5 ms·

I have updated three computers -- a Lenovo laptop, a surface book, and a custom desktop -- all without any issues. Its important to remember that everyone with

I have updated three computers -- a Lenovo laptop, a surface book, and a custom desktop -- all without any issues. Its important to remember that everyone with a problem will make sure to say something, but everyone without a problem usually moves on and doesn't talk about it. Its extraordinarily easy to assume that everything is broken just because only people whom it broke for are talking about it.

xg15 10y ago
The problem is that - as a user - there is no other way to know whether a faulty update affects a significant number of users (or even just a small group of users that you happen to be a part of) The only one with telemetry to obtain unbiased numbers is microsoft, and they might refuse to publish that data for PR reasons - or simply organisational ones. So what's a user to do?
kyriakos 10y ago
Same here I'm surprised with all these posts describing issues I never experience, either we're exceptions or people facing problems are indeed louder.
pdkl95 10y ago
> Its extraordinarily easy to assume that everything is broken Just like it's easy to assume that everything is fine. Both are fallacies where personal experience is projected on everyone. This is why it's important to have the choice to use or not use automatic updates. You cannot centrally manage the incredible complexity of all possible PC configurations and use cases; the decision about when to install updates needs to be made locally (which includes the option of deferring that choice to the vendor).
- kyriakos 10y ago
  Even if you could disable updates how would you know which will cause problems to your particular setup?
  - roadnottaken 10y ago
    You don't, but you know if you have time to deal with an issue or if you're in the middle of a critical task and can't take the risk. Nothing worse than being in the midst of a high-pressure/stress event and being forced to update.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    You act as if people should prioritize downloading security updates over actually being able to reliably use their computer. For many people, they want to use their machine first before worrying about security. And as another sibling commenter mentioned, what about crunchtimes, are those the best times to figure out what works and doesn't?
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      If ISPs blocked internet access to compromised machines until they were clean, as I think they should, people would care a whole lot more about keeping up to date. As it stands now, people don't see the problems they are causing (sending spam, participating in botnets, etc), so of course they don't care. But they should.
      - jlgaddis 10y ago
        I work for an ISP. I would love to be able to do this. All that would happen, though, is that the customers would loudly complain until either a) we turned them back on or b) they switched to another ISP. We don't even monitor or check for such compromised machines anymore, however (other than my periodic scans for open DNS resolvers, NTP servers, devices with an SNMP community string of "public", and so on).
        runamok 10y ago
        We are almost in a world with 1 Terabit ddos attacks from IoT devices. It scares me but ISP level blocking needs to come yesterday... http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-camer...
- addicted 10y ago
  They aren't equivalent fallacies. When everything is fine people are far less likely to report it than when something is broken.
wslh 10y ago
Ok. Now I ask you a question: how do you definitely disable the Windows firewall and Cortana? After every update they are enabled again.
- DiabloD3 10y ago
  I don't see the point of disabling the firewall. Windows's current security model involves leaving it enabled. If you need ports always open, just make firewall rules to open large blocks of ports.
  - oneplane 10y ago
    But what if you just want to turn it off.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    The point is that I have a dedicated gateway machine on my network that handles security for the entire private network. Windows running its own firewall is a waste of resources.
    - DiabloD3 10y ago
      Yes, but are all of your switch ports isolated to prevent machines from ever talking to each other directly? Windows' security model has largely become "works in most cases, assumes the user is an idiot". You might want to deploy an AD policy to turn off the firewall, I think you can do this.
  - wslh 10y ago
    Windows Firewall and Windows Defender, the later increases CPU usage looking for malware and I work in the computer security field... and I am an adult, a professional, and don't have a father called Microsoft.
- tapirl 10y ago
  One fucking annoying design in win10 is that, if my computer never connects to network after a restart, the Cortana search function will never work, even I just want to search my local files.
Sylos 10y ago
You're saying that, as if things would be alright, as long as the number of people who have no problem outweigh the number of people who have a problem.
- chirau 10y ago
  With any software, some people are bound to have problems. I have had issues in the past with OS X installations. But because the number of people who do not have issues outweighs that of those who do, it's diluted easily in the general case. For Microsoft it seems different. I am pretty sure the number of those with a problem is minuscule compared to those who don't, but because it is Microsoft, the voices of that minority is overly magnified every single time by both the media and those who simply just have a bone to chew with Microsoft. Deservedly or not, you have to admit, their flaws are magnified way more than those of other companies.
  - Retric 10y ago
    If one user in 1,000 has a significant issue with an outomatic update that's a major problem. MS, gets less slack because it's a monopoly situation. But, they also produce worse software because it's a monopoly. Windows phone is a great example, after over a decade they put out something that was not terrible, and it's failing because not terrible only works in monopoly situations.
    - Eridrus 10y ago
      Have you used a Windows phone? I had one for a few years and was much happier with it than my subsequent Nexus phones, I just couldn't live in the app ghetto forever.
      - Retric 10y ago
        -Have you used a Windows phone? Yes, several versions from around 2003 to 2016.
        10y ago
traspler 10y ago
I tried to update 2 Desktops. Both got stuck at 91%. I have not tried again since then. I had the same experience the last time. There 2 of my computers (a Desktop and a Laptop) updated but were unusably slow afterwards until I fixed the swap settings (which I did not touch before the update). It's now at the point where I'm considering automating my computer setup and just do a completely clean install when a big update comes out. The auto update is also pretty nice for large updates, especially when they kick in right when you start your laptop in front of a classroom and try to deliver a lecture. This whole situation is absolutely crazy! I never had any update issues ever with windows until Windows 8 came out. Since then it's just a terrible hit or miss situation.
makecheck 10y ago
You see, that doesn’t matter at all. Every edge case is important when you are trying to be the “we know best” OS vendor: destroying people’s home businesses or otherwise coming at the worst time possible (e.g. a student trying to finish an important paper) is simply unacceptable. The thing that’s really embarrassing for Microsoft is that they should have literally decades of experience telling them how to manage a wide variety of end-user systems, and they should know that they can’t possibly predict everything that may go wrong. Therefore, a “we know best” system with cryptic or unknown ways of turning things off is going to have major issues, and will break somebody, and they just don’t seem to care or are not smart enough to look at their own experience. This should be extremely disturbing to Windows customers.

