaining and depression, you know."
Yes. However, this isn't grief counseling.


"I get it. You don't want your software updated or upgraded."
You didn't pay for their computers, and neither did Microsoft. If they want to run Windows 7 until the end of time, that's entitled to them in the EULA. Also, I assume that neither you nor Microsoft is offering to cover upgrade costs for incompatible softare, so again, See tenet #1.


"You believe your system is static, that if it works now, it will continue to work the same as it does always."
Or, upgrade paths are being explored. Or, custom code is still being written. Or, this is a secondary system with a hardware upgrade intended to take place in the near future. There are plenty of corner cases that are simply not being accommodated.


"You don't want to change, because that would mean acquiring new skills, or doing something differently."
Maybe that is indeed the case...and even if it is, why is 'letting the user decide what's right for them' such a terrible stance to have?


"Or worse -- the possibility of having to spend money. You'll be damned if that awful, evil vendor makes you spend more of your hard-earned cash."
Are you buying? Is it your money? Do I get to tell you what to buy? Is that the way this works now?


"If it isn't broke don't fix it. Because if this approach "works" for the federal government, it's got to work perfectly well for you, right?"
You don't know.


"Well, until it doesn't."
And that is where migration paths come into play. Also, it's not like the support cycle is ending in six months; security updates for Windows 7 are still coming for four more years.


"Traditionally, when we think in terms of computer systems and software, at least prior to the last decade or so, computer software was very much a static thing. Software upgrades for operating systems and application packages happened at four year intervals, frequently even longer."
So do depreciation cycles.


"When did you update or upgrade an operating system? Usually if a catastrophic failure occurred and you had to replace the hardware, and you didn't have the original install media."
It only makes sense to do it that way. Is there a reason why, in most cases, it doesn't? Let's be real - in-place OS upgrades have frequently been of limited value (care to extol the virtues of Vista over XP that were worth a $200 sticker price?), and frequently caused as many issues as they solved - it has been long accepted that a wipe-and-reload is the most reliable way to do an upgrade, which takes a whole lot of time for not a lot of RoI.


"Dead hard disk? Upgrade time. Blown mainboard? New PC. New PCs came with new OSes. And that often necessitated updated versions of the apps."
You're right. And those were expensive. So you're belittling people for not paying to borrow trouble??


"End-users, small businesses and enterprises all dealt with it in different ways, because of the types of tools and expertise and processes available to them. Some were more naturally resistant to making the changes, some more progressive."
Different groups with different resources address the same problem in different ways. News at 11.


"Certain environments were better equipped to resist or deploy upgrades than others. A lot of this was defined by application workload and the speeds in which 3rd-party vendors that could certify their products to run on an upgraded environment. There was also the issue that you might have hardware and peripherals that just plain would not work with the new software."
I think you've done a solid job describing a primary reason why there's resistance, and subsequent outrage.

"Those of us who have been in information technology or using PCs as end-users since those days know that mindset well. So we've been indoctrinated to it, and it's often hard to think out of that box."
It's a box that respects tenet #1 and tenet #2.

"The problem with having that historical perspective is that the mindset of "I'll wait until it breaks to deal with it" no longer works in an internet-connected world."
This makes no sense.

"Routine operating system and software upgrades must be considered as part of the natural life cycle of systems management, whether you are an end-user, a small business, or an enterprise."
Yes, they should. You're still missing the point - the problem isn't that there's an upgrade available, it's that there's no choice or ability to properly time. "Natural Life Cycle" means "when I say so", not "When Microsoft says so". That is the problem.


"And while the pace at which we deploy these things is going to be different based on overall impact"
...and uniformly disrespected apparently.


 "with end-users being the best equipped to handle frequent updates and upgrades versus an enterprise"
And you are qualified to make that decision for hundreds of millions of users...how?


"we now need to think of operating systems and the accompanying applications as more of a software appliance that is actively updated by the vendor, as part of the overall internet of things."
No, we don't. You may consider the concept of general purpose computing as passe or undesirable, but the IoT has been marginally beneficial at best, and thoroughly abhorrent at worst. See tenet #1 and #2.


"You accept that this happens all the time on your smartphone"
No, I don't. See tenet #1. Refusing updates until I'm ready is amongst the reasons why I root my phone, and the number of my friends who were jealous during the early Lollipop rollout was high enough that this statement is thoroughly unsubstantiated.


"your tablet"
No, I don't...but that's largely because I don't have a tablet.


"your video game console"
You forgot about the backlash with the OtherOS and backward compatibility removal from the PS3, did you?


"and perhaps even your smart thermostat, which does this without you even knowing about it. (Although, to be fair, there's grumbling even over those upgrades.)"
The ones that ran on the hub would be bricked because Google decided it wasn't needed anymore? You're seriously using that as an example here? It shows EXACTLY why these kinds of upgrades should not be blindly supported!


