Don't want updates or want them at convenient times?
Firewalls are your friend.
Microsoft's licensing on the upcoming Windows 10 OS means that most users will find their systems updating on command from Redmond without any option to stop this. The Licensing Agreement for Windows 10, as found in the latest release candidate build 10240 of Windows 10 Professional, stated: The software periodically checks …
This post has been deleted by its author
It won't be that long before someone comes up with a 'fix' for this. Even if it is simply blocking a whole string of IP addresses in the firewall.
The current system is bad enough where you can suddenly have you system reboot from underneath you if you don't set it up right. To force updates onto PC's is in my mind a breach of the Computer Misuse Act.
It is my right to refuse updates if I don't want them at that point in time.
Will MS be willing to cough up for the Data charges for forcing their updates upon us when we might be roaming?
Somehow I doubt it.
Another fine mess they are creating for themselves.
>There is a perfect fix for this already, it's called a Linux distro.
Few people care about the OS. Apple have it right when they market capabilities, not specs. Do you have a Linux distro which allows you to use the best (only usable?) diagramme tool - Visio?
If I had some of Google's billions and wanted to thwart MS' desktop control, a drop-in, cross-platform replacement for Visio would be high on my list.
Windows does have some excellent apps which don't have a high-quality equivalent in the *nix world. The good news is that MS appears to be running out of useful features to add, which means catching-up should get easier. With the success of Apple in BYOD and Linux in the datacentre, there's also a greater market for cross-platform tools.
It is my right to refuse updates if I don't want them at that point in time
That will depend on the terms of the EULA, and whether Microsoft decide to grant you that "right", I would have thought. The whole point of the EULA is to limit and restrict purchaser rights to the maximum extent permitted by law, and to confer maximum protection upon MS.
You can of course decline the W10 EULA, and stick with W7, or install another operating system of your choice.
That will depend on the terms of the EULA, and whether Microsoft decide to grant you that "right", I would have thought.
It's about time that over-restrictive EULAs were called out and challenged against the various consumer protection laws that exist. Microsoft aren't alone in putting that sort of thing in a EULA but they are a big user of such terms, thinking that they can successfully defend the terms after the fact because they can easily manipulate the legal process with their billions if some poor farty out there tries to challenge them.
Well, this may just be going beyond the extent permitted by law in more than a few countries.
Maybe the Corporate States of America will permit Microcruft to force windows upgrades down people's throats over a cellphone connection while roaming at $3 per megabyte.
In Europe, I much doubt that one.
But then there's TTIP that seems to be going through, because banksters and corporate foam whippers already control every western government I know of.
So consumer rights of any kind will be a thing of the past.
The courts could decide these are unfair terms and conditions.
One of the reasons why I no longer use windows was I got fed up with the unexpected long shut-down, boot or restart when I was in a hurry or applications no longer worked or needed tweaking to work properly. They've still shut me out!
Australian Consumer Law.
It dictates that all terms and conditions of a sale, MUST be made apparent to the consumer prior to the point of purchase. The EULA pops up after the consumer has paid, gone home, opened the package and tried to install the software.
This, makes it not only unenforceable, but also illegal should Microsoft (or any other software vendor), try to force any part of the EULA onto the consumer.
I've used it a few times, on both software vendors, and also other dipshits who thought putting a slip of paper inside the box that I only get to see after I've paid my money.
Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others.
Some of you are being awkward just for the sake of it. Having said that, as I.T Admins you'd be using the Enterprise version which you having full control over updates. If you are the kind of Admins who do not deploy updates after a week or two of testing then you should be removed from your jobs.
How many of these updates recently have killed Office applications?
I had one humdinger of an issue recently which borked my Excel applications the security updates stopped any of MS' own Active-X controls working on their own products. The only way to fix the issue was to remove the update and, on my other machines, stop that update buggering up the system there.
And this wasn't just one single security update which did that.
So, back to your question: Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? the answer would surely now be obvious.
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
Because some of us have learned that accepting patches sight-unseen is a proven recipe for disaster, and that it's much smarter to wait a week or so and see what complaints pop up to make sure that any given patch will not screw up our systems. This isn't some hypothetical risk - it happened several times this year alone.
If you read the article you should see the concern here isn't for enterprises with test labs and a release cycle, who get pretty strict control over how these updates roll out. This is a concern for home and SMB installations.
Obviously what one does should depend on the severity of the vulnerability and whether it's known to be exploited in the wild, but those of us who manage our own patch processing (even "just" on home systems) should have the ability to make that risk assessment.
You wont get patches sight-unseen. The insider program is going to continue even after the official release. Any updates will first be rolled out to the insiders and then to the general public. Although how much that will help only time will tell.
A.K.A. MicroSofts like of Alpha Testers... Really if your not already on W7/W8.. To get the *cough* free *cough* Windows OSX Update... Why would you reserve yourself to this special place in computer Hell for yourself? Probably the same 'dolts that actually convinced themselves that W8+Metro was the BEST THING EVER!!
Really such users should probably bight the built and, install Cinnamon Mint instead!
Yeah. Right. Like Windows 7?
When I'm at work, I sometimes want to take my PC home. So, I go to power it down, only to be told (paraphrased) "do not turn your computer off, 31 updates in progress"
Smeg that! I've a bus to catch, and it's bleeding cold outside. I'll be an hour or so travelling home.
Rip it from its cable, shove it in my laptop bag, and head home. If the thing overheats, there's no WiFi on the way (there isn't) or the battery runs out mid-way, "Ahh, Didums!"
(Yes, I found the 'fix' - the well-hidden Control key when going to shut down, but I don't always remember...)
Rip it from its cable, shove it in my laptop bag, and head home. If the thing overheats, there's no WiFi on the way (there isn't) or the battery runs out mid-way, "Ahh, Didums!"
That's the simple joy of enterprise IT: As a user there is no need to care. I certainly don't.
Happened to me last night 22 feckin updates took about 15mins to complete its run and closedown. Its not like there is a warning or any useful estimation of how long they will take to load
Its the second time in about 6 weeks MS has shat on me from on high.....Grrrrrr
A few examples for you:
1) I'm away from the house and roaming via a data connection on my phone (especially if abroad). I don't want my laptop to suddenly download hundreds of MBs of updates and cost me a fortune in data costs.
2) I'm in the middle of playing a game. I don't want Windows to start stuttering away whilst it's busy installing a pile of updates at the same time. In fact replace "playing a game" with any sort of PC behaviour you don't want interrupted.
3) Important work: I'm working on some major work, and Windows updates have (from time to time) caused problems (BSODs, reboot loops etc). I probably want to postpone those updates until a less critical time.
These are just a few of the examples as to why I use the "Notify, but let me choose" option in Windows 7. I get to choose when the updates are downloaded and installed in order to prevent any problems for me. By all means leave "Auto" as the default, but if a user wants to change this, they often have a good reason for doing so and MS blocking it is not helpful in the slightest.
A few examples for you:
Let me add to that.
As Microsoft have made very clear - and highlighted in the article - this "auto patching" will apply to feature updates and not just security updates.
In other words, your environment and UI can/will change on an almost daily basis, purely at the whim of Microsoft.
"Oh, we thought it would be really cool to make Notepad a Modern-UI-only app"
"We've acquired TwitBookrCloud(TM) Inc and we want everyone to have the client app embedded into their desktops as a non-removable feature. What do you mean, you don't want it? It's cool! It's hip! It's So Hot Right Now!"
THAT is my biggest objection. "Why do you want to block security updates?" is a straw-man.
Need I remind you that Microsoft have already shown cavalier disregard for the distinction between security patches and feature updates - how many Windows Updates under 7 or 8 have the generic description "Resolves issues with Windows" but turn out to be entirely non-essential feature tweaks?
Exhibit A: KB3035583, that is described as "Install this update to resolve issues with Windows" - but actually adds the incessant "RESERVE YOUR COPY OF WINDOWS 10 NOW!!1!!" nag to the system tray.
Before anyone accuses me of being a troll or a linux fanboy - no. I like Windows. I have a lot of respect for Microsoft. Version after version of Windows has improved my computing experience. And their view of the ideal personal OS has - largely - matched my own until now. But from Windows 8 onwards, they've shown that their priorities are:
- moving everyone to cloud computing, via enforced Microsoft accounts and online everything (example: Cortana voice assistant, cool. But why should I have to create a Microsoft account to get any functionality?)
- out-Googling Google on data collection ("Allow us to collect data about your browsing history to improve browser page prediction?" --> Default answer: yes)
- dumbing down the UI, to please - who? Even my 60-something-year-old mother, who I'd hold up as a paragon of "doesn't understand computers", doesn't like the Modern UI and finds it confusing.
- monetizing every little aspect of the computing experience
TL;DR: Their vision of computing is divergent from mine. I will stick with Windows 7 as long as I can.
Replying to my own post - terribly bad form, I know.
Firstly, I seem to have attracted a downvoter. Every one of my posts of the last few days that are remotely critical of Microsoft has a single down-vote. Hello, whoever you are, my unknown stalker. My very own Millon De Floss.
Secondly, let me illustrate my point above with a car analogy (*groan* - no, really, bear with me, please).
Ford release a new car, and promise that they'll update it continuously, without you needing to do anything or take it to a dealer, free of charge. Great! What's not to like?
At first, all is wonderful. "We've noticed that the front brake pads wear unevenly on this model, so we've given your car a new improved pad design." "We uploaded new ECU firmware, you now get bettter MPG".
Then you come to your car one morning and find that the HVAC knobs have been removed, and are now soft buttons on the touch-screen, two levels down from the main screen. They look pretty, but you can't use them with gloves on.
The car will now refuse to move at all unless your seatbelt is buckled, "for your safety and because focus* groups say they prefer it". Safe, sure, but now it's a total nuisance if you want to just pop your car out of the garage to wash it.
