24 ms·

Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

• Yizahi 9y ago
  Everyone know why updates really are disabled - pirated Windows. Specifically - pirated Windows with badly written hack that fails after certain updates are installed. Given that how enormous is user base of pirated Windows it is expected really to to see lots of guidelines how to disable Windows Update. Win10 takes it to the other extreme, where it is impossible to disable it. You can only disable it for Wi-Fi and for each network separately. It is insane really and creates all sorts of problems in some use cases. PS: another problem - some of the Win10 updates caused dozens of incomprehensible errors in Event Viewer on my PC, now I turned on "defer updates" and hope that delay will help MS figure out problematic patches before they will arrive.
  • joonoro 9y ago
    Came here to say this. Many of my friends run pirated copies of Windows because they cannot afford a license, and they cannot use Linux either because they are dependent on Windows software. Usually I'd say it's their own fault but fuck it, it's Microsoft's fault. Everyone knows Windows licenses are overpriced and that if Microsoft actually cared about collective security they'd bring the price down. Stop pretending you're not a part of infrastructure.
• chrisacky 9y ago
  I was on a internal Slack call with team the other day, I ended up having to restart to Windows to do a screenshare and switch to Skype. I ended up having to delay my working day by about 45 minutes while Windows decided to do a mandatory update without any granularity of choice on when is convenient for me. That's what is frustrating. I ended up being unproductive for a whole hour because Windows forced an update on me. Windows definitely have to make it better as Troy suggests. The frequency is also costly.
  • kristianc 9y ago
    The article points out that you can set hours when Windows will update.
    • vezycash 9y ago
      What if Microsoft instead fixed the need to restart for almost every update?
      • chrischen 9y ago
        MacOS handles this perfectly. It clearly notifies you when an update will be installed if you restart.
        • UK-AL 9y ago
          Windows also tells you it will perform an update on restart. It says "Update and restart" rather than just restart.
          • ams6110 9y ago
            But it doesn't have a "restart and defer update" option. If you need to restart for some other reason, you're forced to take the update.
            • jdmichal 9y ago
              In cmd or PowerShell: shutdown /r /t 0 AFAIK, this has always avoided updates.
            • hackmiester 9y ago
              Holding shift while opening the power menu and clicking Restart used to do this, but admittedly, I haven't tried it in a while.
            • c17r 9y ago
• 4ad 9y ago
  Well, this would be so much easier if: 1) Windows update installed just security updates instead of potentially disruptive crap "features". The epitome of that, is of course forced update to Windows 10. Ads in Explorer is a close second. This would reduce the frequency of updates significantly as well, which would also help. 2) Windows update would use a sane default of not rebooting you while you are in the middle of something. There's a setting that you can do where windows installs update in the background, with no user intervention, but IFF it doesn't require a reboot, and asks otherwise. But this setting requires Group Policy (or being part of a domain), so it's not available to non-Pro Windows customers (and it's a very esoteric option users won't know about anyway). You can also reduce the frequency of updates with "install updates for windows only", but you can't really restrict yourself to only security updates (unless you run Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB edition, which you don't). Actually the best thing for Windows, both usability and security wise would be to make Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB edition the version of Windows people use.
  • nu5500 9y ago
    I am not sure that it's really feasible to decouple feature and security updates though. With Microsoft releasing two major feature updates a year, how many variations of this can they support if anyone along the way decides to freeze their current set of features and only get security updates for them? Regardless, as a heavy Win10 user across several machines I've found the whole "disruptive" / "spyware" / "crapware" FUD being pushed by some HN posters to be way overblown. Yea, there have been a few annoyances such as the OneDrive ad that showed up a month or two ago, but these are all extremely minor compared to the mountains of advertising and tracking crap we get hit with every day from web sites, apps, and search engines.
    • 4ad 9y ago
      > With Microsoft releasing two major feature updates a year, how many variations of this can they support if anyone along the way decides to freeze their current set of features and only get security updates for them? As I said, it is totally feasible because Microsoft is already doing it with LTSB.
• CydeWeys 9y ago
  I love the way he's compared the people who tell you to turn off auto-updates with anti-vaxxers; it's quite an apt analogy. Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user clearly doesn't want through updates (especially to the major OS version). Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microsoft's own bone-headed moves in recent years to install bullshit that the user doesn't want. I still sort of regret installing Windows 10 to this day because of the obnoxious Cortana bar it foisted upon my start menu that I can't get rid of. And yet not installing Windows 10 would've left me less secure with an OS hitting EOL for security updates much sooner. Microsoft definitely shares some of the blame for this precisely because they have automatically "opted in" their users to stuff they don't want during past updates. Stop the bullshit, Microsoft.
  • vezycash 9y ago
    You can remove the Cortana bar.
    • xg15 9y ago
      By removing all kinds of search, yes.
      • nisa 9y ago
        No. You can still have local search. Unfortunatly this seems to only possible with a GPO rule.