"Your modern PC is no different"
Yes it is - it was about the last place where tenet #1 applied. Turning it into an iPad with a Core i5, a keyboard, and a mouse was made Windows 8 such a horror - it's *not* the same. It shouldn't *be* the same. It's only shortsighted mindsets like these that seem to think that giving root access to Uncle Nelson or Aunt Google is a benefit for society.


"and it needs to do this for the same reasons."
The ones that haven't been listed yet?


"The previous generation of PC operating systems -- especially Windows XP, which came out in 2001 -- is ill-equipped to deal with the constant threats emerging from the internet. The browser technology is outdated, and the underlying security platform even more so."
Agreed, but you're switching the goalposts. Actually, it would have been nice if Microsoft offered the Windows 10 upgrade to XP systems. However, it wasn't Windows XP users who were complaining. It is primarily Windows 7 users - the ones who were never given a *true* opt-out, and still have four years of security updates coming their way.


"Ultimately, this is the reason why all sorts of upgrades are being pushed on you now"
Really? MS, Google, and Apple are all altruistic companies now that just want the world to be a better place?


"because the industry wants to take proactive measures against these threats, and to move you to a more modernized code base which is better equipped to handle them."
See tenet #1.


"It also reduces the overall support burden to by not keeping these legacy operating systems and applications alive."
They're contractually obligated to be writing Windows 7 patches until 2020, and Windows 8 patches until 2023. You're still missing the point - it's not that Microsoft made Windows 10 available, it's that Microsoft is acting in a way that seems to demonstrate that consent is no longer necessary.


"So yes, take the free upgrade, particularly while it is still free. You will be much safer, and much happier for it."
I'm so glad you know what I will and won't be happy with, or the dozens of users I support every day. Yes, I use Windows 10. I also installed it when I wanted to, and have done some very extensive neutering to it such that it's as respectful of my wishes as I can make it. I am atypical in that regard, and the root of the problem is that getting Windows 10 to respect my wishes took quite a long time, when it shouldn't.


"Not convincing enough? OK, let us explore this further."
Good, because we haven't explored it yet in the first place.


"The more end-user installs running on the same codebase, the easier it is to support that population."
Not my problem. Microsoft writes code. If it's too hard, they can make deli sandwiches for all I care.


"Over time it also allows the industry to provide solutions that are more cost-competitive as well."
I'll believe it when I see it. I've only seen the illusion of affordability as everything starts going towards a rental model.


"So yes, it greatly benefits the vendor, but at the end of the day, you're also getting better and more secure software, and a better support experience overall."
This is a questionable generalization, but let's roll with it for the moment. What makes you think it's going to work this way in a year? five? ten? At what point does the software industry have incentive to provide more secure software or a better support experience, rather than "charge you to access your own data"? Because *that* is where the industry is heading.


"Now, there's always the concern that if you take an OS upgrade the process might fail due to the age and condition of the existing installed system itself. That's valid, and even completely clean re-imaged systems will sometimes fail an upgrade and produce undesirable and unpredictable results."
If your car was called in for service, and there was a 10% chance that you'd have to buy a brand new car when they were done, would you take kindly to people saying "stop bitching and take the new car already"?


"The design of the previous generation of operating systems was far more monolithic, so upgrading it in-place requires the replacement of the entire thing."
But by your own admission in the very last paragraph, those were prone to be inconsistent as well!


"It's an all or nothing proposition, and as much as companies like Microsoft can spend hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours regression testing upgrades of major releases like Windows 10 on legacy hardware, not every scenario for testing an in-place upgrade is going to be validated."
Which is why being all-but-forced to install the upgrade is a terrible idea.


"Systems will vary greatly based on overall health, as well as configuration and installed 3rd-party applications."
Agreed! why not, oh I don't know, make it optional?


"A certain (very small) percentage of PCs are going to die on the table or produce less than stellar results due to an OS upgrade. It's unfortunate, but when we are talking hundreds of millions of systems with tremendous diversity of configuration in the extant, this happens and it's unavoidable."
Collateral damage as a result of something that takes a whole lot of effort to opt out of? Are you willing to replace even one of these PCs? Are you willing to donate your time to restore even one of the machines which got botched in this manner?


"Even companies like Apple, which have only a few dozen configurations of their hardware in the wild, which run on a much more appliance-like OS and issue at least one major upgrade and several minor updates over the course of a year, will encounter similar issues."
Yet again...by your own admission, even Apple has a suboptimal track record with about the best possible scenario. Why was this de facto mandatory, and why are you endorsing its behaving like this?!?


"The flip side of this is Android fragmentation hell, the so-called "Toxic Hellstew" where many OEMs flat out refuse to support their devices and may take years to upgrade/update the software on them, if they do so at all. This would be totally unacceptable in the PC world."
My brain just came to a screeching halt. For the better part of the last 20 years, there's been a number of different versions of Windows reasonably well represented on the internet. OS unification is a new concept. assuming it to be the norm - and desirable, is to completely ignore decades of computing history. It's not unacceptable in the PC world, it's the standard.