When you switch on the radio, it nags you to subscribe to Spotify. Every time.
And so on.
See? I feel very strongly that changes of user interface and functionality, no matter how well-intentioned, should not be pushed upon the user (and OWNER) of the system without informed consent and choice.
I emphasise "owner" because that's who should be in control of the PC. In a corporate environment, I accept that the owner is not necessarily the user - and if I'm using a PC given to me by my employer, I can't really grumble if they choose to reconfigure it. But in a home environment, owner == user, at least most of the time.
*- "Focus" groups. In the context of Ford cars. Heh. I made a funny.
Unfortunately, Owner != user anymore.
I don't OWN my windows-7 (and my well-decent Vista Asus lappie on a recovered-from-dumpser machine - it only wanted about 100 meg. of "Left-handed website" shit removed to make it an object to desire) )
Although I own the H/W, I don't own the OS.
Maybe I'll vote "OXI" for "No Outside Assistance!" like the Greeks did. Didn't help, they still got shafted.
"Exhibit A: KB3035583, that is described as "Install this update to resolve issues with Windows" - but actually adds the incessant "RESERVE YOUR COPY OF WINDOWS 10 NOW!!1!!" nag to the system tray."
That one again. Following earlier advice here I said no to that and hid it.
Windows Update (on Windows 8.1 here) promptly changed its settings to automatic so I had to change them back to "Let me choose", which is my preferred setting. I noticed that with this month's patches KB3035583 came back again, though at least it wasn't ticked.
Another data point: I have less than stellar bandwidth so when I saw a 750MB patch waiting in the wings a couple of months ago I decided to shut down my system for the day instead of waiting for that (a variation on the "I've got a bus to catch" theme). That 750 MB whopper never came back. I hadn't hidden it or anything so where did it go?
Is it any wonder I prefer to wait a while and review patches before applying them?
Another thing: Other OSes give me a link to click on for a full description of patches. Windows Update doesn't even give me the KB number in text so that I can select it and shove it into a search engine; instead I have to type it in manually, and "We can't find that KB article" happens all too often.
Other OSes give me a link to click on for a full description of patches. Windows Update doesn't even give me the KB number
I keep saying this.
MS could port rpm and yum to Windows - it's a couple of hours' work - and have granular, divisible upgrades that said what they did and did what they did. It's an easy win - the licence explicitly permits this, with just one, very simple, condition. I cannot work out why they do not.
 Or rpm and apt. Or dpkg and apt. dpkg and yum will take a little longer (but not that much).
 rpm, dpkg, yum and apt are all GPL - so MS could redistribute all of these - with or without modification - for free, just as long as they are prepared to hand over the source code to any of these that they use. That's a really easy situation...
Alright for MS - one size fits all and totally for their convenience
MS seem to have lost focus on the fact they need us "customers" regardless of us being EU, B2B, B2C, Enterprise or rocket feckin scientists.
And sadly we all have different needs and wants which they as a provider need to accommodate or we vote with our feet as many have done........ simples!!
"Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
Not declining so much as re-timing.
In the home segment, could be gaming, trying to get a document finished on a slower machine, or could be just a bit cautious given the recent history of borked updates. I'm assuming the update process can tell if you are on battery and not run upgrades then. Perhaps with this new wifi thingy, the update process could tell if you were on a mobile connection and delay updates. Perhaps it should be possible to associate the update process with a named connection (e.g. home wifi) so that it will wait until that named connection is in use before starting.
In general: This sort of looks like Windows becoming Fedora for home users and RHEL for large companies. What could *possibly* go wrong with simultaneous updates of scores of millions of computers in the homes of technically unsophisticated users?
That's really the heart of the problem, isn't it?
Technically unsophisticated users are going to make bad decisions if they have to administer their own system software. Hell, even sophisticated users do.
But when unsophisticated users make bad decisions, they don't say, "Oh, good gracious, I probably should have made a different decision." They say, "effing Microsoft broke my computer."
I'm not sure I'm behind Microsoft's choice, but I do understand their motivation.
What could *possibly* go wrong with simultaneous updates of scores of millions of computers in the homes of technically unsophisticated users?
What indeed.... Let's though this pile of Tat, at that wall... (of massively), unwilling of Windows OSX users out there, and see what sticks! Before we feed our latest creation off to the Banksters. No sense in pissing them off... Since they'll be the first to transition to Linux, should they be provoked into doing so....
And, so congratulations! EVERYONES A BETA TESTER NOW! Save the Insiders... They get promoted to become MicroSoft's Alpha Team!
Me I'm the kinda guy that prefers to wait till six months after the first Service Pack, before installing.
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? "
Why? Because. for example, Windows is used to control medical gadgetry where an unexpected pause by the OS can be fatal to a patient. One can say, "Well, it shouldn't be used for such a purpose" but who's to tell the idiots who program medical equipment that it's a bad idea to use a toy OS intended for home users in a critical application?
Microsoft amazes me. They have an unerring knack for doing exactly the wrong thing, in spite of reports about the problems their aggressiveness has caused in the past.
Now, let's not exaggerate things too much. Or, if your doctor/clinic/hospital really uses consumer versions of WIndows then maybe you should look elsewhere for your health care?
Enterprise Volume License customers will be on the Long Term Support Branch and their IT staff will decide when to update their computers.
Did you even bother to read the article? Microsoft will be pushing new features, and possibly removing existing features, by way of the mandated update process. This is the most onerous license has ever forced on consumer versions of Windows. You'd think they'd learnt a lesson when they forced the Metro Start Screen on purchasers of new Windows 8 computers but no.
I see nothing in the Windows license du jour that guarantees that all Windows 10 updates will be defect free, or at least not cause any failures or regression in software behavior. And no penalties for Microsoft implied when an update causes a system not to run. (All the more reason to not have any version of Windows installed in your auto. The bastards could download an update as you're rolling down the motorway and crash the vehicle, giving new meaning to BSOD.) I'll probably experiment with Windows 10 in a few months with a non-critical system that will do me no real harm if it fails. Right now, I am looking at Linux alternatives for myself, a difficult balancing act because I get paid to fix Windows systems and software.
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes?"
Great question.. Lets ask the business customers who can still decline the bloody things.
Because numb nuts.. It is a really really good Idea to patch your virus magnet a week AFTER patch Tuesday. So when they screw up in a spectacular way, as is Microsoft's habit, then you can delay updating until they sort the problem out.
"Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
Yes. I can see having a working computer is a serous risk..
"Some of you are being awkward just for the sake of it."
Yep. Or as it is also known.. Sensible.
"Having said that, as I.T Admins you'd be using the Enterprise version which you having full control over updates. If you are the kind of Admins who do not deploy updates after a week or two of testing then you should be removed from your jobs."
Because testing fixes the problem?
You posted this from your phone.. didn't you..
> "Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others."
>Yes. I can see having a working computer is a serous risk..
Well, yes, having an operating MSWindows machine (hesitant to use the words "working" and "Microsoft" together) *IS* a serious risk.
<blockqoute>Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes? Anyone declining updates puts themselves at risk as well as others.
Some of you are being awkward just for the sake of it. Having said that, as I.T Admins you'd be using the Enterprise version which you having full control over updates. If you are the kind of Admins who do not deploy updates after a week or two of testing then you should be removed from your jobs.</blockqoute>
Yeah 'cause MicroSoft NEVER install such utterly useless and annoying crap like KB905474 (Windows XP WGA Phonehome Spy/Nag-ware), and will boldface lie to you, about how "Critical" this Update was at the time!
In more recent times... (Of unwanted, or unbidden, unasked for Nagware's), we have KB3035583. Which after how many Months this crap has been up, and gets set to "hidden DO NOT alert me about this again...". Just keeps popping up every month again as an "Important Update"....
So I for One will trust MicroSoft IMPLICITLY to never abuse such a mechanism EVER... I've never once said! I might have mentioned somewhere in passing, a old Hitchhikers quote about not trusting MicroSoft in this capacity more then I could spit a lightly fried Stoat.... In a Bun!
Well I still don't, and as if I actually needed reason to avoid Windows 8.x / Windows OSX like the Plague.... I'd say look no further.... As far as MicroSoft's history of destructive / disruptive history of Windows Updates go.... When you have Security Houses... Warring you to perhaps, let that KB3065718 (SQL Server Remote Code Execution). Which MicroSoft postponed last month, because they thought it wasn't quite ready for prime-time. Are telling their Customers that, they may well still want to give KB3065718, the slip. Should they actually value stability, over updates.
Yep.... Sign me up for Windows OSX TOUT SUITE.... I also never said!
"Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes?" Because they're on holiday with their laptop on an expensive metered 3G connection in a poor signal area.
I'm not suggesting that the user should stop the update indefinitely. But an option to postpone it by 2-4 weeks would solve the vast majority of problems with this.
Of course there will always be a smaller number people who are permanently in low/expensive bandwidth areas. For them, I'd suggest... don't use Windows 10.
Why would anyone want a 'fix' to stop important security updates & fixes?
#1 At home (and when out on a job) I only have expensive mobile internet available. Over here in NZ we really only have a couple of telcos, and both of them are pure evil (one being vodafone, the other one being even nastier!). I want to use my data when I want to, and I want to download updates when I want to, not at a time when it is inconvenient or expensive. I certainly don't want to be delayed on a job or even worse, run out of available data simply because MS decided they would chose that specific time to do updates (Ok, in reality on a job I would be using Linux anyway because I'm there to fix problems, not to experience sympathetic pains of also having a broken computer)
#2 Is much the same as #1. I have a computer repair shop. While a lot cheaper than a few years ago, small business broadband is still relatively expensive, especially if you go over your cap. Having a number of machines wanting to do updates over the course of a month could be very expensive. They could also slow down other transfers that we're wanting at that specific time. I don't want to be stuck at work waiting for some transfer to finish when I could be home (winter over here).