        • CydeWeys 9y ago
          Yeah, see, I don't even know what a GPO rule is, and I'm more technically inclined than 99% of the users out there. I'm sure there are some people that can totally customize Windows 10 to their liking and get rid of all of the anti-user stuff, but it's such a small proportion of the overall home userbase as to be statistically insignificant.
  • 9y ago
• creshal 9y ago
  It would be easier to sell automated Windows updates if Microsoft wouldn't use them to randomly shove a whole new OS down your throat. Oh, and if Microsoft actually had a QA department to make sure they don't brick machines.
• phire 9y ago
  I spent the weekend doing a clean reinstall of windows 10, because windows update had stopped working about a year ago (due to a broken windows insider build). I must admit it was really nice to be able to leave my computer on for months at a time without it restarting for updates. Few people really mind updates. What Microsoft really needs to do is minimize the number of forced restarts required, like Linux which only really needs a reboot if you update the kernel itself (and even then, there are ways around that).
  • Asooka 9y ago
    To be fair, if you have a vulnerability in a .so used by e.g. Firefox, you'll also have to restart Firefox after updating to have it pick up the updated library. But you're right I would prefer the Linux update model, where I run a command once a week when I like to pick up the latest versions of software.
• Jonnax 9y ago
  I've noticed that there is a certain level of competency a person can attain in a subject where they think they have an advanced knowledge and hand out advice with a certain authority. But in reality they are spreading dangerous misinformed information. Windows's auto updates though can be annoying, ensures that the average computer is up to date. Like in the example of this article: "If you had any version of Windows since Vista running the default Windows Update, you would have had the critical Microsoft Security Bulletin known as "MS17-010" pushed down to your PC and automatically installed. Without doing a thing, when WannaCry came along almost 2 months later" The average user cares that their holiday photos, documents or credentials don't get stolen or ransomed.
  • AndrewOMartin 9y ago
    Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger made a similar observation.
  • k__ 9y ago
    Most people don't get any Windows education. They use it at home for years, write on their resume, they know Windows and the Office Suite and say this is their advanced knowledge. On the other hand, this is how I started programming when I was 15 :D But well, I didn't write it in my resume till I finished my CS degree.
  • beagle3 9y ago
    > Windows's auto updates though can be annoying, ensures that the average computer is up to date. > The average user cares that their holiday photos, documents or credentials don't get stolen or ransomed. Are both true. However, windows updates also occasionally cause restarts in the least opportune moments (e.g. when you have unsaved work and left for the day), or make a restart take 40 minutes when you need your computer right now (in the middle of an important phone call). Both of these have happened to virtually every Windows user I know, prompting some of them to disable Windows Updates. Other issues with windows updates are bandwidth abuse (getting Win10 downloaded automatically on metered mobile connection), breaking some software/drivers/configuration, or installing unwelcome telemetry spyware. Each of these only happened to one or two persons I know. The average user now keeps all their holiday photos on their mobile phone / cloud, but they do care about documents and credentials. You are not wrong, but the way Microsoft Update behaves, you have to choose the lesser of evils (potentially get ransomwared, vs potentially avoid things listed above). It is not patently clear that Windows Update is universally the better option. And it wouldn't be a choice between evils in the first place, if microsoft didn't try to advance their agenda by stopping the practice of "security updates" vs "other updates". Microsoft deserves all of the blame for the disdain to Windows Update, and therefore a big chunk of the sorry state of its users.
• kefka 9y ago
  And the reason why people were suggesting to turn off Windows Update was precisely because of malware payloads directly from Microsoft. "Do you want to upgrade to Windows 10? Press the hidden button to cancel, otherwise upgrade commences." This is how malware works.... But published and pushed by MS's own channels. And his jab at people who say that turning off WU is similar to anti-vaxxers is completely inane and false - we know the damage Microsoft has done to user's computers. In reality, I'd rather they upgrade to Linux. Those machines wouldn't get bit by this, unless you run the executable with WINE. But I blame MS for being spammy and spyware-y and malware-y, which encouraged users to turn off harassing and onerous updates.
  • jamespo 9y ago
    No, most people turned it off because they didn't want updates interrupting them. You are vastly overestimating who cares about "MS malware".
    • kefka 9y ago
      Oh no. The forced updates were the 'gift' for running Windows 10. Although I would say this is also certainly a part of it. I also have more than a few stories of people hiring me precisely due to a hijacked OS install of Win10, accompanied by slower machine and worse usability. It only takes a few of those and a whole social circle will warn about it (because of the time and harassment). In fact, I remember this getting so bad, that local news media was talking about how to stop having your machine hacked by MS with a forced Win10 install. In all honesty, if this were you or I, we'd be facing CFAA charges for this shit.
      • phr4ts 9y ago
        I have an application that stopped working in creators update. So now compatibility issues crop up even though its technically still Win10.
