Microsoft removed outdated Windows 10 cumulative updates from MUC

[halohalo]

As of March 31, 2026, Microsoft removed outdated Windows 10 cumulative updates from MUC or other release channels. Windows 11 or Windows 8.1 are not affected by the decision.

The decision affects Windows 10 version 1507 to 22H2, and deleted CU will be marked as expired. Although preview updates and out-of-band updates are still available, I think MS will delete these updates sooner or later. Another problem is MS only marked outdated CU as expired for the version which has LTSB or LTSC edition, but MS also deleted outdated CU released for the version which has no LTSB or LTSC edition and official update history support page has no information.

Take version 1607 for example, KB5022838 which supports Home edition was removed, but MS kept KB5022289 because MS promised to help Atom Clover Trail users upgrade from 8.1 to 1607. MS also removed CU released for 1511, 1703, 1709, 1809, 2004, but it seems that 1803 is not affected.

Edited April 15 by halohalo

[Jody Thornton]

So if one were using LTSC 2019 (installing it fresh as of April 2026), does that mean we would not have access to all required updates?  If I ran the latest cumulative update, we'd be all good and caught up, correct?

[halohalo]

On 4/26/2026 at 3:09 AM, Jody Thornton said:

If I ran the latest cumulative update, we'd be all good and caught up, correct?

Yes. It seems that MS already removed old CU for 1809 from September 2022 to April 2025. Sometimes old features will be removed from latest CU, so you may want to check update history.

[superleiw]

That's intriguing !

I also opened a thread in the Win11 section about Intel removing all older drivers for Intel Arc and for 7-10th Gen it's even all except the very last !

Looks like Microsoft and Intel are doing some massive "spring cleaning" session or something...

[halohalo]

I think it's just a coincidence because Intel often removes outdated drivers from official download center. Maybe MS does not want to spend money hosting outdated CU.

[cc333]

It seems absurd to m that they would want to save money by not hosting older updates and drivers.

They have hundreds of billions of dollars, but they can't spare a few million to host some outdated updates that could actually be useful to someone?

c

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 minutes ago, cc333 said:

It seems absurd to m that they would want to save money by not hosting older updates and drivers.

They have hundreds of billions of dollars, but they can't spare a few million to host some outdated updates that could actually be useful to someone?

c

I have to disagree.  What happens if one of those outdated updates is discovered that while it was "secure" at the time of release, it opens gigantic security flaws in today's infrastructure?  Keep the file there and allow anybody and everybody to "sue" because of those security flaws that exist today but did not exist yesteryear?

I say that they own the server, they own the file, it is theirs to keep or throw away.

[cc333]

1 hour ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I have to disagree.  What happens if one of those outdated updates is discovered that while it was "secure" at the time of release, it opens gigantic security flaws in today's infrastructure?  Keep the file there and allow anybody and everybody to "sue" because of those security flaws that exist today but did not exist yesteryear?

I say that they own the server, they own the file, it is theirs to keep or throw away.

Now that you put it that way, you are probably right.

c

[NotHereToPlayGames]

We have to draw the line somewhere.

I work for an automotive company.  We continue to build "spare parts" long after the car that contains those parts is no longer manufactured.

ie, those parts now stock the shelves of auto parts stores and distributors and repair shops.

There is no Federal Law dictating how long we have to build "spare parts" to cover warranties or just normal wear and tear.

It's a "science" of sorts.  We would lose NEW CAR customers if we gained a reputation for not having parts for the USED CAR market.

But if you (the car owner) tries to buy a part TWENTY YEARS from now, do you really think you can EXPECT to find that part and then "blame" the manufacturer if you cannot?

For reference, as an automotive parts manufacturer, we build our "spare parts" for SEVEN YEARS after that part is no longer used in NEW cars (but on a smaller assembly line and a reduced annual rate based on historic warranty and distributor supply chain data).

And the Win 10 1809 version being discussed here is EIGHT YEARS OLD.

Edited April 30 by NotHereToPlayGames

[superleiw]

Could be related to older, soon incompatible, Secure Boot Certificates in those updates.

Microsoft recommends May 2025 LCU at minimum to manually update the Secure Boot Certificates :

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-secure-boot-update-process-b34bf675-b03a-4d34-b689-98ec117c7818

 

Q8: When where the updated 2023 Secure Boot Certificates shipped?

The certificates were included in the May 13, 2025, cumulative updates (LCU) and later. However, they are not applied automatically additional steps are required.

For deployment guidance, see https://aka.ms/getsecureboot

 

 

 

Edited May 4 by superleiw

[halohalo]

3 hours ago, superleiw said:

Could be related to older, soon incompatible, Secure Boot Certificates in those updates.

Microsoft recommends May 2025 LCU at minimum to manually update the Secure Boot Certificates :

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-secure-boot-update-process-b34bf675-b03a-4d34-b689-98ec117c7818

 

It explains why Windows 10 cumulative updates released before May 2025 were removed, excluding 1607.