#3 During repair work we don't want updates at all as a badly timed set of updates can seriously screw up a machine. Sure, sometimes they can help but often they are a pain and, in the case of machines with over heating issues, can be fatal (if we're there we'll pull the power hopefully beforehand, but if we get sick of waiting and risk leaving a machine (even with added cooling).... There's several other times when updates will be a serious issue during repairs, like when there's some file system corruption going on. Admittedly at work we can (and will now have to) set parts of the network so that they simply cannot see MS's servers - but why should I have to piss around with my network simply because MS want to screw around with our ability to do updates when it is convenient or appropriate for us? (NOTE: Where possible/applicable we do try to deal with heating issues early and do image clients disks, but the problems are not always apparent when we first start diagnosing a machine)
#4 When I do use a Windows machine, it is because I want to use it. I don't want to wait endless hours for it to be able to start up or shut down. And yes, in some cases I do mean HOURS.. I also dual (actually often quad) boot Windows, Linux and others. Most of my work is done in Linux so that's the default boot option. Often I actually start Windows for some reason, see it doing its "please wait while we stuff you around for ages using a very poor and outdated update system" (this is on 7 and 8 (which has since been banished from my home) and I go off to do something else. When I come back I find I have to shut Linux down (which thankfully takes no more than 30 seconds, even with a lot of stuff open and after a pile of updates - MS should learn from this!) and restart Windows. Sometimes more than once. The problem is Windows is still incapable of doing updates without at least 2 reboots on a very regular basis, and of course since Linux boots by default, it can't complete it without me having to manually restart. Pro Tip : Linux does all the updating in the background. Sometimes a reboot is needed when some of the core system files are replaced, but it does not demand a reboot for updating a web browser and more importantly, it is only one reboot at most. Even more importantly, the updates are completely done before that one reboot - you only need to reboot to actually start using the new files. There is no impact on start up times, you're not waiting 5-55 minutes for the system to start; by the time the hardware starts booting the update process is already completed. MS should try to learn from this - it's only been standard in other OS's for how many years now?
#5 There have been many times updates have done nasty things, like making Win7 machines stop booting, breaking programs, and all sorts of other issues (this affects ALL os's at times). Some people actually like to be sure that an update is going to work before they let it in.
#6 I can see more and more people will actively use methods to block updates, making the security matters worse.
TL;DR : Some people pay a premium for data, sometimes we just want to use our computer within a minute or two or turning it on without waiting for the already over-long update process to complete, sometimes updates can happen at a time that causes significant problems, and sometimes they break things badly. So we want to do them when it's convenient (and affordable) for us - and when we've had a chance to see if there's any significant problems caused with these updates. Forcing them on people will only drive them elsewhere. (So please MS, keep up the good work! Windows 8 was great advertising for Linux, but maybe with 10 you can finish the job? :) )
> To force updates onto PC's is in my mind a breach of the Computer Misuse Act.
Unfortunately not, by accepting the agreement you have given permission for this.
You could go to court, argue that the term is unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, and if you get that OK'd by a judge then the term becomes unenforceable, and then it would be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act.
Only a few minutes ago we were talking about Win10 in the office - specifically about the "Nagware" installed under the false description of "enhancing computer performance or security" just the same as every other security update. Now I believe that could reasonably be considered an offence under the CMA on the grounds that users only agreed to install it because Microsoft misrepresented what it does - so any consent (whether implied (not turning off automatic updates) or explicit (installing updates manually)) is void since it was obtained by false representations.
Now - who's up for complaining to Old Bill ?
Remember that you don't own the the copy of Windows installed on your computer. Microsoft does. You are given a limited rights license to use that copy of Windows. Basically, whatever bits Microsoft chooses to allow you to access this week will have to do, no matter what you had last week, no matter whether it continues to suit your needs or is fit for any specific purpose. You can hire a lawyer and sue but judges will point at the license agreement and tell you to go away. So, unless you are a big boy and buy and Enterprise Volume License, screw you.
Since when do PC's suddenly reboot to install updates? I usually get a warning once they are ready to install and one three days from that when it asks me save all my work and let the computer restart.
People on this site have a tendency to be over-dramatic.
And as for your fix. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that using a "FIX" to block updates is now a breach of the EULA and can invalidate your windows license.
"Since when do PC's suddenly reboot to install updates? I usually get a warning once they are ready to install and one three days from that when it asks me save all my work and let the computer restart."
...not (for example) on Windows RT... on my Lenovo Yoga with RT, it pops up and gives you 15 minutes, and if you haven't manually given it a go ahead by then, boom... bang on 15 minutes, it bins your session and reboots...
...and if one is in the middle of a massive data run which takes hours and the last thing that one needs is a reboot when the CPU is thumping away.
After all these years MS still haven't thought to consider that not all users will be at their desks especially if the CPU and Page Fault count is going full tilt and has done with no user intervention for the past five or ten hours.
The latest from the Redmond HiveMind is that everyone is writing OneNote documents and can handle a five minute interruption whilst they go for a frappe-latte-chino and take their stupid beards for a walk.
I usually get a warning once they are ready to install and one three days from that when it asks me save all my work and let the computer restart.
I've had single game "missions" tie up a machine for longer than that! (Of course, the machine is put to sleep from time to time these days, and that horrible "work" means I can't game fro 3 days straight very often!).
I do sometimes hide the notifications away and forget about them, and I do sometimes have things happening where I really don't want to reboot until I am done. Usually shorter than a couple of days but sometimes, I really do not want what I am doing to be interrupted.
Let me reboot and install updates when I am good and damned well ready to do so, and not a moment before. There are reasons why people use the "Notify but let me choose" options.
> That little Windows 10 logo currently sitting in the taskbar
You can get rid of it but there's no guarantee that another update 'to resolve issues in windows' will not make it magically reappear and soon enough it will be bundled with something you actually need.
For those who haven't found the fix: remove update KB3035583 (and then hide it) if you have no faith that your older apps will keep working in this new sparkly 'organic ever-changing mess' (as another commentard succinctly put it).
Win7 has its annoyances but my stuff is currently working and I'd rather not take the chance of having to spend some quality weeks un-fcking it all.
"[...] remove update KB3035583 (and then hide it)"
I did that - but after updates this week the W10 icon reappeared in the system tray. Scratching my head how the hidden KB3035583 got installed again - but it did. Have now uninstalled and hidden it again. Can MS updates override that hidden property - and automatically select it as essential?
> ... the W10 icon reappeared in the system tray. [...] Can MS updates override that hidden property - and automatically select it as essential?
Maybe if its 'rating' changes it gets re-enabled - either that or it has reappeared under the guise of 'update to windows update client'? I didn't select that one as it looked dead suspicious.
If it wasn't the old one re-enabling itself then the prime suspect is KB3065987 'updates to windows update client' - could be wrong though.
"They certainly do with Silverlight. Still do with Silverlight."
Technically it is not being overridden. It is released under a new KB number, so it's treated like a different update.
Well, that's what I figured for the last few years - though I can't be arsed to look at the KB number. Thing is, I re-installed 8.1 yesterday. I went - as is my wont - through the 80-odd optional updates; clicked each one's 'More information' link to see if it was worth getting and more importantly, hiding. It's too much to do all at once, so I do about 15 at a time. Reboot, re-open WU and get the next 15. And every time Silverlight was visible again. Whatever the <benign> explanation, it doesn't make sense. If each time it is a different version then in that scenario the latest should be displayed from the start.
They certainly do with Silverlight. Still do with Silverlight.
Oh, thank goodness. It's not just me seeing that, then.
Every single time I go to Windows Update, I get offered Silverlight. And every single time, I say "Hide this Update".
Perhaps it's a different version each time?
Like the "Malicious Software Tool" that scans your system. If you decline the July version of the tool, WU offers the June version, so you decline that, so it offers the May version... and so on back through time. I haven't had the heart to decline the March 1615 version yet, which apparently checks for Conficker, ILoveYou, and "Heliocentrism ande other Heresies, such as maye be against Godde and Nature".
Had the same problem two days ago. And when I rebooted it took so long to clear the "Configuring" screen I feared it had locked up the PC. After about a half hour and much anxiety on my part it finally cleared that screen and rebooted. FFS if they're going to force this stuff on us they might at least wire in some informational screens along the way. The old Win95 defragger was more friendly!
I did that - but after updates this week the W10 icon reappeared in the system tray. Scratching my head how the hidden KB3035583 got installed again - but it did. Have now uninstalled and hidden it again. Can MS updates override that hidden property - and automatically select it as essential?
And, here I thought I was the only One... But this is why I come to Sites like the Reg... So as to make myself aware of what to miss. on Windows Updates. I'm not sure how old KB3035583, or some of it closer relations are...But,. it feels like I've been setting this Update to hide now, for the last three months now.. Knowing what bastards MicroSoft are in this department... It's one of the first Updates I'm searching for... Asking myself the same stupid question... Why is this back, when I told it to sod off!
This is why I have turned off my Windows 7 Update Service and then, if I wish, I can then go and find any real essential updates that I need.
Yes, I know that I got downvoted for this the last time I said this but in this game there are no assurances other than that something is going to bork your machine and applications. It may be a hacker or someone breaking into the machine or it may be an update which breaks everything.
At the moment I have taken the path which, for me, offers the least risk. That, alas, is the one with the update services turned off. And the stuff which I do my real work is only fastened to the internet for one hour a day and it does one thing on there: ftp to a known good site (my own) and then turns off. Yes, it's not foolproof but it's better than updates borking the machine and updates being not backward compatible with my applications.
