Microsoft has confirmed that the group policy setting shown in this video is the correct way to block the upgrade, but they would prefer you to use "hold" as the input value instead of "sod off": learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/manage-feature-updates-group-policy
@@xlerb2286 It won't fit in the box. If you replace "Microsoft" with "Off" it will, though. Not recommending you do that at work, just saying... it does work.
I worked at a Unix server company in the late 1990s to the early 2000s. Automatic or even one-click OS upgrades never happened. We also had good dependency enforcement which would not allow version updates to libraries which would break installed apps.
Back then no one updated them and were vulnerable and got hacked easily as a result if they were internet facing. I remember (former freebsd guy) that high uptimes in the year made the unix gray beards smile with pride. That doesn't work today
@@BinToss._.UNIX OS developers avoided breaking binary compatibility without a major version change and changes to released OS were security patches. A server wouldn't have a GUI installed or a load of client programs, so updates were exceptions not the rule.
I was managing in mid 90s a distributed network of servers in many branch offices and the reliability meant the PC network switched over. The modularity of UNIX meant I could replace a lot of the network daemons with FOSS software and I had a system to pull & push out updates and also some biz data published regularly for use by sales & sales support. Execs at companies were demanding GUIs, but we had to detect what the worst installers were doing and use scripts to create correct configuration files automatically. The PC team similarly needed to write registry entries for W95. In general it was impossible to reach the same reliability having support techs go around to user machines as typos or mistakes could disrupt the LAN. In another job which had not developed such automation, there was an intermittent problem on a server that I eventually tracked down to an occasionally used Mac in an archive room that was grabbing the wrong IP address when people turned it on.
@@timgibney5590excuse me, but I had live updates in the mid-90s and the Linux I used later was also remotely manageable. For kernel updates 1 live machine would be rebooted and then the other minimising disruption. There were constant attacks on the internet facing web servers, I would detect scans and drop packets from hostile sources.
And this is why sensible people don’t run Windows. Gimme FreeBSD, Linux or any open source POSIX compliant free OS any day over this disease that’s called Windows.
@ well with the politics in Linux these days banning Russian developers, abusing their code of conduct to cancel devs (when they breach the CoC themselves) also doesn’t instill trust in me. I want my FOSS to be free of political Drama so I think I’ll soon be going back to FreeBSD. Although I also have Macs (and I start to dislike Apple too)
It kind of is. Just check if your every essential software works on Linux and prepare a bootable flashdrive with Linux Mint or just try it out in a virtual machine if you have newer computer.
I can't disable it. Sometimes I need to use Windows to troubleshoot Adobe for a friend or if I get invited to play a Kernel level spyware game. I tried to modify registry but it didn't work. If you have a video tutorial for Windows 10 at your disposal I would be glad.
@@czromxl3182 You can simply set the group policy to disable automatic updates and check for updates at your leisure. Your computer will go literal years without an automatic update until the time of your choosing. You don't need a "video tutorial" to configure group policy. JFC...
Describing MS licensing as "complicated" is like describing Loop Quantum Gravity as a bit of maths... it doesn't even come close to the reality of the situation. Anyhoo, I have stopped believing MS is making mistakes, they seem too line up in support of their business aims.
It's a sorry state when Microsoft can't even figure out their own licensing. I called their licensing team for partners once. Completely useless. Speak to 3 people, get 5 different answers...
Imagine running a business of any value off a single server? Imagine having multiple servers and configuring them all to update at the same time? Imagine not disabling automatic updates entirely so they can be scheduled during an outage window with risks assessed beforehand? Keep it classy, SMB!
This is Microsoft dropping ADS for upgrades - despite their words otherwise - when they think they can get away with it, it will be repeated in another form. :P
You know, timing on things like this is always interesting. This popped up as I was starting to consider installing Windows on my PC again alongside Linux for things that refuse to run on Linux. That said, if they're even doing this shenaniganry with **servers** now, then it's likely enough worse on the PC Windows side that I'm over that idea again.
