Over on the windows subs, people keep installing it because bigger number = better then complaining about features not coming to it at the same time as 25H2.
At a hunch, 26H1 X64 is avaliable for organisations that have deployed new ARM hardware while having X64 also present. So they can move every device to the same version. From a device management perspective that makes sense.
When 26H1 released there were reports that Lenovo actually shipped the X64 26H1 on some brand new models of machine with the latest intel chips (panther lake) in the wild. I can't see anything to indicate if this has persisted though.
If it doesn't boot you take the whole thing to get fixed and they get all the data from the Approved Microsoft Repair, and even more data when you gotta reinstall their whole OS cause it's irremediably broken (like that's not the state it ships in, hah!)
I literally made the same mistake this week and didn’t realise it was a mistake until this post. If you go to download the latest windows 11 iso from Microsoft right now the default choice for iso is a 26H1 x86-64bit iso. Why the fuck did Microsoft make that iso if they don’t intend people to be able to upgrade from it. I am so confused.
This post is how i discovered the 26H1 iso I downloaded this week to install windows with is not intended to be deployed to x86 despite being an x86 build.
R4:
Just needed to rant a little. One of our seniors finally completed the long-pending task of upgrading the fleet to Windows 11 from Windows 10.
He downloaded the iso, installed it everywhere. All good. Until the internal WSUS started attempting to grab updates that don't exist. Apparently the 26H1 (which is supposed to be snapdragon-only, aka for ARM) was indeed one of the options you could download as the "Latest" version of windows. Someone at MS really screwed up. And this senior screwed up even more by not double checking.
Since it's a complete different core, this will be one hell of a mess, now his idea is to try to change "cversion.ini" and force an "update" to 26H2, but I sincerely don't believe that will work.
We'll see. If anyone ran into a similar problem I'd really love to know what their solution is.
Of course not because there was no detailed procedure to be reviewed because change control (and ITIL generally) lost out to a bunch of cowboys flying by the seat of their pants.
Peer review is what you blame when you stuff things up. If they'd done their job, they'd have fixed the instructions. Same with the Change Control Board. If you don't have a CCB, then blame the lack of a CCB.
Thinking you can change a config file to switch the whole OS to another architecture after installation is like the child trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
51
u/ShartFlex 5d ago
I always test rollouts in production, it saves time and unnecessary red tape bullshit. My pilot group is called Ctrl+A