For example, the later versions of Microsoft's Internet Explorer isn't compatible with some of Microsoft's own software components even though they aren't even in the same ballpark of functionality.
Some of these updates and improvements are complete show-stoppers.
Some aren't but just a downgrade. I am still, for example, resisting the updates to Skype because the version that I am on is a lot better than the new hipster frappe-latte-chino bollocks that they're trying to foist onto me.
If I were to allow Microsoft to update everything at will then I may as well close up my business tomorrow and start serving petrol at the nearest garage instead. Except that I can't. My mate is already doing that.
The comparison is, of course, with tablets. These update all the time and I accept that. On the other hand, I don't use my tablets for essential stuff and never will.
This auto-update is nothing short of an ill-thought out presumption which should be dropped entirely.
As you mentioned Skype..
I had specifically uninstalled Skype on my Windows 7 machine (too CPU thirsty).
Suddenly, after updating Windows 7, Skype was back again, and now way more sticky than before. Now part of the operating system, more or less. It took some work to get rid of it this time.
"""as the resident family-and-friends go-to IT guy I can't help feeling I'm going to be very busy in the coming weeks."""
I was the same, except one day I said, no, I will not fix your computer for free unless you install Linux. If you want Windows support it is £35 per hour.
People stopped bothering me.
The few who agreed to have Linux have my total support, once I installed their computers they hardly have to call me, just the odd question every now and then, and updating once a year if required.
Actually, most games etc do run quite happily on Linux - WINE is pretty good nowadays and is made really easy to configure with "playonlinux".
Also in most cases of application there is a version of the Linux software and it is better than Microsoft Windows versions.
Can you tell me if Eve Online works on Linux?
Apparently so. Not being an Eve player, I can''t confirm for certain.
If so, I am getting a new machine forthwith...
Enjoy your new box...
A surprising number of Windows apps work quite well with Wine these days, and for those essential apps that don't they can always run Windows in a VM - either locked down and firewalled or as a disposable image. The only real need to run Windows on the metal is for some games, which can be handled by dual booting (don't many gamers have a dedicated machine anyway?)
Can you use what application/service/game under windows?
Lets be clear about exactly what isn't availible under linux yet - recent windows games(relying on latest gen gfx cards) and even then many devs who are not hog tied by MS have already moved their stuff across to one form of linux or another. MS are no longer the leader in anything except spin, marketting and threatening litigation
Every other standard application type is more than covered and more than likely free/open source.
In truth the needs of the majority of PC users (office, web browser, email client, media player etc) tend to work better under linux, so games that are legally tied to MS might take a little longer to move across
Those few people who actually get paided to support windows gamers might get to say "No they haven't made a linux version (YET)" but not very often and not for long.
I wish I'd had you around when I tried out Linux Mint.... I could never get it to work properly without overheating grotesquely due to the fact that the proprietary GPU driver had been rendered obsolete by kernel upgrades and the open source one was quite frankly shite. It would have been fun watching you spend hours tackling that one.
I find your lack of faith disturbing!
I would like to know what hardware you were running and the version of Mint but really only this matters - You could fix it yourself because it is open source. The fact that you may not have the skills does not mean that I do not....
You could not fix it yourself if it was running Windows!
It would have been fun watching you spend hours tackling that one.
Had a problem like that once with some obscure AMD-based GPU. Never again though. Took me a couple of hours of research and some trial and error, but once I solved it no probs.
I've seen many machines where you need to load drivers in via external disk to install Windows, and even seen 7 have issues with AHCI drives. Have 2 machines (one Tosh one HP) on which you can install windows only with manufacturers disk or backup image. Most Linux sees most hardware much better than Windows.
I will not fix your computer for free unless you install Linux. If you want Windows support it is £35 per hour.
I spent a year or so doing home-PC support. One customer in particular woudl call me every couple fo weeks because he had some mahoosive infection that needed sorting.
Eventually, I set him up a Fedora partition, so that he could surf his one-handed websites without so many worries. And I didn't hear from him for over a month. I though perhaps I'd pissed him off.
After about six weeks, I got a call from him - would I come round and change his machine so that it booted Fedora by default, rather than Windows? He was much happier with that.
And then I didn't hear from him for a cople of moths - until his son came home from serving in whatever war he was in at the time. THe machine had to be returned to booting into Windows by default. And then I got the fortnightly calls to fix the machine again...
I earnt a lot of money from that customer. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
This post has been deleted by its author
You know what really scares me? That little Windows 10 logo currently sitting in the taskbar of both my parents' Win7 laptops.
Unless you have reserved your upgrade, I'm not sure if anything will happen. Thankfully only one of my three current Windows systems has done that so I'll let that upgrade first and see what happens.
After a full backup, of course.
Fuck all these people and the shit they are peddling.
"Customers who are embracing Current Branch for Business do need to consume that feature update within the allotted time period of approximately eight months or they will not be able to see and consume the next security update,"
So, we are now "consuming" security updates. Om Nom Nom Nom.
I hope CDC erroneously mails live anthrax to Redmond.
"Customers who are embracing Current Branch for Business do need to consume that feature update within the allotted time period of approximately eight months or they will not be able to see and consume the next security update,"
So, we are now "consuming" security updates.
I'd meant to comment on this earlier but forgot until I came across your post...
Isn't part of the public reasoning (lets not even consider what their real reasons could be!) for mandating automatic updates to lower the security risk? Am I the only one who reads the quoted text as "If you don't install our updates within 8 months then you will not ever be able to install later update"? I can't see any other way to interpret it - "Install this update within our time frame or never get another one
Please tell me I'm only dreaming this idiotic behaviour.. Oh, sorry.. MS.. Par for the course.. Nothing abnormal to see here...
Om Nom Nom Nom.
Too right.. Mac Cheese for dinner and freshly made (homecooked even!) sponge for dessert...
@Dogged @Captain Underpants.
One of the most important parts of keeping your computer operative and working well is to control the application of updates (whether to Windows itself or other apps as well). This is for several reasons. Firstly, updates being applied at the wrong time can reduce the performance of your computer substantially. Secondly, they often start popping up windows or 'encouraging' you to reboot at inopprtune moments. Thirdly, one of the greatest causes of instability is known to be updates, especially when the updates work on some computers, but not others, based on hardware etc., which they often get wrong. Lastly, for the retail market, they are largely dealing with a relatively ill informed user base, which means any mistakes can be very difficult to deal with and fix without paying for expert help (I'm sure Microsoft will offer paid support etc. ;-))
The fact they are offering businesses (effectively due to the version) the opportunity to turn it off, clearly shows they know it's going to be a nightmare. Also, because businesses like to test updates before allowing them onto their estate. Why should home users not be able to do the same?
It is patently obvious this will lead to a complete disaster within a relatively small period of time, where an update will go out that knackers a signficant portion of the user base and the impact will be greater as it is installed without the user even knowing (their computer may get problems without them even being aware an update has been applied!!).
To anyone intelligent, this is a stupid move and will without doubt lead to all sorts of problems in the future. Microsoft are continuing with their drive of recent years to commit slow suicide by making stupid decisions.
@Mad Mike: "their computer may get problems without them even being aware an update has been applied"
My thankfully short list of update exclusions was compiled by watching my PC fail immediately after applying bad updates, so I had a fighting chance of guessing which one(s) were responsible. If they take the next logical step and force reboot your system that's going to get much harder.
Not well pleased that crapware like the 'important' Win10 update app will now not be refusable, how many other apps I'll never use will they decide I need? Even Google lets me refuse updates for it's stuff (and I can even disable them simply).
@Mad Mike -
Give it a rest. WSUS still works on Windows 10. It's not as if it's an expensive solution either, given the total cost of, er, free. And if you happen to be a home user, well a) you should have automatic updates turned on anyway b) updates can be rolled back seamlessly and c) if you don't keep backups, the problem exists between keyboard and chair.
Call the Waaaaaaahmbulance or alternatively, run another clickbait article for fucktards like hplasm to flick one off over.
As someone who has just been forced to reinstall a windows 2003 WSUS onto a windows 2008 box I can tell you WSUS is not free. Almost a week to get the same thing running. Software free but somebody has to pay for that time! The VM now needs twice as many processors and four times as much ram to serve many less machines.
Who-tf thought it would be a good idea on a *server* OS to default the NIC power-saving flag to enabled?
..is a bit less costly on manpower.
"c) if you don't keep backups, the problem exists between keyboard and chair."
The only satisfactorily reliable way I found of backing up Windows 7 was via WHS2011*. It was swift too, especially when restoring the lot; I have a certain fondness for testing backup solutions before I rely on them...
Windows 8 wasn't supported for backups by WHS2011 so got consigned to life in a VM. From that I can roll back to the previous snapshot if a patch borks it and my non-MS OS copes admirably with backing up the complete Win8 installation.
* Windows Home Server 2011.
And if you happen to be a home user, well a) you should have automatic updates turned on anyway
Fuck off. The regularity with which I have to fix machines because the updates broke something is far to high. Oh sure, it's probably less than 1% of our total workload, but we very often see computers get stuck with either a startup or shutdown "configuring updates" issue. Sometimes it's impatient user problems (they just power off the machine), sometimes they left the machine powered on all night and it never finished.
Often we see less severe but still annoying issues from updates - broken programs, changes in functionality (we deal with a lot of old fogies who hate having to re-learn how to use their computer every time MS farts)
Do updates regularly, but leave them on auto? Hell no, it causes too many problems with automatic updates. (FTR, I do sometimes recommend certain customers have automatic updates on but most we recommend they wait at least a week)
b) updates can be rolled back seamlessly
Bullshit. When your system is so stuffed you cannot even reach "safe mode" or "repair your computer", you cannot "seamlessly" roll back an update. Then you need things like the MS DART tools or something even more special, like :
I've occasionally (but quite rare) had no option but a full re-install of a customer's machine because of a problem with updates.