Too few people being told to do too much work and too little oversight and testing. MSFT has been cutting budgets across development and this is what you get.
@@ProTechShow From experience. I worked there 6+ years. Worst part of my career and the best thing I ever did was get out of there. That was in the stack ranking era and every day was stab your buddy in the back day. Nobody cared about the customer or doing what was right. Everyone just tried to game the metrics so they weren't the one laid off. Me, I played it different. I wanted out so I made myself a target. Got a nice severance package and started my new job after a nice stress free week off.
Automatic updates are horrible. Both on servers and normal versions of windows. It should have been a setting you could toggle back in Windows 10 the day it released.
Crowdstrike was because Windows handled a null file or reference poorly. Linux systems had the same corrupted files, but instead the service doesn't start.
The CrowdStrike issue was caused by a kernel-level driver from CrowdStrike, not Windows itself. If a kernel-level driver crashes, then any properly designed operating system should also crash. To do otherwise is unsafe. The same thing actually happened to Linux back in April. It just didn't make the news because it's not as widely used in Linux so while it brought down several companies it didn't bring the whole planet to a halt like when Windows went down.
@ProTechShow And the messed up part is, NT 3.x didn't have this issue - most drivers ran in user space, even graphics device drivers. It was with Windows NT 4.0 that Microsoft wanted to match Windows 95 (also "4.0", but not on the NT kernel) performance, so the developers moved drivers such as graphics and other drivers that were in the user space into the kernel space for speed, at the expense of stability and security. A mistake we are living with 28 years later.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's hands are tied on this. There was a legal ruling that makes it impossible for them to ban third parties from installing kernel-level drivers because it would give Microsoft's own security products an unfair advantage over the competition. No doubt Microsoft will use the CrowdStrike issue as an opportunity to challenge that and lock competitors down.
wait, WHAT? You need CAL license for every DHCP lease from DHCP server? Whoa, I never thought about it like that, and Microsoft never told such thing. Now I think I have some problems with licensing in my company. You mean ane DHCP lease even to non-windows machines?
Yup. Every device that gets a lease is using a Windows service and therefore needs a to be covered by a CAL. If the devices are used by people with user CALs, they're covered. If not, then it needs a device CAL. You need to licence either the device itself, or all of its users, but not both. There was a Microsoft article once upon a time that used the example of a printer to confirm this. Where it becomes tricky is when you have something like public access to WiFi, using a Windows DHCP server. Technically, every user or device would need a licence; but as that isn't very practical to comply with we would just use a non-Windows DHCP server in that case.
@@lopar4ever It is worth checking to see if the "external" DHCP can be made to work but a more obvious solution would be to place the DNS service also onto the Linux box. In the long run, I can see the whole system migrating to the Linux domain. A lot of issues won't come up on Linux.
Truly dystopian. I guess this kind of thing is why most servers don't use Windows Server. Thanks for reminding me to avoid Microsoft when I start my business.
WTH? Do these kids who work on the dev teams actually worked in a real enterprise environment and understand what customers need? These are servers, not freaking phones. SMH
In place Windows Server upgrades can actually work OK...depending on what it is that your server is running. That is a BIG question though. I would NEVER do an in place server upgrade on an Exchange server or many other applications that we run, but some lighter applications can survive it. Microsoft must've gotten wind of this somewhere and saw money waiting to be made when they decided to do this. Conventional wisdom is to never do an in-place server upgrade and anybody who has had the "learning experience" of having to deal with a botched upgrade will agree. However, because there are server applications that can survive it better than others, it's not unheard of for in-place upgrades to take the place of spinning up a new server and migrating over to it. On the other hand, it has been my experience that Linux distribution release upgrades are more common to do in-place. Not for every application a Linux server needs to run, similar to Windows there are plenty of applications where you really should NOT do an in-place upgrade, but I have seen this happen far more often than Windows Server. Maybe Microsoft's just trying to play "catch up" (again) to Linux servers because the server arena is one area in which Microsoft still has to compete (like how they've still not gained any significant ground on Internet facing servers after Linux took that by storm). If that's the case, they could be doing this for the same reason why they added Hotpatch to Windows Server to reduce reboots and to try and compete with other server operating systems that need less downtime for patching.
