SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
I believe the updated ISO is only on the MSDN site for now
Windows 10 1903 imminent
- Thread starter SpyderTracks
- Start date
- Status
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
I’m sure I read something similar, but then all Follow ups said only on msdn.
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
I’d be very surprised if it’s april!
I think they may push hard for the end of April to keep close to their stated release cycle.
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
Latest update:
The latest Windows patch is breaking even more PCs with antivirus installed
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3390179/windows-patch-breaking-pcs-mcafee-antivirus-installed.html
McAfee joins Sophos, Avira, Avast—the latest Windows update breaks them all
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...-growing-number-of-anti-virus-software/?amp=1
I don’t think they’re ready for a wide release.
The latest Windows patch is breaking even more PCs with antivirus installed
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3390179/windows-patch-breaking-pcs-mcafee-antivirus-installed.html
McAfee joins Sophos, Avira, Avast—the latest Windows update breaks them all
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...-growing-number-of-anti-virus-software/?amp=1
I don’t think they’re ready for a wide release.
Last edited:
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
TBH I have little sympathy with these anti-virus companies. 1903 has been around for plenty long enough now for them to have re-worked their code to fit whatever changes MS have made. By its very nature, anti-virus engines hook deep into the kernel and they should therefore be right at the cutting edge of every new Windows 10 insider preview checking that their code is still good.
This isn't Microsoft's fault IMO, it's McAfee, Sophos, and Avast's problem. Comodo by contrast, released a 1903 compatible update to CIS some time ago and the community has been feeding back bugs and reports via the Comodo fora for some time.
Microsoft's code is proprietary, that means they can change it whenever they like, so if your product doesn't use only the standard APIs then you need to make sure you'e way ahead of the curve.
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
But, as Microsoft Partners, it's Microsoft's responsibility to work with them on fundamental platform changes so they can recode where necessary.
Is this a failing on the Partners recoding or Microsofts communication to them or lack of? Given their history on the Windows 10 updates, it points to the latter where they haven't accurately communicated the fundamental recoding that's been done, leaving the Partners having to firefight blindly.
Remember, they had exactly the same issue with a few AV vendors on the 1803 release:
[U: Fix Available] More Victims of Windows 10 Version 1803 - Microsoft Blocks the Update on PCs with Avast
More Victims of Windows 10 Version 1803 (April 2018 Update) - Microsoft Blocks the Update on PCs with Avast Antivirus Software
wccftech.com
If as the reports say, MS has made fundamental changes to the Client Server Runtime Subsystem (CSRSS), then it's MS's duty to relay that information to Partners as part of their contract with Partners.
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
Or is it the partners responsibility to ensure that their products still function on the never version of Windows? IMO it's not Microsoft's responsibility to debug third party code, it's the third party's responsibility to test their own code! If 1903 is making third party code fail at this late stage one is forced to ask what the heck the third party vendors have been doing for the last six months?But, as Microsoft Partners, it's Microsoft's responsibility to work with them on fundamental platform changes so they can recode where necessary.
Is this a failing on the Partners recoding or Microsofts communication to them or lack of? Given their history on the Windows 10 updates, it points to the latter where they haven't accurately communicated the fundamental recoding that's been done, leaving the Partners having to firefight blindly.
Remember, they had exactly the same issue with a few AV vendors on the 1803 release:
[U: Fix Available] More Victims of Windows 10 Version 1803 - Microsoft Blocks the Update on PCs with Avast
More Victims of Windows 10 Version 1803 (April 2018 Update) - Microsoft Blocks the Update on PCs with Avast Antivirus Software
If as the reports say, MS has made fundamental changes to the Client Server Runtime Subsystem (CSRSS), then it's MS's duty to relay that information to Partners as part of their contract with Partners.
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
As a software partner though, MS contractually agree to give suitable guidance for major code changes so that vendors can rewrite what they need.
If this was 1 AV company that was small and not very established, I’d put this down to their coding skills.
This is pretty much every major vendor of AV, plus a lot of DRM vendors having fundamental issues due to one windows component. I’d say this is more likely an issue at MS’s end.
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
We'll have to agree to differ then.
IMO the anti-virus vendors have had 6 months on the Windows Insider program to sort their products out, so why are they only just noticing now?
SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
They haven’t just noticed now, this has been the issue that’s already held back release.We'll have to agree to differ then.
I'm with Ubuysa on this one. As a partner, I get weekly emails from Microsoft telling me about minor and major changes and when they go to preview, beta or mainstream release.
I get these for Office 365 and Azure as that's my partner space, but developers get their version of it.
Some of it is painful in its level of detail.
I've had access to 1903 for months in various guises as well.
I get these for Office 365 and Azure as that's my partner space, but developers get their version of it.
Some of it is painful in its level of detail.
I've had access to 1903 for months in various guises as well.
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Even if it is the AVs who have dropped the ball, I still don't see that MS should release an update that results in these issues.
Of course, it's hard to argue that one business should have to adjust its product release plans because of other businesses - it wouldn't be fair to that business. But it's even less fair to consumers, who are the ones who'd suffer. Many have basically no choice over the OS they use and little knowledge of the issues with AVs.
MS choosing to essentially press their rights versus other business over the day to day functioning of consumers' systems would be pretty unfair to people who rely on those machines.
Assuming of course that MS were entirely fair to their partners to begin with...
Of course, it's hard to argue that one business should have to adjust its product release plans because of other businesses - it wouldn't be fair to that business. But it's even less fair to consumers, who are the ones who'd suffer. Many have basically no choice over the OS they use and little knowledge of the issues with AVs.
MS choosing to essentially press their rights versus other business over the day to day functioning of consumers' systems would be pretty unfair to people who rely on those machines.
Assuming of course that MS were entirely fair to their partners to begin with...
But Windows ships with a fully functioning AV/AntiMalware package and it's down to I individuals to choose what bests fits their own use case.
Honestly this isn't something that has just crept up on AV providers.
Also don't forget with 1903 there's supposedly no forced feature update so people aren't being forced to install it for once
Honestly this isn't something that has just crept up on AV providers.
Also don't forget with 1903 there's supposedly no forced feature update so people aren't being forced to install it for once
Oussebon
Multiverse Poster
Exactly.
Except a lot of people have no idea about AVs. They'll have bought their PC from a store, probably with one ready-installed, and that's that. If they know anything at all, it's that 'you need an antivirus'.
Tempting as it is for techies to leave the ball in the users' court, it's simply not a reasonable thing to expect. It should be, but it isn't, because IT literacy (and consumer knowledge more generally) isn't what we'd all wish.
ubuysa
The BSOD Doctor
I think there is a big difference between vendors whose products use standard APIs and those whose products need deeper kernel access.
If Microsoft broke a standard API there would quite rightly be an uproar. If a new Windows version broke OpenOffice for example, we'd all be rightly furious.
But if you're using deeper kernel level access and/or undocumented features to make your product work you really do have to be testing the insider releases as soon as they become available. IMO it's down to the vendor to ensure that their products work with new versions of Windows.
With proprietary code, if you use undocumented features or APIs, you must expect the code owner to sometimes change them without warning.
If Microsoft broke a standard API there would quite rightly be an uproar. If a new Windows version broke OpenOffice for example, we'd all be rightly furious.
But if you're using deeper kernel level access and/or undocumented features to make your product work you really do have to be testing the insider releases as soon as they become available. IMO it's down to the vendor to ensure that their products work with new versions of Windows.
With proprietary code, if you use undocumented features or APIs, you must expect the code owner to sometimes change them without warning.
- Status