    • jlebrech 9y ago
      microsoft needs to change how they push updates. If I have a desktop pc and I shutdown, I don't mind an update. but if it's a stealth download of windows 10 pro when I have home, then NO. if people never shutdown, then yes maybe force a reboot for critical updates. but windows needs to figure that out. if I shutdown a laptop because i'm running out of battery, then updating windows for 30 minutes is not a good idea. and sometimes you'll get 30 updates in one go when I've shutdown the PC every day and it should have installed a few in that timeframe.
• setq 9y ago
  I don't know why people complain about updates and restarting, particularly in this thread. You fill your car up with fuel regularly because it has been warning you it's nearly empty for a while much like updates remind you regularly. People seem to complain and say "it updated right when I was in the middle of X" but they've been putting it off for ages. Do you break down in the middle of the motorway when you run out of fuel too? Windows only updates when you're doing something because you're putting everyone else at risk by not running the damn things in and you've had plenty of notice.
  • zouhair 9y ago
    I hope your car doesn't stop randomly against your will so it can get a refill.
    • dagw 9y ago
      It does if I put off getting that refill for long enough.
    • taneq 9y ago
      If you don't refuel it, then yes, it will stop.
    • setq 9y ago
      Not yet. Only when you run out of gas. However in a few years, are people going to get pissed off when their Tesla has enough of their shit and drives itself to a charging point because the owner is too incompetent to heed the warnings?
      • bigbugbag 9y ago
        As if Tesla had a monopoly on the car market as Microsoft has on the computer OS. Then again cars only warns when the fuel tank is getting empty, Microsoft updates may happens at times and is totally unrelated to the ability of your computer to continue working.
      • Qwertious 9y ago
• madiathomas 9y ago
  I would like to keep my Windows Update on, but I just can't afford it. Data bundles are too expensive where I live. I can buy a week's worth of groceries with the amount I spend buying just 2GB data bundle. Not everyone lives in a country with cheap data bundles.
  • vezycash 9y ago
    This is exactly my situation. Worse, ever used a wifi network slowed to a crawl by different laptops updating windows? I once had to turn off updates on all laptops in my workplace so we could use the internet. (They thought the network was under a virus attack)
    • ZoFreX 9y ago
      > I once had to turn off updates on all laptops in my workplace so we could use the internet. In such a situation you can dramatically reduce the bandwidth required by setting up an update server. There's no need for every laptop to download the same patch from the internet, download the patch once and everyone gets it. (I appreciate that doesn't help the situation where you don't have enough data for one machine)
    • lmns 9y ago
      You should have a look at traffic shaping and different networking queues. Fq_codel is great, but even SFQ works better than nothing. No need to turn off updates.
    • vocatus_gate 9y ago
      I'm Army Reserve and we frequently have this problem in field exercises. Fire up some Win10 laptops on our very limited Verizon MiFi access point, they promptly download gig's of updates without consent and immediately push the bandwidth past the limit and the AP gets throttled to oblivion. Yeah yeah you can turn of Windows updates or whatever, but you shouldn't have to do that just to force Microsoft to respect your wishes to update when you want to. And no, I'm not talking about some stupid restricted 8-hour window with no other option outside completely shutting down the service. TBH I'm still surprised they haven't tried to block users from doing that too at this point.
• bitL 9y ago
  Microsoft is to be fully blamed here. They brought it on themselves, pissing off anyone with a bit of a brain by turning their OSes into suspected spyware, forcing W7/W8.x users to turn off updates, allowing funny leaked tools wreaking havoc everywhere. Author here blames people that took prudent actions to preserve their autonomy, while MS was holding them hostage by bundling security updates with unwanted monitoring. Many of them switched to Linux/BSD and are using Windows minimally as a consequence.
• xg15 9y ago
  That article would be more believable if Microsoft (as well as other companies) hadn't slipped all kinds of stuff in earlier updates which are not on the interest of the consumer at all. (Starting with annoying UX changes and A/B tests, to telemetry, to advertising, to removal of user software and DRM) Oftentimes it looks suspiciously as if the (rightful) need for security and quick responses is used as an excuse for "OS-as-a-service" shift that mostly benefits the vendors. What happened to the old practice of clearly distinguishing between "security" and "feature" updates? What happened to actually educating the users?
  • malka 9y ago
    > What happened to the old practice of clearly distinguishing between "security" and "feature" updates? What happened to actually educating the users? "Fuck you, I want some sweet data and money" is what happened.
  • a_imho 9y ago
    MS is 100% responsible for this and they should reap what they sowed. Imo this blame shifting PR damage control is just insult to injury and will probably backfire.
    • mdpopescu 9y ago
      It's similar to what banks call "identity theft" instead of "we gave someone else some of your money and now it's your problem".
  • xg15 9y ago
    Interesting tidbit from the bottom of this thread [1]: Windows actually has a pretty clear distinction between "security" and "crap-no-one-needs" updates and even offers a way to restrict to security updates only - in the LTSB version which is exclusively available to enterprise customers [2]. I take that as a proof that the whole discussion is more about pushing Windows-as-a-service than about actually caring for security. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14340449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14340449 [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/waas-overview#servicing-branches https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/w... "Long Term Servicing Branch"
• willvarfar 9y ago
  The most annoying thing is that a restart is required. KSplice shows that you can update a running system without restart. Real shame that MS, Chrome etc don't all manage this.