There is an unnecessary word at the start of the title. The better title would have been: "Was Microsoft thinking?" And the answer would have been "no". They've not got a good track record for that...
The Feature Update GPO settings won’t do anything on Windows Server. They will only apply to Windows 10 and 11. I can’t speak for third-party patch management solution’s but any organisation with IT department should have a strategy when it comes to approving and deploying patches to servers. If you are still logging in manually patching every month through the GUI then you are doing it wrong.
Microsoft has confirmed the GPO shown is correct. They would prefer you used "hold" instead of "sod off", though: learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/manage-feature-updates-group-policy Quite a few companies (particularly smaller ones with limited resilience) specifically exclude servers from automatic patching because they want someone to manually verify everything is fine after patching. It doesn't scale, but we have clients that insist on it and would rather pay more for it to be done manually. Their systems, their money, their choice.
ah Microsoft thought that this upgrade will be free of charge a Christmas present lol i have another question why using microsoft server products at all only in the latest version they added partially live patching support and on servers try avoiding this part patch management it is just a security hole won't recommend
Not really following... patches fix security holes. As to why use Windows Server, the reality is that in a typical business this is the dominant server operating system. Businesses don't choose operating systems, they choose applications, and a lot of LOB applications require Windows Server. Most desktops/laptops are also Windows, and Windows Server is the best backend to partner with those. Once you leave the typical business server room and get out onto the infrastructure that runs the internet, it's mostly all Linux. Different uses cases, so choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's Windows, sometimes it's Linux.
@ProTechShow i can't imagine an app that is Windows server only . Even the Azure hyper visor is Linux-based , and banking servers have totally proprietary os made by the hardware manufacturers. Windows server os is limited to 192 cores/cores in case of the data center edition. Get redhat server, and you will have 1024 cores and that for free
There are loads of Windows-only apps. I’m not sure where you're getting the information, but it isn't accurate. Azure uses Hyper-V as its hypervisor, not Linux. The only edition of Windows Server with a core limit is Azure Edition and that is limited 2,048 cores on Windows Server 2025, not 192. The other editions support unlimited cores (limited to 64 sockets). RHEL is only free for a personal dev account. Beyond that, you need to pay (even for self-supported). Of course there are other free Linux distros, but RHEL isn't one of them. The Windows Server hardware limits for different editions are documented here: learn.microsoft.com/windows-server/get-started/locks-limits
@ProTechShow well try it. The max cores per socket on the latest Windows is 192 above that you will require an extra license and a kernel patch , Linux by default support 1092 cores in the mainstream kernel and yes even azure runs on top of a Linux hypervisor it is called open hcl paravisor
Cores *per socket* is quite a big difference to what you said initially. That's a maximum of 12,288 cores, not 192. OpenHCL is paravisor. It runs inside the (Windows or Linux) virtual machine, on top of the hypervisor. The Azure hypervisor is a tweaked version of Windows Hyper-V. It is not running on Linux.
@@BrainboxccGames I would trust NT 4.0 online over 2000 or XP 2003 because NT 4.0 doesn't have as many vulnerable services (most of the ones that are majorly vulnerable were introduced with 2000)
The cynic in me says this is intentional, to cripple on prem windows server installs with no way back to try and get people to move to cloud solutions instead...
@@MrBeachDoctor which other vendor? most businesses using windows server are totally reliant on the Microsoft ecosystem and can't just switch. besides what would they switch to? the only two serious choices are Linux and mac, and mac server offerings are laughable.