There's many other updates which do not come off completely if you feel a need or desire to remove them. Some, maybe even most do undo nicely (not that I've done it very often), but some leave messy remnants behind, and some screw the system up.
and c) if you don't keep backups, the problem exists between keyboard and chair.
Now this one... At least until Win 7 the backup system built into Windows was pretty decent, although I am not sure if by 7 it'd lost incremental backups (I think they were still there). really very easy to set up and use IIRC. They made a real mess of it on 8, but there's many 3rd party tools available that still do a decent backup job.
Sadly users suffer from a mix of assuming it's difficult so not bothering to read up on it, stupidity, and occaisionally just not having the resources to do a decent system (external 1TB drives may seem cheap to some, but for others the $NZ90 we can often get them for is still to expensive). I try to teach at least to save a couple of copies of important stuff (using the remains of a machine that went through a house fire to show why you have copies in another location) to USB stick/drive. We can show what happens to a HDD as well, show how quickly data can become completely beyond retrieval.
But people just don't get it. If you value your data, back it up. It's the most valuable thing on a machine, everything else can be easily replaced but those photos of your boy when he was 3 or your mother who passed away last year? Sorry, they're gone forever. Fuck I hate saying that.
Er, yeah.. Where were we?
While I agree that *those in the know* should be able to control updates, I think this is a positive move by MS for the vast majority of **consumer** level users - knowing that they will all have the latest updates, that their machines can have security vulnerabilities removed automatically. A huge win to avoid botnets, etc.
Also, this is *just* an extension of what we are used to on smartphones, where an app automatically updates itself to fix bugs and add features. I doubt many are concerned at app updates.
IMO, this is a good move, though I do acknowledge there might be problems if MS get lazy on testing.
For those of us managing PC's for family and friends, there will no doubt be an initial spike of problems and questions when Win10 gets installed, but I think (hope) the support requests will become less frequent, not more. For this reason I think us admins should try and avoid disabling auto-update for family and friends - the advantage of always being up-to-date vs the loss of control (for consumer PC's) is large - just because we (as pro's) want to control *our* experience, doesn't mean your Auntie Flo has any interest at all - she won't care that her browser takes another 2s to start every now and then because an update is running. To my mum, she's paranoid about security - not about some minor drop in performance.
If you use a home-user OS aimed at non-technical users, don't be surprised that it assumes you're non-technical and badgers the living hell out of you to update. (Mad Mike, are you going to claim that letting ill-informed users who have no idea of what an update is run their Typhoid Mary boxes with unfettered internet access is a good idea? Or are you at least sane enough to accept that anything which makes it less likely a given machine will get co-opted into a botnet is a good idea? Can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try)
If you use the pro version, spend a couple of minutes learning what you're about (instead of flapping your digital yap in an effort to demonstrate your ignorance) and configure the group policy that controls your windows update settings and lets you do things like prevent an auto-reboot with a logged-on user, or set the interval between reboot prompts to whatever you like. (You can also spend a bit of time learning about what registry keys are set when you do this, which would let you assign the same settings on home versions which don't officially support this configuration, knowledge that may be useful when Windows 10 is officially available...)
If you don't like the announced changes in a not-yet-released OS that nobody's actually forcing you at gunpoint to use, spend a few seconds considering that maybe it's not the OS for you and move on with your life.
No, wait, I'm being silly. This is a publicly-accessible internet forum therefore uninformed bollocks spouted at nauseum is the order of the day.
Perhaps a couple of folks missed the following bit from the article
not only with security patches, but also with feature updates.
Even if the updates don't crash the machine I'm not sure I want Azure Automatic Backup to be added to my machine in the middle of the night only to find a few weeks later that my tax documents have been already been sent to the cloud. Unencrypted of course as that's the way the NSA wants it. What could go wrong?
Yes, my tinfoil hat may be showing but it's better than just dropping trou and bending over in anticipation of the handful of sand Redmond is throwing in the Vaseline.
Y'know, sometimes the tinfoil hat updates itself and bleeps at me to put it on...
This could be more effective than the great firewall of China.
TLA or FLA "We need to shut down the intertubz for security reazonz... can you release this autoupdate for uz - pretty pleaze?"
Or alternatively, - for the lulz of course - Johnny cracker accesses MS's systems and....
Or alternatively Johnny nation state cracker....
Or alternatively certain organisations with our safety and best interests at heart just walk in through one of their own back doors without asking....
"(Mad Mike, are you going to claim that letting ill-informed users who have no idea of what an update is run their Typhoid Mary boxes with unfettered internet access is a good idea? Or are you at least sane enough to accept that anything which makes it less likely a given machine will get co-opted into a botnet is a good idea? Can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try)"
This will not suddenly stop the botnets etc. out there on the internet. It may reduce the numbers some, but they will still exist. Anybody who connects to the internet should assume it is hostile and protect themselves appropriately. Forcing OTHERS to accept every update all the time should not change YOUR position on this, so the former makes no real difference to you. If MS manage to put out one c**p update, they could do more damage than all the botnets in history have ever done!!
@riparian: I think the bigger issue with Google Play is that when an app update is released it's no longer possible to roll back to the old version using the store. Those on rooted devices can get around this by manually backing up the apk file, but it's still a pain in the arse and it'd be good to have a better way of handling it - say a "test update" option that backs up the existing version & config to a separate location, installs the new one and lets you test it, but keeps the existing version until you fully accept the update.
Windows 8 in particular has substantially improved the ability to recover from failed updates (though I haven't yet deliberately borked an update on my Win10 test box to see how it copes) so I'd expect it to be OK.
" Those on rooted devices can get around this by manually backing up the apk file, but it's still a pain in the arse and it'd be good to have a better way of handling it - say a "test update" option that backs up the existing version & config to a separate location, installs the new one and lets you test it, but keeps the existing version until you fully accept the update."
Nice idea, though I suspect they don't want to have people running all sorts of old versions, otherwise they would make them available.
Though, after being bitten by that too may times, I'm now running a home-grown auto-apk backup on all my android devices.. Every version of every apk I install is safely archived on servers both on and off site.
Take that crappy BBC-News-App-which-used-to-be-fast-and-usable-offline-but-is-now-basically-a-reskinned-web-browser!
> While I agree that *those in the know* should be able to control updates, I think this is a positive move by MS for the vast majority of **consumer** level users - knowing that they will all have the latest updates ...
But this is not what the complaints are about. Automatic updates are already the default IIRC and the user has to take proactive steps to turn them off - and will then get forever nagged about it.
This is about not having the option to turn automatic upgrading off at all - and that just stinks for all the reasons given. It essentially means that no-one other then enterprise users is in control of their systems anymore as software "upgrades" will be controlled by a third party.
Apparently 96% of consumer-level users are already running Windows Update, so why deny those few percent the chance to choose "no"?
"what we are used to on smartphones" - I always check what's updating, and deny anything I'm not sure about until I have a chance to check it out.
"if MS get lazy on testing." Wake up - the whole point of this is that MSFT can use the consumers as beta testers for their new-look rapid update cycle, before giving new stuff to their corporate clientele (who are the only ones that really matter).
Just because we (as pro's) want to control *our* experience, doesn't mean your Auntie Flo has any interest at all - she won't care that her browser takes another 2s to start every now and then because an update is running.
No, she won't notice or care about speed unless it becomes excessive.
But I think browser is perhaps a bad choice for your argument - look at all the flack Mozilla have faced for changes to FireFox in recent times.
People don't notice minor changes to speed and so on. That sort of thing is subjective (some days you may be a bit hyper so everything drags, some days you're more relaxed so things seem ready a bit quicker..) and can be affected by system loads. Most people get that.
But changes to the UI are potentially a problem. Especially for the likes of older people who can struggle to grasp things with computers, and can find it harder to pick things up where the rest of us don't do so badly (hell, I'm only in my 40s and I can notice significant differences in how well I grasp new stuff!).
People don't like having their programs change on them. Look at the fuss MS faced over the "ribbon", look at Mozilla and FF, look at Adobe and some of their programs (the main complaint I hear about their stuff is that they change layout fairly often). In fact, look over all sorts of software and OS forums and you'll find the most complained about changes are look and feel. People want things to remain as they're comfortable with, not changing all the time.
Locking things down so they stay where we put them is what most users want, not having things move around all the time.
Finally... Some of my customers care for people who are seriously mentally handicapped, who can learn to use computers. We've often been asked to be careful about even moving an icon, and cleaning up malware/pups can be a nightmare on these systems - because even a minor change can be very distressing for the poor people who have these problems, and the amazing and heroic people who care for them (if you want to argue "hero", try dealing with a severely handicapped person for a week and see what you then think of those who do it for years). Change can be nice, but change for change's sake is seldom really a good thing, and for some people it really is quite a hellish experience. I'm somewhere on the "autism spectrum" and things like moving furniture is difficult but I can cope, usually without even showing the thoughts I'm really having towards the bastard who dared move my couch .000001mm to the left. I hate to think what those worse off experience with just the move of an icon. These are worst-case scenarios (aside from those who lose their machines to borked updates), but there will be many who, like Aunt Flo, get upset when they find a shortcut they're used to using is not there, or a program behaves differently to what it used to, or the whole machine becomes, well, weird.
I can see a lot of people being upset by this, and giving people a choice would really help.
I would tend to agree with this response. If nothing else - certainly go ahead and make it the default, but allow more technically inclined users - like the forum participants - the ability to TURN IT OFF. That'll take care of the AOL-ers and Nana's that haven't a clue and use their machines for trifling purposes. However, those that need to (for whatever reason) postpone updates need to be able to do so. Go ahead and make it a pain and bury it 5 menus deep in the settings, but make it available.