• OscarTheGrinch 9y ago
  How many WannaCry victims are too shame faced to come forward? I have heard that several warships belonging to a NATO nation run on WinXP.
• egg_head 9y ago
  article should be rewritten as: don´t tell people to use windows, just don´t
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    That's what I thought too reading the title, but the windows tax makes sure it comes pre-installed with computers and for most people it means having to deal with windows. It should be "tell people to use a non-windows OS" instead.
• vanilla 9y ago
  If you are in remote africa, with a sattelite uplink, windows updates/traffic should be configurable. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_in_the_central_african_bush_we_pay_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_i...
• vanilla 9y ago
  If you are in remote africa, with a sattelite uplink, windows updates/traffic should be configurable. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_in_the_central_african_bush_we_pay_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_i...
• Spooky23 9y ago
  I would have agreed with this until Windows 10. As implemented, Windows 10 feels like a system to deploy code and update computers that happens to run user software. It's obnoxious. Many people I know have solved the problem by moving to Apple.
  • emodendroket 9y ago
    I don't know how that would solve the problem; Apple is hardly a great friend of user choice compared to Microsoft.
    • Qwertious 9y ago
      It's not a good solution, but it's the only one that capitalism really provides - switching to the competitor to pressure the shitty company to stop being so shitty.
      • emodendroket 9y ago
        But this is like deciding apples have too much sugar and buying cake instead.
• lolc 9y ago
  If Windows Update is vaccine administration, what is NSA?
  • matt4077 9y ago
    I fear the answer is "the NSA".
    • lolc 9y ago
      You don't say "the HIV" either...
• tinus_hn 9y ago
  Don't behave so sleazily that people want to turn off Windows Update, just don't
• _pmf_ 9y ago
  My system partition is full. This alone prevents Windows 10 from updating (without giving any reason; you have to really dig into it to find the actual problem). But hey, I can ask Cortana for some random stuff and have it fail 95 per cent of the time; nice priorities, Nadella!
• benevol 9y ago
  > Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update, just don't Do tell people to turn off Windows. FTFY.
• gens 9y ago
  I wish I could disable updates. Dumb ass win10 thinks it's ok to download 2 GIGABYTES of data. How is it reasonable to have gigabytes of updates ? For security ? I have gigabytes of binaries here ? And then 15 days later, 1.5GB of updates. (note: my win10 laptop is usually used with mobile internet) Win10 is a shame. They could have at least separated security updates from random crap updates. A button would be nice as well. If anyone knows how to disable updates on non-professional win10, please let me know. edit: I do know about security and the importance of updates. You few downvoting me can go shove it up your arse. It's crap behavior from win10, period.
  • vocatus_gate 9y ago
    Unlike all these Stockholm-syndrome affected users here, I will tell you. Start --> 'services.msc' --> find "Windows Updates" service --> right-click --> properties --> switch it to Disabled and reboot. Turn it on once a month or whenever YOU want to update. Done.
    • gens 9y ago
      Wow i feel stupid. Didn't even think to try the standard things. Thx. Time to msconfig this laptop to "usable" state. edit: Parent comment flagged ? Are we on "Anti-hacker Non-news" ? Anyway; Start-> type "services" (or "msiconfig" for more options, basically the same as winXP) and you can turn off "windows Update" there. Don't forget to turn it on every once in a while, especially if you use public networks. update: There's also a thing called "Background Intelligent Something", that is the thing doing the actual downloads. Seems it continued downloading even without the update service running. Said service looks mildly important, but still it had to die.
  • zanny 9y ago
    Meanwhile, a months worth of Ubuntu LTS updates probably totals around 20MB on average, and 90% of that is kernel deltas.
• Grue3 9y ago
  I'm currently on Windows 7 and don't want to accidentally install Windows 10. Turning off updates seems to be the only reliable way to do this.
  • madiathomas 9y ago
    ...and once you are on Windows 10, you will need a degree in Computer Science to disable updates :). I was forced into Windows 10. To turn off updates, I had to disable the Windows Update service. There is no user friendly option to turn them off.
    • bigbugbag 9y ago
      There is one but it is not included with windows. You have to download a piece of freeware dedicated to customizing your windows. Sorry i don't have the name of this in mind.
  • moonshinefe 9y ago
    The window for the free 7 -> 10 update is long gone, turn your updates back on and install security updates until they run out in 2020.
    • cesarb 9y ago
      It's a question of trust. That user no longer trusts WU to not silently install Windows 10. The window might have closed, but who says it won't open again suddenly, or a WU bug won't make it think it's still inside the window?
      • moonshinefe 9y ago
        Silently installing Win10 from Win7 at this point after the window has long closed would be a massive controversy and utterly unprecedented in the industry. Updates introducing bugs is always a possibility on any platform Windows or otherwise, so the suggestion is just to stop installing security updates? Please.