Can you do a presentation on WIN 10 vs WIN 11? I really like the simple navigation window Explorer in WIN 10 and now Microsoft is replacing with Win11 which is crazy.
Block the Microsoft updates as a solution its like dont anwser the telephone when yuor Doctor is calling😅😅 Its pretty bad how Microsoft charge their Customers using this way , one reson more to migrate to linux
Personally, I use both. Bigger picture, though: although Linux runs the majority of the internet, most businesses run predominantly Windows servers, not Linux.
I haven't had a great experience with Fedora on servers. I go through phases of using it on my laptop, because I quite like the EL ecosystem and it's a bit more fun and shiny for a secondary device; but I find the updates a bit too prone to breaking things for use on a server and would go for RHEL/Rocky/Alma instead. That said, I don't really believe in the whole Linux Vs Windows thing. To me they're both tools, and I'll use whichever is best for the job at hand.
To get paid, usually. Most businesses use it. Linux runs most of the public internet, but within a typical business Windows Server is much more common.
Microsoft has confirmed that the group policy setting shown in this video is the correct way to block the upgrade, but they would prefer you to use "hold" as the input value instead of "sod off": learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/manage-feature-updates-group-policy
How about "F*** Microsoft", how do they feel about that? ;)
I wasn't aware that Microsoft was capable of thinking... 😮
@@xlerb2286 It won't fit in the box. If you replace "Microsoft" with "Off" it will, though. Not recommending you do that at work, just saying... it does work.
I worked at a Unix server company in the late 1990s to the early 2000s. Automatic or even one-click OS upgrades never happened. We also had good dependency enforcement which would not allow version updates to libraries which would break installed apps.
Dependency management can easily break, however, when one package ships a breaking change without bumping its major version.
Back then no one updated them and were vulnerable and got hacked easily as a result if they were internet facing. I remember (former freebsd guy) that high uptimes in the year made the unix gray beards smile with pride. That doesn't work today
@@BinToss._.UNIX OS developers avoided breaking binary compatibility without a major version change and changes to released OS were security patches.
A server wouldn't have a GUI installed or a load of client programs, so updates were exceptions not the rule.
I was managing in mid 90s a distributed network of servers in many branch offices and the reliability meant the PC network switched over.
The modularity of UNIX meant I could replace a lot of the network daemons with FOSS software and I had a system to pull & push out updates and also some biz data published regularly for use by sales & sales support.
Execs at companies were demanding GUIs, but we had to detect what the worst installers were doing and use scripts to create correct configuration files automatically.
The PC team similarly needed to write registry entries for W95.
In general it was impossible to reach the same reliability having support techs go around to user machines as typos or mistakes could disrupt the LAN. In another job which had not developed such automation, there was an intermittent problem on a server that I eventually tracked down to an occasionally used Mac in an archive room that was grabbing the wrong IP address when people turned it on.
@@timgibney5590excuse me, but I had live updates in the mid-90s and the Linux I used later was also remotely manageable. For kernel updates 1 live machine would be rebooted and then the other minimising disruption.
There were constant attacks on the internet facing web servers, I would detect scans and drop packets from hostile sources.
Going to be so funny when they push Recall out on Server Editions :)
"funny" is an odd word for it.
Microsoft gotta Microsoft
Not even servers are safe...
Windows Server 2028: Ads in your PowerShell terminal
Nooooooo
@@ProTechShow i hope they won't go the paid DLC route like what they're doing with Windows 10.
Typical Redmond behaviour
@@ecu4321 If windows bothers me with buying something stupid like horse armor, I'm learning linux
We seem to ask this question every single day with each of their products
Suspiciously bit to much "mistakes" from Microsoft side recently. Like instaling Virtual Computer system instead of fresh OS reinstall..
They have to up the bar each year else they wouldn't stay Microsoft and become stable like other os systems
"to much mistakes"
RIP English.