I run a couple of weeks behind on most of my patches, just so I can read El Reg and pick up on the ones that I don't want to apply for some reason. I usually go ahead and install the rest all after that time. It's stood me well over time.
"Microsoft MAY need to update your system to provide you with those updates."
My emphasis. That it only says "may" which could mean randomly if they feel like it, or only in extremis with the NSA breathing down their neck.
I'd like to see a more comprehensive statement of Microsoft's intent, or are we indulging in a bit of Kremlinology.
Given the problems caused for everyone by people who don't update (the users, the DDOS victims, anyone who has to share USB thumb drives with them), you'd better have a damned good reason for not wanting to update. If you're a business who uses strange/unsupported/fragile stuff then fair enough - this gives you time to work around it. But this is an OS that's going to IT illiterate children and grandparents, and everyone in between. If you want an OS you have total control over, get a Linux.
If this applied only to security updates it might conceivably, with the right settings, be acceptable. Since it applies to all updates, with me currently having to block several of those on my machine because they break things, I would have to resort to blacklisting IP addresses to stop any updates from happening.
Unless they backpedal on this and allow me to both roll back and prevent reinstallation of patches that break things, I will not touching Windows10.
A friend of mine took yesterday's updates and now her machine keeps rebooting during startup. Personally I never take updates (unless there is a really good reason) for at least a week to allow M$ a chance to pull back the real stinkers.
This just re-inforces my determination to stay with Win 7 as long as I can. After all, I only use it for gaming - if I want to do anything productive I use linux.
Given the problems caused for everyone by people who don't update (the users, the DDOS victims, anyone who has to share USB thumb drives with them),
Considering the number of security flaws that've remained in the wild for a number of years (despite XP/Vista/7/8 etc al being "complete rewrite from scratch"), a good AV package (ie NOT NORTON), good firewall (even the built in Windows one is passable for most users) and some fairly basic safety practices will do a hell of a lot more to protect you from malware than someone updating.
Hell, I know of a number ("1" is a number!) of XP machines that've never had updates past SP3 that are regularily on the net without getting infected by anything nasty. Decent AV and basic user safety practices have kept them out of harms way (and some luck not to get hit by a drive by). I've also seen many 8.1 machines that have updates turned on but crap or inactive AV (like the pre-installed Norton which is sadly still so common).
My dislike of Norton is simply due to the fact that in the last 10 years I have not seen a machine with it on that is not infected. In our shop we take NAV on a machine as a sign that the machine is infected with some other malware. We're yet to be disappointed. NAV still holds my personal malware experience record, a paid up and up to date installation saying everything was fine on a machine that had 400 different viruses infecting some 1213 files.
We've already got flash as a vector for borking our systems up, now m$ are going to force updates on us.
What happens when small businesses like us suddenly have an update forced on us that crashes the £3000 per seat CAD/CAM software we use?
Is m$ going to compensate us for down time until the CAD/CAM software peeps can find/fix the problem and give us an update?
This is the reason our machines have update off and manually check for updates 1 week after patch tuesday, so we dont get blue screened and lose money in downtime.
I've dealt with quite a lot of companies that are very specific on the exact updates you can and cannot install on systems which house their software. Otherwise, you're out of support. Not being able to prevent the installation of updates is quite simply, a non-starter for any serious company. Hence, allowing choice in Enterprise Edition (although companies could be running other versions as well).
I'm guessing here, but if I were in the hypothetical shoes you describe, I'd start by asking the local sysadmin why updates are auto-enabled when the organisation clearly requires* rigorous testing before widespread deployment, and address the problem at its actual source instead of incorrectly blaming an OS for doing what it's been told to do. (Addressing the problem would involve: requiring every machine in the organisation to run a professional edition of the OS, correctly configured as required, with a server running WSUS or whatever alternative patch control system you fancy used to control access to updates in co-ordination with an internally-agreed UAT procedure).
*: Subject to this actually being the case and being a position supported and enforced by management, of course.
One of the big problems is that the machine tool builders put something like this in the agreements for using the machine tool
"The control software is proven against the OS installed in the controlling PC, Under no circumstances update the OS in the PC as XXXXXXXXX machine tool company will not be liable for any damage , injury, or death resulting from this".
But then we only have 2 windows based tools left, all the rest are fanuc or Linux
Also is the fact its a small company, with a largely tech illiterate manglement, not to mention the employees, so running update control on the bought in server they have is right out
Eg if they decide to buy a new laptop, they'll go down to currys and buy a cheap one on display.. (explains why we have TWO win8 machines now)
Or, someone reports them for using the home version in an enterprise and they get sued for breach of contract.
And seriously, no matter what the built-in OS, why would anyone leave control systems for health monitors or CNC systems plugged into the internet? Our CNC controllers get plugged in when the manufacturer needs to connect to troubleshoot and then they're unplugged again.
Oh no. I'm sure Microsoft are really gutted at the thought:-)
They seem to be having a good go at polishing a turd. Even if it is a turd, if you can pull in extra revenue with it, so much the better and that gives a little shine to it. Unfortunately, the fact it's a turd will eventually push people onto other things.
"... and provides developers with a more consistent target for applications"
That's current developers' current target.
That's a fraction of usage.
Develop an application, then either update it forevermore or wait until a forced update inevitably breaks it sooner or later.
There's a nice user-platform for you. Who wants on?
I could probably live with this, PROVIDED that the update process is changed so that it happens invisibly in the background and doesn't lock my pc for 30 mins with a 'windows is updating, 10% complete, installing update 3 of 29" message just when I try and reboot to give a presentation to a customer! Is that so difficult?
an article drawing on an interview with Stella Chernyak, "Senior Director at Microsoft"
"Microsoft isn’t replacing WSUS or SCCM, only providing an additional mechanism that the company believes will be better. Stella suggested that Windows Update for Business is like WSUS Lite. It’s Windows Update with some of the controls of WSUS, particularly different is where the updates are delivered from and where they are stored"
So it seems to be aimed at companies without an on-site WSUS installation. presumably the sort using lots of cloudy services
Stop it! Stop actually looking things up and basing your reaction on actual information!
Didn't you know THE SKY IS FALLING AND ALL THE WINDOWS INSTALLS YOU DON'T HAVE BECAUSE EVERYONE HERE USES LINUX WILL EXPLODE IN MASSIVE FIREBALLS?
Honestly, some people.
I hope you are right, but my guess is that WSUS will not let you off the hook here. Win10 is different from W7 and W8 since "Windows as a service" means that the OS is being incrementally upgraded. Now, how does MSFT make security patches for every possible variant of Win10 since first release? Likely answer is that it will not. It will make security patches for every variant over the last n months, where n in this case appears to be 8. So if you have WSUS and Win 10 Pro, and block all the feature updates, then after n months it won't be possible to apply security patches because the OS is in effect unsupported. Or maybe some security patches will work and others not.
If you want to avoid this, LTSB is the only official solution and that means Enterprise.
Just checked my WSUS installation. Windows 10 is already listed in the product list, and there are already Windows 10 updates appearing in the notifications eg "German Language Pack - Windows 10 - (KB3079343) [de-DE_LP]" (more than a 100 of this type of thing)
Not having any Win 10 machines there won't actually be any downloads for my organisation.
...why larger companies are going down the route of desktop virtualisation, or at least looking very closely at it.
Company I work for uses thin clients (embedded Win 7) to open up a shared virtual desktop, which is based on Win Server 2008. As its a server OS, they have more control over the updates, and can pick and choose.
For any user requiring anything more flexible (devs, sysadmins etc), then dedicated virtual machines can be provided (win 7 pro at the moment).
For myself, i'll probably let my home desktop bump up to 10, but then thats mainly to allow xbox streaming. My laptop will remain where it is for the time being, as i use that more for everything else.
> they have more control over the updates, and can pick and choose.
More than "complete and total"? WSUS gives central control for all (supported) versions of Windows: server or not.
If you want control run Pro edition and use the tools provided. If you want an easy life leave it on automatic. I would rather have all those potential botnet nodes, sorry, home users, up to date thank you.
For anyone complaining that it will restart PCs randomly: have you actually tried the preview build?
At least in build 10166, it still gives you the option of when you want to install them.
As for roaming charges, Windows has been clever enough since 8 to know when it's roaming. The issue I guess is for capped broadband connections - but even then as long as you're keeping up to date regularly(which Win 10 will do by the sound of it) it should only be a matter of megs not gigs, especially as I imagine they will still stick to a patch Tuesday - I.e. Once a month.
Is there any reason to believe that Windows 10 doesn't/won't have an updated equivalent of Windows Genuine Advantage, one which only permits continued use of the system if it can Phone Home to check that the relevant updates have been downloaded and applied?
How would firewalls/blacklists/etc help with that mechanism?
You didn't really think it was still going to be *your* computer, did you?
I really really really don't think this is going to go down well with non-domestic users (not all of whom are businesses, but hey). Not everyone wants to pay for Enterprise Edition. And domestic users already know where to go for most of what they need.
Way to make people look seriously at the alternatives, MS.
The obvious main problem is older and non-standard systems which can run the release version of W10 but will later suddenly become unusable due to an update. There's already plenty of old systems (some XP!) which have deliberately not been updated so that old software and hardware will still run.
But there's another problem when most people can't refuse updates. They will be forced to take anti-piracy updates which disable important functions because the copyright agencies demanded it. And updates which disable security and encryption because the NSA demanded it.
So you won't be allowed to fully access your system, but the NSA will.
I manufacture monitoring systems. They usually have a lifetime of 8-10 years. After suffering XP-Pro updates and reboots (some of which were automatic -grrr) on my users applications I have now bitten the bullet and moved over to Linux. Yes, it's different; yes, some Windows apps wont run and don't have good equivalents BUT, it is stable and updates are totally under my control. And I didn't have to buy new hardware either!