xg15 10y ago

The problem is that - as a user - there is no other way to know whether a faulty update affects a significant number of users (or even just a small group of users that you happen to be a part of) The only one with telemetry to obtain unbiased numbers is microsoft, and they might refuse to publish that data for PR reasons - or simply organisational ones. So what's a user to do?

kyriakos 10y ago

Same here I'm surprised with all these posts describing issues I never experience, either we're exceptions or people facing problems are indeed louder.

pdkl95 10y ago

> Its extraordinarily easy to assume that everything is broken Just like it's easy to assume that everything is fine. Both are fallacies where personal experience is projected on everyone. This is why it's important to have the choice to use or not use automatic updates. You cannot centrally manage the incredible complexity of all possible PC configurations and use cases; the decision about when to install updates needs to be made locally (which includes the option of deferring that choice to the vendor).

kyriakos 10y ago
Even if you could disable updates how would you know which will cause problems to your particular setup?
- roadnottaken 10y ago
  You don't, but you know if you have time to deal with an issue or if you're in the middle of a critical task and can't take the risk. Nothing worse than being in the midst of a high-pressure/stress event and being forced to update.
- noobermin 10y ago
  You act as if people should prioritize downloading security updates over actually being able to reliably use their computer. For many people, they want to use their machine first before worrying about security. And as another sibling commenter mentioned, what about crunchtimes, are those the best times to figure out what works and doesn't?
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    If ISPs blocked internet access to compromised machines until they were clean, as I think they should, people would care a whole lot more about keeping up to date. As it stands now, people don't see the problems they are causing (sending spam, participating in botnets, etc), so of course they don't care. But they should.
    - jlgaddis 10y ago
      I work for an ISP. I would love to be able to do this. All that would happen, though, is that the customers would loudly complain until either a) we turned them back on or b) they switched to another ISP. We don't even monitor or check for such compromised machines anymore, however (other than my periodic scans for open DNS resolvers, NTP servers, devices with an SNMP community string of "public", and so on).
      - runamok 10y ago
        We are almost in a world with 1 Terabit ddos attacks from IoT devices. It scares me but ISP level blocking needs to come yesterday... http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-cameras-reportedly-deliver-internets-biggest-ddos-ever/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/09/botnet-of-145k-camer...
addicted 10y ago
They aren't equivalent fallacies. When everything is fine people are far less likely to report it than when something is broken.