And this is why sensible people don’t run Windows. Gimme FreeBSD, Linux or any open source POSIX compliant free OS any day over this disease that’s called Windows.
hey you're better off with anything besides MS' doo-doo, even non posix complient os' like Haiku
@ I agree!!!!
if THIS is the reason for going linux, ...
@ well with the politics in Linux these days banning Russian developers, abusing their code of conduct to cancel devs (when they breach the CoC themselves) also doesn’t instill trust in me.
I want my FOSS to be free of political
Drama so I think I’ll soon be going back to FreeBSD.
Although I also have Macs (and I start to dislike Apple too)
@@CallousCoder this guy thinks FOSS wasn't ever political!
Best advertisement to switch your DC to Linux.
Univention Corporate Server is compatible with Microsoft AD. You can install it alongside your AD servers, or migrate your DC to your UCS domain.
If only it were that easy.
It kind of is. Just check if your every essential software works on Linux and prepare a bootable flashdrive with Linux Mint or just try it out in a virtual machine if you have newer computer.
So many good reasons for why I have automatic updates disabled on my desktop computer.
I ca
I can't disable it. Sometimes I need to use Windows to troubleshoot Adobe for a friend or if I get invited to play a Kernel level spyware game. I tried to modify registry but it didn't work. If you have a video tutorial for Windows 10 at your disposal I would be glad.
@czromxl3182 you need to use the group policy editor, which is only in windows pro versions
@@czromxl3182 You can simply set the group policy to disable automatic updates and check for updates at your leisure. Your computer will go literal years without an automatic update until the time of your choosing.
You don't need a "video tutorial" to configure group policy.
JFC...
I want to see an in-place upgrade button on my life.
Describing MS licensing as "complicated" is like describing Loop Quantum Gravity as a bit of maths... it doesn't even come close to the reality of the situation. Anyhoo, I have stopped believing MS is making mistakes, they seem too line up in support of their business aims.
It's a sorry state when Microsoft can't even figure out their own licensing. I called their licensing team for partners once. Completely useless. Speak to 3 people, get 5 different answers...
and thats why 98% of my management area runs tux
Imagine running a business of any value off a single server?
Imagine having multiple servers and configuring them all to update at the same time?
Imagine not disabling automatic updates entirely so they can be scheduled during an outage window with risks assessed beforehand?
Keep it classy, SMB!
What i would like is OFFF (and i DO MEAN OFFFFFFFFFFF not maybe partially maybe... OFFFFF) button on updates.
This is Microsoft dropping ADS for upgrades - despite their words otherwise - when they think they can get away with it, it will be repeated in another form. :P
I can't argue with this logic
You know, timing on things like this is always interesting.
This popped up as I was starting to consider installing Windows on my PC again alongside Linux for things that refuse to run on Linux.
That said, if they're even doing this shenaniganry with **servers** now, then it's likely enough worse on the PC Windows side that I'm over that idea again.
Too few people being told to do too much work and too little oversight and testing. MSFT has been cutting budgets across development and this is what you get.
Most believable comment I've seen yet
@@ProTechShow From experience. I worked there 6+ years. Worst part of my career and the best thing I ever did was get out of there. That was in the stack ranking era and every day was stab your buddy in the back day. Nobody cared about the customer or doing what was right. Everyone just tried to game the metrics so they weren't the one laid off. Me, I played it different. I wanted out so I made myself a target. Got a nice severance package and started my new job after a nice stress free week off.
Glad to hear you've found something you're happier with. That sounds like a pretty toxic environment.
Yupp no more Windows Happening under my Management.
Automatic updates are horrible. Both on servers and normal versions of windows. It should have been a setting you could toggle back in Windows 10 the day it released.
And some people wonder why us tech savvy people are racing to Linux these days...
Companies that are still using Microsoft server. 😂😂😂
Yeah, at this point I wonder if running Windows Enterprise software under WINE would have better reliability.