• bigbugbag 9y ago
  Does this guy work for microsoft ? It reads like a partisant piece for microsoft. Totally overlooked the suspicious timeline of Microsoft releasing patched for vulnerabilities that were exploited for a long time by the NSA right after it was made apparent those had been stolen and were about to be released in the wild. No question asked about NSA having known and exploited those vulnerabilities for a while, no question about Microsoft possibly willingly playing along or being legally forced to do so. No mention that disabling Microsoft update trend is a logical answer to Microsoft using the system to silently installing spying software, breaking the system altogether, disabling pirated versions among others. No mention that the solution to things like the wannycry outbreak is not turning on windows update but less windows and more other OS and backups. With a sane backup policy ransomware is merely a joke.
  • ZoFreX 9y ago
    > No mention that disabling Microsoft update trend is a logical answer No, it isn't. Disabling update isn't a logical answer to _anything_ except "what's the best way to get malware". If you don't want Microsoft's "spyware" don't install their OS. There is no coherent logic to simultaneously not trusting Microsoft, and running their code - any version of it.
    • vocatus_gate 9y ago
      No. In THEORY you're more vulnerable to exploits in the wild by disabling Windows Update. In REALITY you're statistically FAR more likely to be harassed and have your software/apps/OS break due to Microsoft's "very similar to malware-style" forced updates. I disabled Win10 updates over 1.5 years ago with zero issue. Security people love to claim the sky is falling, but it's all about risk/reward. Risk of issue due to actual exploit is pretty low for most people, so even though the potential IMPACT is very high, because the probability is so low compared to the constant irritation of Microsoft arbitrarily forcing whatever they want down your throat once a month, they just deal with it and shut off updates. edit: downvote if you want, I'm not wrong.
      • tmsldd 9y ago
• roesel 9y ago
  The reason for turning off updates is (I believe) rarely that one doesn't want important security updates. Just as Ubuntu servers have an option to automatically install critical security updates and for the rest you run `apt-get` when you want, the same should be available on windows. Blaming the users is nice and easy, but Microsoft definitely deserves half of the blame (if not more).
  • evand 9y ago
    That option to automatically install security updates is on by default in Ubuntu 16.04, by the way: http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow-livepatched-in-ubuntu.html http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow-livepatched... Snaps were designed from the beginning to push automatic updates, even of non-security updates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxqdf89hRo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxqdf89hRo
• dandare 9y ago
  Why can't Microsoft or NSA or whatever good samaritan use the same vulnerability and attack vector to force-spread the update or at least a patch of some kind?
  • kbart 9y ago
    Because accessing and modifying computer systems without owner's prior agreement is a crime in most parts of the world. Why would MS, NSA or any other entity would risk potential trials?
    • dandare 9y ago
      Did MS not force upgrade users to Win10 against their will - which caused many of them to switch off autoupdate in the first place?
      • kbart 9y ago
        I'm sure automated updates were covered in EULA. Not that I agree with this MS step though (see my other comment in this thread).
        • dandare 9y ago
          You are probably right. In that case could not the president issue an executive order asking NSA to use the hack to protect everyone?
          • kbart 9y ago
            NSA doesn't have legal power outside USA. That still would be illegal hacking with potential political and/or legal backlash. I understand what you mean, but that's grey area at best.
            • a2decrow 9y ago
              They don't have any legal authority to spy on everyone either. Didn't stop them and after it went public, did anything meaningful happen about it? Our German chancellor, Angela Merkel, went from "this is unacceptable and can't happen under any circumstances and there will be repercussions" to "please don't do it" after the Snowden leaks went public. There is little political backslash and no legal one. The spy agencies (NSA, CIA, GSHQ, BND, #insertanotherhere) do whatever they want with little to no oversight. And if the public finds out about it, the first move is to legalize it by law and continue as before.
• atemerev 9y ago
  Is it really hard to develop a ksplice / kexec analog for Windows kernel? (Yes, it is. But with Microsoft's dedicated research and resources, it should be possible.) Interruptive updates are _the_ reason many people choose Mac OS X over Windows. Updates are, obviously, important. Restarts (and notifications) are bad and will be postponed and ignored, no matter how hard we try to educated users. Solution: throw all resources to minimize restarts during updates, make everything as automated as possible. I realize that it is harder to do for Windows, due to their idea of putting everything to the kernel, but this only exaggerates the urgent need for something like ksplice to be integrated.
• retube 9y ago
  So I have blocked my mother's PC updating from Windows 8 to 10 because it broke everything for her - so I rolled it back. Have prevented the upgrade auto-occurring again by specifying we are on a "metered" connection, which seems to be the standard trick to prevent the upgrade to 10. Any idea if this also prevents security updates?