wslh 10y ago

Ok. Now I ask you a question: how do you definitely disable the Windows firewall and Cortana? After every update they are enabled again.

DiabloD3 10y ago
I don't see the point of disabling the firewall. Windows's current security model involves leaving it enabled. If you need ports always open, just make firewall rules to open large blocks of ports.
- oneplane 10y ago
  But what if you just want to turn it off.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  The point is that I have a dedicated gateway machine on my network that handles security for the entire private network. Windows running its own firewall is a waste of resources.
  - DiabloD3 10y ago
    Yes, but are all of your switch ports isolated to prevent machines from ever talking to each other directly? Windows' security model has largely become "works in most cases, assumes the user is an idiot". You might want to deploy an AD policy to turn off the firewall, I think you can do this.
- wslh 10y ago
  Windows Firewall and Windows Defender, the later increases CPU usage looking for malware and I work in the computer security field... and I am an adult, a professional, and don't have a father called Microsoft.
tapirl 10y ago
One fucking annoying design in win10 is that, if my computer never connects to network after a restart, the Cortana search function will never work, even I just want to search my local files.

Sylos 10y ago

You're saying that, as if things would be alright, as long as the number of people who have no problem outweigh the number of people who have a problem.

chirau 10y ago
With any software, some people are bound to have problems. I have had issues in the past with OS X installations. But because the number of people who do not have issues outweighs that of those who do, it's diluted easily in the general case. For Microsoft it seems different. I am pretty sure the number of those with a problem is minuscule compared to those who don't, but because it is Microsoft, the voices of that minority is overly magnified every single time by both the media and those who simply just have a bone to chew with Microsoft. Deservedly or not, you have to admit, their flaws are magnified way more than those of other companies.
- Retric 10y ago
  If one user in 1,000 has a significant issue with an outomatic update that's a major problem. MS, gets less slack because it's a monopoly situation. But, they also produce worse software because it's a monopoly. Windows phone is a great example, after over a decade they put out something that was not terrible, and it's failing because not terrible only works in monopoly situations.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    Have you used a Windows phone? I had one for a few years and was much happier with it than my subsequent Nexus phones, I just couldn't live in the app ghetto forever.
    - Retric 10y ago
      -Have you used a Windows phone? Yes, several versions from around 2003 to 2016.
      - 10y ago

traspler 10y ago

I tried to update 2 Desktops. Both got stuck at 91%. I have not tried again since then. I had the same experience the last time. There 2 of my computers (a Desktop and a Laptop) updated but were unusably slow afterwards until I fixed the swap settings (which I did not touch before the update). It's now at the point where I'm considering automating my computer setup and just do a completely clean install when a big update comes out. The auto update is also pretty nice for large updates, especially when they kick in right when you start your laptop in front of a classroom and try to deliver a lecture. This whole situation is absolutely crazy! I never had any update issues ever with windows until Windows 8 came out. Since then it's just a terrible hit or miss situation.

makecheck 10y ago

You see, that doesn’t matter at all. Every edge case is important when you are trying to be the “we know best” OS vendor: destroying people’s home businesses or otherwise coming at the worst time possible (e.g. a student trying to finish an important paper) is simply unacceptable. The thing that’s really embarrassing for Microsoft is that they should have literally decades of experience telling them how to manage a wide variety of end-user systems, and they should know that they can’t possibly predict everything that may go wrong. Therefore, a “we know best” system with cryptic or unknown ways of turning things off is going to have major issues, and will break somebody, and they just don’t seem to care or are not smart enough to look at their own experience. This should be extremely disturbing to Windows customers.