When you think the crowdstrike situation was bad and realize they werent the only bad party
Crowdstrike was because Windows handled a null file or reference poorly. Linux systems had the same corrupted files, but instead the service doesn't start.
The CrowdStrike issue was caused by a kernel-level driver from CrowdStrike, not Windows itself. If a kernel-level driver crashes, then any properly designed operating system should also crash. To do otherwise is unsafe. The same thing actually happened to Linux back in April. It just didn't make the news because it's not as widely used in Linux so while it brought down several companies it didn't bring the whole planet to a halt like when Windows went down.
@ProTechShow And the messed up part is, NT 3.x didn't have this issue - most drivers ran in user space, even graphics device drivers. It was with Windows NT 4.0 that Microsoft wanted to match Windows 95 (also "4.0", but not on the NT kernel) performance, so the developers moved drivers such as graphics and other drivers that were in the user space into the kernel space for speed, at the expense of stability and security. A mistake we are living with 28 years later.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's hands are tied on this. There was a legal ruling that makes it impossible for them to ban third parties from installing kernel-level drivers because it would give Microsoft's own security products an unfair advantage over the competition. No doubt Microsoft will use the CrowdStrike issue as an opportunity to challenge that and lock competitors down.
I knew this sounded familiar. Yes, different company, but same mistake.
wait, WHAT? You need CAL license for every DHCP lease from DHCP server? Whoa, I never thought about it like that, and Microsoft never told such thing. Now I think I have some problems with licensing in my company. You mean ane DHCP lease even to non-windows machines?
Yup. Every device that gets a lease is using a Windows service and therefore needs a to be covered by a CAL. If the devices are used by people with user CALs, they're covered. If not, then it needs a device CAL. You need to licence either the device itself, or all of its users, but not both. There was a Microsoft article once upon a time that used the example of a printer to confirm this.
Where it becomes tricky is when you have something like public access to WiFi, using a Windows DHCP server. Technically, every user or device would need a licence; but as that isn't very practical to comply with we would just use a non-Windows DHCP server in that case.
@@ProTechShow I think, I need to urgently change something in my system. Big thanx for mentioning this point in the video, sir!
Yes, on your network, you need DHCP to be handled by a Linux box and also to start migrating everything else too
@@kensmith5694 dhcp in AD is connected to dns closely, so new leases auttomatically update dns. I don't think external dhcp sdervices can do this.
@@lopar4ever It is worth checking to see if the "external" DHCP can be made to work but a more obvious solution would be to place the DNS service also onto the Linux box. In the long run, I can see the whole system migrating to the Linux domain. A lot of issues won't come up on Linux.
Bold of you to believe they're thinking at all 🤣
Truly dystopian. I guess this kind of thing is why most servers don't use Windows Server. Thanks for reminding me to avoid Microsoft when I start my business.
WTH? Do these kids who work on the dev teams actually worked in a real enterprise environment and understand what customers need? These are servers, not freaking phones. SMH
So, in other words, all servers should be running Linux. Many businesses can't live through this some of a mess.
I caught this right away and pushed a gpo to block this. None of my servers were affected thank God!
Phew!
In place Windows Server upgrades can actually work OK...depending on what it is that your server is running. That is a BIG question though. I would NEVER do an in place server upgrade on an Exchange server or many other applications that we run, but some lighter applications can survive it.
Microsoft must've gotten wind of this somewhere and saw money waiting to be made when they decided to do this. Conventional wisdom is to never do an in-place server upgrade and anybody who has had the "learning experience" of having to deal with a botched upgrade will agree. However, because there are server applications that can survive it better than others, it's not unheard of for in-place upgrades to take the place of spinning up a new server and migrating over to it.