Cost is not the issue for me; it's the honesty of the OS supplier. Microsoft is sneaky - witness the "essential update" which is a Windows 10 promotional tool.
I have some legacy XP systems and a couple of 2003 servers - all are now virtualised and are air gapped. The rest are Win7 and, if I have my way, will never be Win10.
Ah, so you have accepted an OS solution that does not match your actual use requirements as well as the previous selection, so that you can update it to your liking?
I've heard of plenty of reasons, some good, for using LINUX, but this really takes le biscuit.
Hint: The OS is only there to provide a platform for you to actually *do* things. It's not the be-all and end-all of computing, though to listen to the LINUX evangelists on here, you'd think that it really is. Sometimes I wonder whether some of them actually do anything, apart from fiddling around with their beloved OS.
Disclaimer: I use both LINUX and Windows. I use the best tool for the job required at the time and both have their positives and negatives.
Slightly patronising rant over, for which I apologise. For ranting, that is, not that it's over... ;-)
1. Download and Install updates is already the default, 99% of the public won't have changed this. They won't notice a difference, or care.
2. Having a unpatched machine will cause just as many issues as the occasional bad patch will cause.
3. Anyone reading this forum will no doubt find a way to bypass this feature easily.
4. The shrieking hysterics of this non issue is baffling. Really? This is a reason for not upgrading? This?
Give it fucking rest already.
The 'shrieking hysterics' are fully justified and history has shown it's the only way to get Microsoft to even consider changing policy. It's sad that Microsoft only hear feedback that agrees with them unless you shout but that's the way it is, shouting is not optional when they screw up :(
I really get sick of the Linux fanbois getting in a lather over Windows. Look we get it, you like Linux and hate Windows. No one is forcing you to use Windows.
This isn't such a bad idea and most web browsers have been doing this by default for ages. Yes it may lead to problems for some, but look at some iOS updates that mess up for some and not others on the exact same hardware. MS are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
BTW I'm not an MS fanbois or a Linux hater. Both have their place and faults.
"SAY THIS TO MY FACE IN THE REAL WORLD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS."
1) Sit down and have a nice cup of tea
2) Reflect on the fact that the younger people I teach use different computing devices to complete tasks, and that a given task may result in a student switching between three OSes
3) They do not appear to be terribly bothered by the logo on the screen as long as it (sort of) works.
From observations such as these, I conclude that
4) The future of the IT systems used in large organisations may be different to what we know today.
That is all
SAY THIS TO MY FACE IN THE REAL WORLD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
You pay the plane ticket, I'll say it to your face. I'm pretty sure of what will happen.
 We'll sit and drink beer and have all sorts of spurious discussions about the pros and cons of different OSes. I'm a G/L user. You probably won't agree with me. But it'll be nice to sit and chew the fat :-)
Im on win 10 right now since I lost my XP licence and my computer went titsup. Except things I expect from a BETA like slow start up, strange resets of drivers, memory leaks and general instability it also suffers from what I call "the update disorder".
Normally I can live with updating from time to time as long as I decide when. To achieve this I have used every trick on the web on my current install but sometimes that isn't enough. At two times my computers Win10 updates have caused problems. Once it disconnected me from an online session with friends letting them hang in the wind - not nice for them and not good for my rep. Another time I just wanted to check mail on a delivery before going to work in the morning - didn't happen and I had to start calling the delivery service and chase the package down offline. Did not get to work on time that day.
I thought it was a BETA-thing but if MS decides that this behaviour is the future I will take my business elsewhere that is for sure.
Just my 0.02€
I think Pro allows you to have the option to defer updates (8 months max?). I believe the Home edition does not even allow you to defer updates.
It'll be interesting to find out how this works in offline environments, or where data bandwidth is limited. Bet you didn't think of these while developing Windows 10 eh, Mr Nadella?
"We'll restart your device automatically when you're not using it"
How can they possibly know when I'm likely to get a support call from another time zone?
"Updates won't download over a metered connection (where charges might apply)"
How do they know I don't have a data cap on my normal connection? (Hint: my bandwidth plummets if I use too much)
Windows 10 (like 8) is all about what Microsoft wants and not about what the customer wants.
If customers wanted it Microsoft wouldn't feel the need to give away upgrades.
And when you are locked into this Windows 10 everywhere crap what else is Microsoft going to foist on you like it or not?
IMO Microsoft wanting you to run Windows 10 so bad is a pretty good reason to keep well away from it.
Not an overly different sentiment to that which I feel for Chrome, now Google sees fit to use, as one delivery channel, an "optional" component in some flash updates.
Surely, if it was actually really good it would be distributed on its merit, not like fucking parasiteware.
Thank you for choosing Microsoft Windows 10 free installation. Now you have been using it for x months and can't go back, we are pleased to tell you that we are launching the Windows 10 as Software as a Service subscription operating system. Just pay us $xxx permonth (or a small reduction of you want to bleed annually) and we will carry on feeding you updates and reset the irritating nag screen that will otherwise start poopping up every time you are in the middle of something.
Oh, and you'll have the sodding tiles whether you like them or not.
All of a sudden, you know, Windup 10 just started to look a lot less inviting.
I'm not sure quite how having the latest version of Paint or Hotmail is going to help, but knowing that (most) users will have the latest version of Windows installed can only be a good thing for developers.
So much time developing modern web, and to a lesser extent mobile, applications is spent creating workarounds or polyfills for missing features of version X of browser Y or an ancient versions of Z that people can't (or won't) upgrade from, it'll actually be nice to know that there's at least one platform where you can start using the latest features in the SDK as soon as it's released, rather than having to wait a year or two for the World to catch up.
"So you're happy if Microsoft fucks me over, as long as it makes life easy for you?"
I imagine that the popular vote from Joe Public would overwhelmingly endorse that view, yes.
What we also need to remember here is that Microsoft supposedly are not releasing any more Windows versions - and that updates will be on-going and incremental. Therefore if lots of people disable them, it might leave Microsoft with a fragmented user base and lots of compatibility issues.
If you are technically competent enough to be managing updates yourself on a consumer version of Windows 10 then it's not exactly much of a challenge to disable the relevant service. Anyone who can't manage that likely shouldn't be disabling them imo.
Yes there is a risk that Microsoft will bork something with an update, but System Recovery is pretty good these days and it's a task of minutes to roll your PC back if you ever needed to.
If I remember correctly, there was a minor outcry (teacup storm force 4) when it was discovered that windows 7 would automatically update the update system without confirmation even if you had "download but not install" set, because otherwise it couldn't actually tell you if updates were available.
Are you SURE the wording applies to all updates?
"Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice."
That implies it's only updates to the update system that will be automatic
It says you can only get system and app updates from authorised sources, and that your system may need to be updated to do so. And that "these types" of automated updates are without notice.
To me that implies that updates to your system required to ensure you get updates from authorised sources are without notice.
I have no problem with this. I my experience home users and small businesses never or seldom update and, consequently, suffer more problems with running unpatched systems than they would if they patched regularly. Our workshop is often full of unpatched PCs needing cleaning.
Conversely, I have seldom seen an update break anything in the more modern Windows offerings though earlier versions before SxS were pretty bad..
In a business environment it is different. Whilst updates that cause problems are rare, updates that do cause a problem can effect hundreds of devices which need fixing within a single business which can cause significant issues for the operation concerned.
This seems a sensible approach. Let businesses mitigate risk, mitigate risk for home and small businesses by taking the course that will benefit the majority.
This might turn out interesting. Canada's anti spam legislation states that it prohibits:
Installation of computer programs without the express consent of the owner of the computer system or its agent, such as an authorized employee;
somehow I think that accepting the Eula does not necessarily provide express consent - but it would be nice to have a legal opinion...
All of my MS installed computers have one thing in common, they haven't a clue what a Lan cable is or the first idea of how to get on the internet. I purposefully went under the bonnet and ripped everything out connectivity wise and so I am the proud owner of an MS system that does not fight against me at every turn. It also doesn't have endless chats with redmond or give succour to the many trojans and other nefarious shit that linger in my system nagging to call home.
Yes you might have guessed by now, I'm all Linuxed up, and that, to the day I die, will be the only way I go surfing.
Well, to be honest I probably wasn't going to install Windows 10 anyway, though I've certainly considered it, since a no-cost upgrade is theoretically a sweet deal. But that settles it. No thanks. I might try getting it running in a VM or something, but there's no way I'm handing complete control over my computer to Microsoft, which is exactly what mandatory automatic updates does.
Haven't you heard? It's cool to be 'Always Online' and have the software phone home periodically to check its authenticity and for new features to download.
Xbox One, Diablo 3.
It is said that whenever a new CEO takes charge the products and services of the company will be steered in a direction which matches the identity/personality of that CEO. Satya was the Cloud guy at Microsoft before he became CEO. 'Windows as a Service'. Auto updates.
You see where this is going.
One can't compare PS3, Xbox etc with PCs.
The game consoles are closed eco-systems, used by kids, so need automated updates, and the risk of introducing issues is small.
PCs are open systems where MS has no control over your installed apps, drivers, and hardware. LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY!
Let's keep the walled garden an optional bolt-on to PCs and Macs (like an app store for the kids, with no admin privs), and not let a slow creeping walling take place. You can bet your bottom dollar that moving control away from the user is one step in this walling process.
Can you see the salivation from the MS execs when they visualise the cut on each and every app they can move to their app store?
To remove the wonderful 'feature' of forced auto Windows updates.
I have an Android phone on 4.4.2 and even Google wasn't brazen enough to force install Lollipop on my phone. What happened to giving the users a choice, hm?
Satya Nadella is treating desktop PCs like phones/tablets...big mistake.
