Let's be honest, it's not rocket science. You can debate un-maintained/un-monitored until you're blue in the face, but it's not hard to check or ask about software running on the machine before deciding to simply wipe everything for an upgrade. It's not the job of end users, that's what IT support is for in the first place. Lazy c**ts.
As an IT support bod they shouldn't need to ask.
They should know. If users have installed bespoke apps on a workstation, that's not their fault, the aup and syops should forbid that anyway IMO, users should never have admin on a non-home machine.
"It's not hard to ask" I don't know the context of this upgrade but what if it was university wide? They need to ask 100's of departments what software they have installed on each of their computers? And who do they ask? The users they see using it on a Monday afternoon? Or the users of a different class on a Friday? Perhaps the department head? The department receptionist? All of the teaching staff? The research students? Teaching assistants?
Maybe, just maybe they look at their config management database and see that all the workstations in lab 1A are listed as standard class workstations and deploy that config, as opposed to the machines in lab 2B which are showing as scientific equipment workstations with licenced installs of acme blipblob v1.72 which have a pre-req of dx9, a non standard gpu and are used to operate the electron flibblestick.
Not lazy, just common sense.
Users will never understand, but the pain admins go through is so they have a smoother time. Perhaps in zpyders case they really are a bunch of Neanderthals, but I can't tell just from his posts as they all seem like the typical user moans that you get with most roll outs. 99% will have gone without a hitch but 1% will require more effort.