On the other hand, it has been my experience that Linux distribution release upgrades are more common to do in-place. Not for every application a Linux server needs to run, similar to Windows there are plenty of applications where you really should NOT do an in-place upgrade, but I have seen this happen far more often than Windows Server. Maybe Microsoft's just trying to play "catch up" (again) to Linux servers because the server arena is one area in which Microsoft still has to compete (like how they've still not gained any significant ground on Internet facing servers after Linux took that by storm). If that's the case, they could be doing this for the same reason why they added Hotpatch to Windows Server to reduce reboots and to try and compete with other server operating systems that need less downtime for patching.
There is an unnecessary word at the start of the title.
The better title would have been:
"Was Microsoft thinking?"
And the answer would have been "no". They've not got a good track record for that...
Windows XP Search 2.0
Guess Microsoft forgot.
And this is why you DON’T auto update -_-
That's why normal humans use Linux for servers
Normal humans use servers? I thought it was just us weirdos. 😆
phew, I thought it's wins 10/11 home for a second but that's for windows servers only lol. thank goodness
The Feature Update GPO settings won’t do anything on Windows Server. They will only apply to Windows 10 and 11.
I can’t speak for third-party patch management solution’s but any organisation with IT department should have a strategy when it comes to approving and deploying patches to servers. If you are still logging in manually patching every month through the GUI then you are doing it wrong.
Microsoft has confirmed the GPO shown is correct. They would prefer you used "hold" instead of "sod off", though: learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/manage-feature-updates-group-policy
Quite a few companies (particularly smaller ones with limited resilience) specifically exclude servers from automatic patching because they want someone to manually verify everything is fine after patching. It doesn't scale, but we have clients that insist on it and would rather pay more for it to be done manually. Their systems, their money, their choice.
Sounds like MS went phishing. 😮
Every time you use WinGet it kills 14 kittens.
Have you got a source for this? Who's counting the kittens? 🤔
@@ProTechShow It was discovered during a 1st Amendment Audit, but I'm not a statist or anything like that. :)
I can tell you how we combat this. Every chance I get I turn off and remove Microsoft software.
I still run MS-DOS 5.0 sometimes. It works OK for what it is needed for
MS has gotten too big NOT to fail.
I guess there is a reason why most servers use Linux
ah Microsoft thought that this upgrade will be free of charge a Christmas present lol i have another question why using microsoft server products at all only in the latest version they added partially live patching support and on servers try avoiding this part patch management it is just a security hole won't recommend
Not really following... patches fix security holes.
As to why use Windows Server, the reality is that in a typical business this is the dominant server operating system. Businesses don't choose operating systems, they choose applications, and a lot of LOB applications require Windows Server. Most desktops/laptops are also Windows, and Windows Server is the best backend to partner with those. Once you leave the typical business server room and get out onto the infrastructure that runs the internet, it's mostly all Linux. Different uses cases, so choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's Windows, sometimes it's Linux.
@ProTechShow i can't imagine an app that is Windows server only . Even the Azure hyper visor is Linux-based , and banking servers have totally proprietary os made by the hardware manufacturers. Windows server os is limited to 192 cores/cores in case of the data center edition. Get redhat server, and you will have 1024 cores and that for free
There are loads of Windows-only apps. I’m not sure where you're getting the information, but it isn't accurate. Azure uses Hyper-V as its hypervisor, not Linux. The only edition of Windows Server with a core limit is Azure Edition and that is limited 2,048 cores on Windows Server 2025, not 192. The other editions support unlimited cores (limited to 64 sockets). RHEL is only free for a personal dev account. Beyond that, you need to pay (even for self-supported). Of course there are other free Linux distros, but RHEL isn't one of them.
The Windows Server hardware limits for different editions are documented here: learn.microsoft.com/windows-server/get-started/locks-limits
@ProTechShow well try it. The max cores per socket on the latest Windows is 192 above that you will require an extra license and a kernel patch , Linux by default support 1092 cores in the mainstream kernel and yes even azure runs on top of a Linux hypervisor it is called open hcl paravisor
Cores *per socket* is quite a big difference to what you said initially. That's a maximum of 12,288 cores, not 192.