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    I thought the standard trick to prevent the upgrade to 10 was to use never10 to disable the upgrade. https://www.grc.com/never10.htm https://www.grc.com/never10.htm
• jorams 9y ago
  In recent years, Microsoft has been pushing automatic updates more and more. At the same time, the updating experience just hasn't gotten any better. My Linux install never urges me to update. Updates come out many times a day, and I can ignore them entirely for as long as I want. My Windows install continually urges me to update. It makes them increasingly hard to ignore, to make sure I install them. The idea behind this is not bad: many people would postpone updates indefinitely without understanding the consequences. Browsers these days install updates without even asking the user, and complaints about that are rare. The problem is that updating Windows is a terrible experience. It wants to install updates when I shut down, which on a laptop is often the moment I'm leaving, when I'm ready to put it into my bag and go home. This is a terrible time to install updates. It's even worse because the time the updates take is incredibly unpredictable. Sometimes they're done in a minute, but I've also had a single small update take 45 minutes. I ended up putting the laptop into the bag while it was running the update. When I arrived home it was very close to overheating, had burnt through much of the battery capacity (the battery in that thing isn't very good), and it wasn't done yet. Then I figured the solution would be to avoid updates at shutdown, always executing them manually when I was going to keep using it for a while. This is how I handle updates on Linux, and it works perfectly. So I tried that a few times, and the experience was terrible. It would always require a reboot immediately after, while I was working. This is a terrible time to reboot. Meanwhile, every time I update my Linux installations, it's painless. I just run the update command, it tells me exactly what it's going to update, I accept, and I can leave it running in the background. The longest one of those updates ever took was 10-15 minutes, on a machine that hadn't been on for 6 months. Hundreds of packages updated in minutes, without disrupting the work I was doing. An hour or so later I shut it down and from the next boot on I was running the newest kernel. What Microsoft needs to do is to make updates painless. It needs to be clear what is being updated and how long it is going to take. It needs to stop requiring reboots all the time, and when that is achieved it needs to stop updating on shutdown. Also important: It needs to stop requring multiple reboots for one update round. Windows, for me, is not the OS that boots by default. Every time it restarts I need to explicitly tell my computer that "yes, unfortunately there are still reasons to keep using this."
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
• moonshinefe 9y ago
  Scumbags will be scumbags and take advantage of these exploits--it's been proven over decades of internet malware history. The NSA should be focused on protecting US interests by helping these things get patched ASAP, not sitting on a treasure trove of 0-days and then they get leaked and everyone has them whilst chaos ensues. Microsoft should be focusing on providing less controversial updates, clearly categorizing essential security updates apart from new, often controversial features. What a mess Windows 10 roll out was. They have billions of dollars and can throw legions of software engineers at this problem fairly easily with their resources, this isn't some minor company that can't handle this issue.
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    If the NSA and Microsoft or similar business/agencies were doing what they should there would be a lot less problems on this planet. But it does not work that way and wishful thinking and shoulds have no impact.
    • Qwertious 9y ago
      "Wishful thinking" leads to people trying to figure out what will have an impact - for example, perhaps calling your senator and telling them you're pissed at the NSA for hoarding their zero-days instead of actually securing them, or donating to various cross-platform Microsoft-alternatives such as Libre Office. Telling people they're powerless and that they shouldn't bother is a great way of making them powerless.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• ourcat 9y ago
  I wish they didn't push updates as I'm trying to shut the PC down. That has to be the most irritating time to do that.
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    Aren't you bothered that they push updates as you try to turn the PC on ? Or have you not experienced this part of windows update ?
    • ourcat 9y ago
      Oh yes indeed. ;) I suppose I'm happy to boot up a machine and go and make a coffee while it goes about its business. But when shutting down a PC, people are usually trying to leave it. (OK. Or reboot it) ;) [Ex daily Windows user for 10 years+ now]
• appleflaxen 9y ago
  This article is incomplete without calling out microsoft at the same time. Not many technophiles would object to a stream of pure security patches; the problem is that there isn't one. By doing MS auto-update, you could have your entire OS upgraded wholesale. If your only alternative is to manually manage updates... I guess I can see why some people opt out.
  • creshal 9y ago
    Oh, there is: Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB. What, you don't want to pay $350 on top of your Windows 10 Pro license? Too bad! Here's some mobile games for you to play.
    • Qwertious 9y ago
      And people already paid for their Windows 7/8 Pro licenses, and they got trashed like everyone else.
• pawelkomarnicki 9y ago
  I have a great experience with Windows 10 update, it feels Mac-alike to be honest, and that's a very good feeling ;-)
• runholm 9y ago
  Microsoft has been pushing adware through Windows Update. It is natural that this will cause users to disable the feature, and Microsoft knew this. They chose ad revenue over robust security on their platform.
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    adware, malware and spyware.
• ChefDenominator 9y ago
  I have a friend who knows next to nothing about different OSs and other various technology thingaroos. He just uses whatever is in front of him. It's not that he can't learn more, he just doesn't care to. He hates Windows 10. I rate Microsoft a strong sell.
• gwbas1c 9y ago
  The problem with Microsoft updates is that they are so intrusive that the purpose of your computer is to run updates. They interrupt you when you're trying to use your computer, or they cause hour-long startup times. I've never had such intrusive updates on Mac or Android. Perhaps Microsoft needs to figure out how to make updates much more seamless. You shouldn't need a 2-hour reboot in the middle of editing a word file just to protect against malware.
