My company (130,000 employees) sticks to 24H2. IT wouldn’t approve the 25H2. Don’t know whether the refusal to upgrade hurts Microsoft in any way, but if it does, I think we’re big enough to be on their radar, and perhaps they talk to our IT about concerns and complaints we may have.
I had a few issues with 25H2 on release, but they’re largely fixed now.
24H2 and 25H2 are the same thing, it’s just enabling a few different changes. But things like the new obnoxiously ugly start menu have started showing on my 24H2 machines so I don’t really know what the difference is.
So Microsoft is so diversified, 130K isn’t even a drop to them. We had almost 200K seats of E3 and when I calculated out the revenue from our EA vs their total revenue, it came up to something like 0.012%. Even though it was tens of millions of dollars on our end, we’re still a drop in the bucket to them.
This is the issue I have with people talking about how “you MUST always run the most up to date software”. They don’t understand that in large enterprise it is common for function and security to not update unless there is a damn good reason. The very idea that the newest version is the best is just marketing brainwashing and does not hold up to the reality of use.
25H2 is a feature update. 24H2, for now, gets all the same security fixes. When people say “always run the latest” they mean stay on a supported OS and always have as many security updates as possible within reason.
And they are laughably wrong. Its always the wannabe system admins with 4 end users spouting that nonsense. You get into any big organization and legacy becomes a larger and larger part of the way things are kept running. Hell just for shits and giggles look at the back end of blood banks, government, airports and non blood banks back end infrastructure. I would be shocked if anything was running on less then a decade old software. Hell people think that software hardened over years should just be tossed out the window because the company (who has now made it clear they don’t even know what they are doing) released a version with a bigger number.
Just what are they teaching these days? No OS is secure, exploits and vaunrabilitys are in them all. This should not be a hot take but all I see is lazy it departments offloading responsibly left and right. The correct way to handle this has always been from a risk management approach. You need to assume your not ever secure, make backups, develop a plan to recover after an event and if you have sensitive data handle it like it was sensitive. Now a days we have usernames and passwords stored in the same databases, plain text critical data, lack of redundancy at all levels and a slick sales package to justify it all.
My company (130,000 employees) sticks to 24H2. IT wouldn’t approve the 25H2. Don’t know whether the refusal to upgrade hurts Microsoft in any way, but if it does, I think we’re big enough to be on their radar, and perhaps they talk to our IT about concerns and complaints we may have.
I had a few issues with 25H2 on release, but they’re largely fixed now.
24H2 and 25H2 are the same thing, it’s just enabling a few different changes. But things like the new obnoxiously ugly start menu have started showing on my 24H2 machines so I don’t really know what the difference is.
So Microsoft is so diversified, 130K isn’t even a drop to them. We had almost 200K seats of E3 and when I calculated out the revenue from our EA vs their total revenue, it came up to something like 0.012%. Even though it was tens of millions of dollars on our end, we’re still a drop in the bucket to them.
This is the issue I have with people talking about how “you MUST always run the most up to date software”. They don’t understand that in large enterprise it is common for function and security to not update unless there is a damn good reason. The very idea that the newest version is the best is just marketing brainwashing and does not hold up to the reality of use.
25H2 is a feature update. 24H2, for now, gets all the same security fixes. When people say “always run the latest” they mean stay on a supported OS and always have as many security updates as possible within reason.
And they are laughably wrong. Its always the wannabe system admins with 4 end users spouting that nonsense. You get into any big organization and legacy becomes a larger and larger part of the way things are kept running. Hell just for shits and giggles look at the back end of blood banks, government, airports and non blood banks back end infrastructure. I would be shocked if anything was running on less then a decade old software. Hell people think that software hardened over years should just be tossed out the window because the company (who has now made it clear they don’t even know what they are doing) released a version with a bigger number.
Just what are they teaching these days? No OS is secure, exploits and vaunrabilitys are in them all. This should not be a hot take but all I see is lazy it departments offloading responsibly left and right. The correct way to handle this has always been from a risk management approach. You need to assume your not ever secure, make backups, develop a plan to recover after an event and if you have sensitive data handle it like it was sensitive. Now a days we have usernames and passwords stored in the same databases, plain text critical data, lack of redundancy at all levels and a slick sales package to justify it all.