OpenHCL is paravisor. It runs inside the (Windows or Linux) virtual machine, on top of the hypervisor. The Azure hypervisor is a tweaked version of Windows Hyper-V. It is not running on Linux.
Surely Microsoft hasn't put AI in charge already? 🙄
Wouldn't surprise me. Have you seen the Ignite content?
x.com/AndrewMRQuinn/status/1861080502137954694
yea.... fun eh
💯
It wasn't accidental it was a test
my worker server is safe....the pdc is still on 2003
😬
I hope that server is unplugged from the Internet.
youre doing it wrong, gotta run windows NT 4.0 backoffice server just to be sure...
@@BrainboxccGames I would trust NT 4.0 online over 2000 or XP 2003 because NT 4.0 doesn't have as many vulnerable services (most of the ones that are majorly vulnerable were introduced with 2000)
@@ShirokoCycling but no active directory...
Couldn't imagine anyone silly enough to use ms server ...
Most businesses use it. Linux runs most of the public internet, but within a typical business Windows Server is much more common.
That's why Linux is superior
The cynic in me says this is intentional, to cripple on prem windows server installs with no way back to try and get people to move to cloud solutions instead...
but if Microsoft just f'd you over wouldn't they look to go with another vendor?
@@MrBeachDoctor which other vendor? most businesses using windows server are totally reliant on the Microsoft ecosystem and can't just switch. besides what would they switch to? the only two serious choices are Linux and mac, and mac server offerings are laughable.
@@BrainboxccGames yeah, wish Novell was still around.
@@BrainboxccGames Mac server offerings aren't laughable, they're straight-up DEAD now.
@@ThatLinuxDude yeah basically for mac you drink the cloud koolaid or nothing
Can you do a presentation on WIN 10 vs WIN 11?
I really like the simple navigation window Explorer in WIN 10 and now Microsoft is replacing with Win11 which is crazy.
just use ubuntu server.
Block the Microsoft updates as a solution its like dont anwser the telephone when yuor Doctor is calling😅😅
Its pretty bad how Microsoft charge their Customers using this way , one reson more to migrate to linux
It's only blocking the in-place upgrade to 2025. It won't prevent any of the regular updates for your existing server OS.
Man reason why NOT to use windows server. Linux, Bsd, etc
Because some got a free upgrade incl 3 years more Support? What?
Shouldn't ask the major question. Why THE HECK are you using Windows Server and NOT Linux???!!!
Personally, I use both. Bigger picture, though: although Linux runs the majority of the internet, most businesses run predominantly Windows servers, not Linux.
Step 1: Restore snapshot.
Step 2: Install Fedora.
I haven't had a great experience with Fedora on servers. I go through phases of using it on my laptop, because I quite like the EL ecosystem and it's a bit more fun and shiny for a secondary device; but I find the updates a bit too prone to breaking things for use on a server and would go for RHEL/Rocky/Alma instead.
That said, I don't really believe in the whole Linux Vs Windows thing. To me they're both tools, and I'll use whichever is best for the job at hand.
Linux looks better and better all the time.
MS is seriously inept!!! Glad I don't use it, Windows that is.
Why would any sane person would use windows server?
To get paid, usually. Most businesses use it. Linux runs most of the public internet, but within a typical business Windows Server is much more common.
@@ProTechShow sadly yes.
That's not how licensing works.
Yes it is
Just use Linux.
when humans make stupid decisions the AI is coming in and making them for us - looking forward to whats to come, will be a hoot
You used "Microsoft' and 'thinking' in the same sentence?
REALLY?!
Shoulda bought a Mac...
Macs cant run an Active Directory server dawg
@@seansingh4421 It was a joke bro
@@skjoldgames sorry then bro 😂
microsoft server?! hahahahahaha
Whats funny?
@@Lofote He thinks linux server is better ahahahahaha