• rochak 9y ago
  I still wonder how a company can go from Windows 7 to Windows 10 in such a short while. It was all so good, everything seemed to work in a cohesive manner. Now everything, especially the UX seems to have forgotten how to do it's job.
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    Not having a clue for having been irrelevant for too long and scrambling to not miss the next big thing before becoming obsolete. Seems they thought computers were about to turn into tablets and touch devices overnight (others went the same way such as ubuntu), then they tried to catch on this user tracking to display ads thing while becoming a rolling release. voila! you have now windows 10.
• uranian 9y ago
  Turning off Windows update is not enough I'm afraid. Better remove this misery-ware completely from your pc and move to Linux. Linux is better, safer, cheaper, and more fun overall! For apps that don't run on Linux for now, like Adobe, I'd rather move to OSX. Only reason for me to install Windows would be some obscure game that only runs on that platform. I honestly cannot think of any other reason to install Windows.
• lois 9y ago
  Maybe this will inspire Microsoft to come up with an update system that doesn't mandate a system restart.
• jondubois 9y ago
  I disagree with the article. I think it's better to get hacked once every 2 years than to suffer through 2 years of Windows updates. The updates that Microsoft considers urgent are actually not urgent at all; most security issues typically affect a limited subset of users.
• known 9y ago
  Why doesn't MS segregate its Windows Uupdate into Security Updates, New Features, Performance Updates and give control to the user?
  • bigbugbag 9y ago
    Why would they do that ? It's not in their interest.
• overgard 9y ago
  I don't understand why they dont just do what macOS does -- you can keep peoples computer up to date without force restarting at insane times and downloading a ton of junk. "Security" does not excuse microsofts customer abuse.
• JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Visiting home. My parents turned off Windows Update on their home computer. Apparently my mum lost her high score on some game when Microsoft forced the Windows 10 upgrade. To the degree there is culpability, it's with Redmond.
• tsukikage 9y ago
  My PC is not a toy, and is owned by me, not by you. * Don't reboot it without my consent * Don't install/run advertising without my consent * Don't install/run spyware without my consent * Don't keep interrupting my work to nag me for my consent The tasks I want to accomplish using my PC are more important to me than the tasks you want to accomplish using my PC. If the latter get in the way of the former, I will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this from happening. One might reasonably claim that allowing Windows Update free reign prevents malicious software installing itself on my PC and introducing undesirable behaviour. However, if the introduction of undesirable behaviour by malicious software is a risk, but the introduction of undesirable behaviour by Microsoft a certainty, the incentives do not favour enabling automatic updates. The best solution, of course, is to switch to a stable Linux distro.
  • Arizhel 9y ago
    >My PC is not a toy, and is owned by me, not by you. * Don't reboot it without my consent * Don't install/run advertising without my consent * Don't install/run spyware without my consent * Don't keep interrupting my work to nag me for my consent Wrong: you are implicitly agreeing to the above 4 behaviors if you willingly use a Microsoft OS. Any time you select a vendor, you implicitly agree to their business practices and the way their product/service works. For MS, that means you consent to it rebooting whenever it wants, advertising to you, spying on you, and interrupting your work to nag you for consent. If you don't agree with these things, then you need to find another vendor. >The best solution, of course, is to switch to a stable Linux distro. Exactly!
    • zanny 9y ago
      I don't know why you are getting downvoted. If people want to reclaim sovereignty over their computers while also using proprietary operating systems, they will need to get laws passed. Right now, your only right is to buy the hardware you want. From there, that hardware can deny you the right to install another OS, deny you the right to change the hardware, or deny you the right of knowing how the hardware works. Without those, you aren't much of an owner of anything.
• whyagaindavid 9y ago
  Sadly we have medical instruments (worth 40k)that work only with win7. The vendors do not update drivers for win10. We have to stop updates as they do not guarantee working of these even for win7 updates. Sad but true.
  • mrweasel 9y ago
    It may be a little to much to hope for, but I really hope that things like that will stop in the future with Windows on a rolling release schedule. It's mind boggling how much bad software is available for Windows. Microsoft is doing a rather impressive job maintaining backward compatibility and yet some vendors manage to lock their software to specific version or even "patch-level". How do that even happen? Actually I know how that happens, developers that don't give a shit about the platform they're developing for.
• ziikutv 9y ago
  I have Windows 10 Education version, completely legal. But I have been "restarting to apply the patch" for the past four days and it always reverts itself. I am stuck in a loop.. This is why I turned off updates.
  • digi_owl 9y ago
    Ugh, that. Had it on a Home install some time back. Best i could tell was that MS was trying to update some drivers, this failed badly, had to be reverted, but that still left the relevant patch in the queue, and so Windows would try again on next reboot. Finally had to resort to some kind of downloaded wizard from Microsoft to blacklist the patch. Not sure if that will be possible on the education version (or am i confusing it with the more recent S edition?).