P.S: Oh, and don't forget to install Classic Shell, because the Start menu in Windows 10 is still hideous. The default icon scheme too, but I think someone had ripped the Win 7/8 icons and you can apply them to Win10.
A hack is not really an acceptable solution.
If nothing else, a "very important security update" will remove the hack eventually, and "accidentally" restora all settings to be as irritating as possible as well. I have lost track of all times, to my surprise, Windows have been back in automatic update mode after I have turned of this invasive feature.
I have to have some pity for Microsoft. They are trying to weed out the gazillion home and SMB PCs out there that haven't seen a patch since XP SP3 and are merrily spewing the results of their inevitable malbot infections all over the place as a result. To their mind it must be very tempting to have all systems auto-update just to keep a lid on it.
The problem is that their track record on hotfixes is pretty feeble - both technically (doesn't break stuff) and ethically (slipping in non-essentials masquerading as important updates). So I am with them in theory but they will have to go a while without any of the fubars that made 2014 such an interesting year before I would let them go automatic.
You shouldn't feel sorry for MS.
They could have sold XP rights to implement updates to someone. I would subscribe to cheap security updates for XP. I NEED XP becuse the hardware I use is only supported in XP.
They didn't bother to look for a solution for the few customers who aren't mega corporations, but still must use XP. They also seemed to think it was OK to obsolete hardware that is doing its job perfectly. Wasteful, and perhaps should be made into a legal issue, now with all environmental issues?
Except that traditionally, the local Group Policy Editor hasn't been available on Home versions of the OS.
There are usually Registry equivalents for each of its edits, though, and MS (used to) make available a handy spreadsheet that listed every policy and its registry location/values.
If they screw up Windows 10, I reckon they can say goodbye to the consumer PC part of their business, such as it is, and it will seriously damage the confidence of the corporates.
The more user friendly versions of Linux, such as Linux Lite, are looking like a much more sensible and viable option every day. Been running mine both virtually under VMware for testing, and as an actual machine on an old netbook for some time. Upgrades and installing software are a breeze.
Internet Apathy / Tech Fatigue....
I no longer look forward to going online. Call it privacy data abuse fatigue or whatever, but enough already of the watch-me-net. The last 10 years of the internet has been hype & misdirection. The key products my family use every day are heavily tainted now :-
1. Smartphones: Android app monitoring & dodgy permissions. Constant nagging to offer full-access, go-online or enable GPS / Bluetooth etc.
2. TV's: Sneaky LG & Samsung Smart TV's whose real goal is to persistently track you and your family's net use and viewing habits in order to better Google & Facebook!
3. Conventional tracking: IP+browser settings / Flash Cookies, Cached Sessions, Google-Analytics / Facebook webpage 'likes' etc.
How can I keep my small business up and running, but be largely offline? If I decide a Win7 / Win8 / Win10 box needs updating, I can use air-gapping / sneaker updating, and have Linux boxes for the unavoidable internet parts, right?... But will that always work... Maybe....
But what if M$ decide to disable Windows 10 boxes if you constantly refuse to let it go online and perform updates? (Similar to how LG / Samsung Smart TV features stop working when you stop them snooping on you.)
When the Romans arrived in Blighty, it was "Veni, Vidi, Vici" - I came, I saw, I conquered.
Then Micro$haft came along and then it became "Embrace, Extend, Exterminate".
Today, in the 21st century, we've moved on. It's all about captive audiences now and so they can be much more efficient: Vici, Veni - all over their share price, stock options of senior management and profit related pay bonuses of senior employees. If you get my splurge.
Where are you in that? Nowhere, unless you've paid them to be your hireling. In which case, they'll do your bidding. Ah, that'll be Enterprise then.
So let's all "learn to expect more"* eh?
*a trademark of the Serious Cybernetiks Corporation that's drawn from the infinite pot of "artfully ambiguous phrasing" in Neuro-linguistic Programming - a technique of psychological warfare.
I'm sure that the Romans had a concept of backdooring your system - but back then, you knew about it immediately.
Disclaimer: I've been on Windows since 3.1, can't use Crapple stuff for toffee and have not really got a handle on Linux.
Now might be the time to venture further afield.
Great! so now when "Program X" suddenly breaks, you wont have a clue what changes occurred on your machine - what could possibly go wrong?
I do all my web-browsing on Linux now, When I build my next home pc, I will install Linux on that too... I'm sick of this Cr*p, its my PC, I decide what goes on it and when (and if) it updates.
Even Apple don't do this, My iphone keeps telling me about the new os thats available, and I can click no if I don't want it. How have we got to the point where Apple are giving people the freedom of choice, and Windows is the lock-in "Shut up and consume our apps/cloud/whatever we come up with tomorrow" vendor?
So hows does that work for a clean install ?
no OS iso or new iso every few months?
what happens if your machine isnt connected to the web because of security/ offsite installation or because it is just for control, will it stop working without baby sitting?
What happens to a machine that never touches the web and isnt even powered up on a monthly basis
Seems like MS are demanding more access to your hardware than the owner in some circumstances
I understand the idea of microsoft being able to deal with wayward net machines but I would suggest they would be better addressing the cause rather than attempting a future of remote admin and monitoring.
The fact is that windows is fundementally easier to pwn that any other OS and if there are unpatched windows machines out there why instead of abandoning each version as they release the next instead they fix the old OS. Yes it will be expensive but in the process they will learn how to code a secure OS that will allow customers to trust Microsoft.
Trust is a big selling point and after the many exposures in the press of how microsoft have abuse our trust, I would suggest gaining some credibility now before they become complete pariahs would be a better investment. I see that if winows10 continues along it's current path then it will be the last windows ever released.
This version adds nothing that the majority want and adds too much they cannot abide, one more revellation and MS loose everything simply because having someone so obviously looking over your shoulder and yet failing in their duty of care will be apparant even to the sheeple.
Lets be frank and admit that the majority of window's propriety technology is already 25 years old, what happens if it stops being protected because of one gaff too many. What happens when linux can include all the windows tech without the need to consult and noone will trust you anymore?
I can see why they want to do it, I don't like it but I do get it.
I have only one problem.
Don't friggin try to reboot my pc for me! I really would like a message to pop up that basically says "Please reboot your pc so updates can be applied" or something of that nature. Losing unsaved data due to a systems update is infuriating. Adding install updates to the restart menu, rather than just shut down could be useful in some circumstances too.
I use WIndows 7 and OSX, and for some reason OSX never gets my blood to boil, whereas Windows 7 always does.
Not only is OSX way more user-centric, but it doesn't have a totally awful and inefficeint update system.
I'm just sick of wating 45 minutes for the PC to "reboot" because it had some 29 "important" updates to perform. FFS
Does this mean that the update mechanism will have been improved so it's not something like 10 to 20 times slower than one could expect given the amount of data being downloaded and installed? Or is it still the same old hacked to death and useless crap it has been since Vista?
For the record, I don't approve of ANY "1984"-like crap like this, and I feel TRULY sorry for the people who can't see anything wrong in the corporation meddling with YOUR devices at THIER will. It's the same people who say they have nothing to hide, so let 'em read all our mail and listen to all our conversations. They probably also believe that Google's "don't be evil" is also real.
Something that might've turned out to be better than 7, and legally for free to boot.
And they go and put a deal-breaker like this on it.
I set updates to "notify only" because data costs me lots (cept when I can borrow from someone) and because when I want to use my machine I don't want to have to wait for ages - I can defer updates to a time when I have time, not a time when something is urgent (to me) or I am simply pissed off at the world and need to get a game going to do some serious imaginary killing... Too much of this waiting for updates bullshit and the killing may not be so imaginary!
I guess I won't be installing it on my work or play machines, it will be limited to a test machine that gets fired up from time to time.
(Please take note of the joke icon!)
You could get informed by listening to clueless people that don't use windows parroting the same nonsense they read on other forums, or you could check it out for yourself.
Don't want to receive feature updates? - just check "defer upgrades".
Direct from the horses mouth:
"Defer upgrades in Windows 10
Some Windows 10 editions let you defer upgrades to your PC. When you defer upgrades, new Windows features won’t be downloaded or installed for several months. Deferring upgrades doesn’t affect security updates. Note that deferring upgrades will prevent you from getting the latest Windows features as soon as they’re available."
Now - back to your ranting and raving, and let the down votes begin!
this has nothing todo with Microsoft or Windows or any preconceived notion of good or bad...
THIS HAS TO DO WITH STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.....
and across ALL domains of IT similar BONE HEADED decisions have always caused unexpected, runaway chain reactions whose COST WILL BE A LIABILITY EVEN MICROSOFT MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT....
Imagine if a HOSPITAL or MISSION CRITICAL system like OIL RILLING EQUIPMENT dies becouse the printer update NONBODY ASKED FOR ges bad...a LOT use plain NON enterprise cheap Win boxes...
I HOPE MICROSOFT BUYS GOOD INSURANCE.....TONS OF IT...!
interesting one this week.......a laptop where the customer had specifically declined the update, had never "reserved" it, yet the full update installer was downloaded. Checking Windows Update history, the upgrade had started and failed four times. The failures were due to the customer repeatedly declining them.
However the annoying thing was that the update wasn't listed as an available upgrade, even after a new search for upgrades - meaning there was no way of "hiding" it.
It looks like on this machine the customer will have to undergo a daily decline of the upgrade.
They might just do what I'm considering on all the W7 boxen I deal with: explicitly tell Comodo it's untrusted and watch the fireworks. Maybe I'll enable their 'cloud-based behavior analysis' on mine as if that will help it trigger more heuristic positives on W7 boxen also using Comodo, and call it my good deed for the week. Capt. Obvious says, "Backporting that coerced-updates plan to W7 in any way is unjustifiable."