"The good news is, going forward, future PC software upgrades are going to be more frequent and more incremental in nature, because of the much more modular way Windows 10 as well as Office 365 and other modern 3rd-party applications are designed."
That's not good news.


"But I will save you some time in the upgrade decision process."
You missed the memo - the problem is that there *isn't* a decision. Yes, GWX control panel is a thing, as is a registry hack or two, joining a domain, disabling updates wholesale, or luckily guessing the correct voodoo to express denied consent...but a decision means that users are given a direct "do you want to upgrade to Windows 10? yes/not now/not ever" prompt. This is not what was received.


"If your computer is four years old or more, it's probably time to say goodbye."
You buying new ones?


"If your PC only has 1GB or 2GB of RAM, don't even attempt the OS upgrade. Go buy a new one, or spend a little bit of money on a memory upgrade if your system can accommodate it. You'll be way, way happier with your system's overall performance."
Yes, more RAM is better, but why is the impetus the OS upgrade as opposed to better performance with the existing OS?


"As an end-user, going out and spending your hard earned money on a new PC may put a sour taste on your mouth."
See tenet #1 and #2.


"That's understandable, but maintaining PCs and replacing them every four years is just as important as maintaining anything else in your overall personal infrastructure."
Yes...but the timetable for those upgrades is up to the user. See tenet #1.


"You do that already to keep your house or your automobile in working order"
I don't buy a new car every time Nissan sends me a mailer, and if Nissan threatened to steal my car and replace it with a 2016 because it's got more safety features, my response to them would probably get me arrested.

"it's no different with your PCs."
Yes it is - PCs, apparently, don't need consent for things the way car upgrades and house upgrades do. Either you must admit that Microsoft is operating without true consent, or that PCs are, in fact, different.


"You certainly don't expect those things to continue to work without occasional intervention of time and money."
No...but I expect that if a repair costs $5,000, that my mechanic can look at me like I'm crazy for not just buying a new one...and then proceed to fix my car. Real world objects don't have upgrades forced on their owners.


"Likewise, maintaining and replacing your equipment is an expense as well as an outage that you need to plan for."
Very Good! the problem isn't the need to plan for an upgrade, it's Microsoft planning for the end users and the end users being required to work around Microsoft's plans, because Microsoft has forgotten tenet #1.


"PCs are cheaper than ever. I recently had to look at replacing a desktop tower for a family friend who had a outdated system that could not be upgraded -- it looks like the damage is going to be a whole $400 or $500 or so. That's not so horrible if you consider the system is going to last probably another four years."
It's not horrible. Did the friend consent to you buying the computer, or did you buy it for him, replace it while he wasn't home, and mail him an invoice?


"And if you're an SMB, for goodness' sake -- this is your business we're talking about. You certainly don't want to wait until a major component fails or you suffer some kind of malware or other security-related event to have to deal with this."
Shifting goalposts. I work with SMBs with computers less than a week old who ended up with Windows 10 without meaningful consent.


"Just as you should be routinely backing up your data, you should be planning for PC, OS and application upgrades. If you're short-staffed and need help, look into working with a systems integrator or a managed services partner who can do this for you."
Yes. And the reason your Twitter account has been blowing up is because Microsoft is doing the planning unilaterally.


"Here's another helpful tip: If you're an end-user that is worried about the outcome of an upgrade, or if your PC fails an upgrade where it should have otherwise succeeded, you can bring your computer to the Answer Desk at a Microsoft retail store location, where they will provide the assistance to get you upgraded in-place, or running back up again on a clean Windows 10 slate."
I pity the folks working at the Microsoft stores right now...


"Yes, you heard that. For free. It's a service that is offered to anyone who has a valid Windows license or current upgrade eligibility, as part of the overall profile of Windows 10 support options. I've referred my friends and family to this service in a number of cases when I couldn't help them in person or remotely, and the folks at the retail organization always do a wonderful job."
I'm glad. Now, why doesn't Microsoft give the retail stores a stack of install media and let people bring their machines in to be upgraded for free? I mean, isn't it just common sense to allow Microsoft to perform the task for free in the first place, after receiving written consent to do so, rather than have angry users come in with botched update attempts?


"By the way, this also includes free malware and virus remediation as well, if required -- which at other retailers, can cost anywhere between $100-$150 for a one-time service."
This is good.


"So please, folks, take the upgrade. You'll be safer, happier, and back to being productive in no time. Because the alternative of taking the kick the can down the road approach until a catastrophic failure or a security/malware event takes place is far worse than the pain of having to adjust to a new OS or even spending some money to accommodate it."
See, this advice would resonate much better if Microsoft had a link to download the Media Creation Tool right on the front page of their website and allowed people to install it as easy as possible - when THEY wanted to. The fact that this whole article assumes that users' consent doesn't matter, that what users want is of no concern, that having an upgrade forced onto them is a good thing...that is the underlying problem here. The fact that this article so blatantly disrespects this choice, for whatever the reason, is mind boggling. Shame on you, Jason. Absolute, unadulterated shame.