5 ms·

I miss those days. You used to be able to deinstall windows updates, and other updates as well. I would confidently install new updates, secure in the knowledg

I miss those days. You used to be able to deinstall windows updates, and other updates as well. I would confidently install new updates, secure in the knowledge that if it broke something, I could roll it back. But Microsoft has so little faith in their updates that they know that they have to cram them down our throats. Of course the narrative now is that everything must be "evergreen", so that they can find new ways to insert ads into our desktops, and deprecate features we depend on.

Nexxxeh 10y ago
In fairness, uneducated update avoiders put themselves at risk and we all suffer the consequences. I think enforced updates are fine on Home systems. They're a piss-take on Pro though.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  If there was a "security patches only" option in there, somewhat akin to a LTS distro option, i think there would be less complaining. That said, it is hard to find a good time to do updates, and not everyone notice that popup about "we are about to reboot for an update" while in the proverbial zone.
  - alushta 10y ago
    It's the Windows 10 LTS branch; Google for "Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB". The LTSB edition will have its feature set be updated semi-annually and ONLY receive critical updates or security fixes in the interim. Updated as Windows 7/8 was, using tools like Config Manager or WSUS, and can block updates. LTSB also lacks touch support, "modern apps", the app store, and doesn't ship with the Edge browser. The LTSB N edition doesn't even ship with the media player.
- apostacy 10y ago
  I don't buy that anymore. In theory, it makes sense, but, the idea that it is ok to force users to update has been used to justify so much crap. Just off the top of my head, I've seen so many "home users" get burned. My grandmother's copy of Skype on her PPC OSX Leopard stopped working, so I had to nullroute ui.skype.com, and revert the update with Time Machine, and it started working again. When they said it was a "critical" update, they were lying. It worked just fine when I reverted it and disabled the updater. The update was purely there to deny service, and remove all functionality. Or my grandfather's Kindle updated itself to disable encryption. Don't even get me started on the "helpful" updates for the Kindle. My grandparents recognized it for the scam it is. And I'm pretty sure that "transparently" installing updates is not for convenience, it's because if you explicitly told users what you were doing, a lot of them would want to say no. If you simply had a dialog box detailing exactly what the update had just done, people would not be happy. So instead, your software landscape is just one where stuff shifts around and disappears at night, and you have to pray that the next update won't break something.

Nexxxeh 10y ago

In fairness, uneducated update avoiders put themselves at risk and we all suffer the consequences. I think enforced updates are fine on Home systems. They're a piss-take on Pro though.

digi_owl 10y ago
If there was a "security patches only" option in there, somewhat akin to a LTS distro option, i think there would be less complaining. That said, it is hard to find a good time to do updates, and not everyone notice that popup about "we are about to reboot for an update" while in the proverbial zone.
- alushta 10y ago
  It's the Windows 10 LTS branch; Google for "Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB". The LTSB edition will have its feature set be updated semi-annually and ONLY receive critical updates or security fixes in the interim. Updated as Windows 7/8 was, using tools like Config Manager or WSUS, and can block updates. LTSB also lacks touch support, "modern apps", the app store, and doesn't ship with the Edge browser. The LTSB N edition doesn't even ship with the media player.
apostacy 10y ago
I don't buy that anymore. In theory, it makes sense, but, the idea that it is ok to force users to update has been used to justify so much crap. Just off the top of my head, I've seen so many "home users" get burned. My grandmother's copy of Skype on her PPC OSX Leopard stopped working, so I had to nullroute ui.skype.com, and revert the update with Time Machine, and it started working again. When they said it was a "critical" update, they were lying. It worked just fine when I reverted it and disabled the updater. The update was purely there to deny service, and remove all functionality. Or my grandfather's Kindle updated itself to disable encryption. Don't even get me started on the "helpful" updates for the Kindle. My grandparents recognized it for the scam it is. And I'm pretty sure that "transparently" installing updates is not for convenience, it's because if you explicitly told users what you were doing, a lot of them would want to say no. If you simply had a dialog box detailing exactly what the update had just done, people would not be happy. So instead, your software landscape is just one where stuff shifts around and disappears at night, and you have to pray that the next update won't break something.