There is no reason for it to get long term servicing other then it's meant for job specific use, like hospital equipment, atm machines, usage that doesn't want/need an upgrade suddenly appear, twice a year and has to be able to be uptodate for 5 + 5 years. As soon as RS builds are done, a new LTSB will be released, with new features. TH1 got a LTSB, RS1 got one, and the next big new build will get one too.
What new features does RS1 LTSB have that TH1 LTSB does not have, aside from low-level aspects like WDDM 2.0/2.1? The point I was trying to make is that there is plenty to fix in RS1 and RS2 and yet they are moving fast with RS3 (AND RS4 FCOL!), adding new, not-well-tested features on top of bugs/issues/instabilities/incompatibilities from previous builds. In other words - they keep on building a skyscraper, making it higher and bigger, with more bang, while the base/foundation is rocky at best. They do take a different approach when it comes to builds they designate for LTSB, regardless of why do they do it. Think about it - whenever people on MS forums report issues, one of the most common, if not THE most common, responses from MS is to run "DISM Scan/RecoverHealth" command to identify and/or fix those issues and YET, RS2 original build came out with broken Component Store AND it wasn't until 3-4 months later when that issue was actually fixed (15063.332 I believe). That's just not the kind of a mistake they would allow for a stable LTSB branch. This very thread is another example - RS2 released with Gaming (Game Mode) in mind just to have an UN-fixable performance-degrading bug that requires RS3 to fix it! A bit ironic, isn't it? It goes right back to the whole skyscraper analogy. Again, regardless of the reason, MS is not moving anywhere near as fast when it comes to LTSB versions and for LTSB versions they prioritize bugs and security over features. They only update it when whichever build is considered stable/functional-enough for those hospital/military, etc. tasks. I am not running a hospital or some military equipment, but I sure as hell don't see any reason to have experimental/alpha/beta/not-well-tested OS builds pushed to me, where new (mostly UI) features are the only advantage that usually comes with major disadvantage of being UBER-bloated with crap I do not need or want that just takes more RAM, CPU cycles, etc.
Totally agree ms should rethink their dev progressing method make it better and faster fixing we want innovation but we need stability more in same areas like gaming ...
it is obvious that they have taken time to solve it is a manual work to go checking for thing by thing, code by code. Glad to use the windows system.
THEY DIDN'T SOLVE IT... Come on, if they would've solved it, they would've released an update for RS2 that contains a fix, but RS2 is so broken that this performance-degrading issue cannot be resolved and asking people to upgrade to new OS branch is no better or different than asking people to upgrade from Windows 7/7/8.1 to Windows 10. Its not a solution. Its an EXCUSE used to get more people to try Fall Creator's Update because, as evidence shows, general population of Windows 10 users are not happy with where Windows 10 began to move forward to with RS2. Lately there is even a trend of Steam gamers switching back to Windows 7. Edit: I may have been slightly wrong when supporting MS in their statement about them not being able to fix RS2 in regard to reported gaming performance degradation. It just seems more likely that such a fix is possible, but admitting that and releasing such a fix could potentially reduce the rate of adoption of RS3, although I don't have the required skills and knowledge in OS programming and development to say that with 100% certainty. It simply "smells" like it, especially if you consider MS OS development and promotional history/material.
I'm running Enterprise LTSB and stripped everything down. Better performance than any Game mode I'm willing to bet. Less telemetry and advertising too.