    • ziikutv 9y ago
      possibly, but I am just contempt on updating. I don't do anything illegal on this computer. I use it for browsing and playing games on steam, I think I am pretty safe. You can really avoid like 90% of the shit by... * Not going on shady sites * Not getting scammed via Phishing * Not pirating (you know, its really funny how most illegal 'patches' say, oh yeah patch is detected as trojan and its a false positive)
      • digi_owl 9y ago
        > * Not pirating (you know, its really funny how most illegal 'patches' say, oh yeah patch is detected as trojan and its a false positive) Sadly i have seen various legit tools trigger the same warnings, because the developer used similar low level techniques that malware use to hide their true nature. Basic thing is that at the CPU level all instructions are legit. And then we pile code upon code on top to try to extract the context and intent of the programmer from the behavior of the code. In a sense that can quickly devolve into computer "racism".
  • qudat 9y ago
    I ran into this problem as well. I was in a constant loop where it would try to update, fail, then revert. My bootup time went from one minute to 20 minutes. I disabled windows updates and haven't had a problem since. Being someone that regularly uses all three major platforms, Windows 10 has definitely been the worst experience.
• bargl 9y ago
  Why are so many comments about how much people hate Microsoft? This article isn't advocating for Microsoft, it's advocating AGAINST turning off automatic updates whether that is from a Linux distro, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. Just update your device/computer, if you don't like the OS switch, if you want a specific patch etc, maybe that should be run in a VM which is gated. But for 99% of users, do not recommend they turn off auto updates. Also, remember that if you are reading this you are probably a power user. You are not my grandmother reading an article by a power user with simple enough to follow instructions to f- her computer up. There are multiple user bases, and your advice to non-tech people can be disastrous for them.
  • Qwertious 9y ago
    The comments are because Microsoft caused this problem in the first place - people want to turn off Windows Update, because Windows Update installs antifeatures too, and the only way to opt out of the antifeatures is to disable Windows Update. In fact, there's a "run security updates only" option, which Microsoft provides, but which they deliberately and blatantly violated, by pushing their non-security updates through. If Microsoft wants to stop this happening, then they need to provide a "security updates only" option, THAT ACTUALLY ONLY PROVIDES SECURITY UPDATES. This is not a hard concept. "Turn off Windows Update" is indeed a suboptimal choice, like you say - what you should ACTUALLY be recommending to users, is to ditch Windows entirely if at all possible, and switch to an OS that is both secure and doesn't ship antifeatures.
• rrauenza 9y ago
  I have a Windows 10 system that I believe was about 1 year behind in updates. I'd periodically run what solutions I'd find online .. dism.exe, sfc.exe, etc to try to fix whatever was failing. Nothing worked. I stumbled across an awesome forum (sysnative.com) with volunteers that help you track down your issue. Turns out I had a subtle 1 byte registry corruption: https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-update/22645-win10v1607build14393-x64-win-upd-0x80070246.html#post181300 https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-update/22645-win10v... Tracking it down required using sysutils' procmon.exe to log about 4GB of event data and correlating it with the CBS.log. It was a broken embedded unicode string registry value with a byte swap from x36 to xFE. My point -- there are a LOT of posts out there with people with broken windows 10 updates, and I think Microsoft could better address this.
  • Magicstatic 9y ago
    Great website, never heard of it before. Will definitely be using it as a resource in the future!
• coding123 9y ago
  I'm totally clueless at this point in history. How are people still getting infected with shit when you give them these two rules: 1. Don't use a public IP on your laptop on the internet. 2. Don't run shit or use IE. Bypass 2 if you're a developer and you are experienced in this stuff. Seriously, I genuinely want to know, because the people that just got this, are going to continue to get shit in the future.
  • erk__ 9y ago
    Don't use an outdated system with smb1 activated.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• yuhong 9y ago
  As a side note, the delay to release PDB symbols on MS's symbol server after a Patch Tuesday has been at least days and sometimes more than a week for the last two months (at least for the Win10 symbols I tried). I use them a lot with WinDbg.
• hendersoon 9y ago
  The problem isn't the automatic updates-- Windows always automatically updated. Where Windows 10 changed for the worse is in FORCED reboots. Once you update, Windows 10 is gonna reboot sooner or later. You can schedule it, but there's nothing you can do to stop it. It's unavoidable. It doesn't care if you're running a long compile, or uploading a large file. If you aren't sitting in front of the computer, it's gonna reboot, period. I find this to be unacceptable. The previous behavior, where it essentially nagged you mercilessly until you acquiesced, was far superior. I didn't go out of my way to find a 3rd party program to disable that nag-- I found it useful, to remind me I had to reboot at some point, when I found it convenient to do so.
• blacksmythe 9y ago
  I switched my family from Windows to Linux at home because of the work involved in keeping a working Windows machine (with minimal user supervision) connected to the internet.
• AdeptusAquinas 9y ago
  This whole comment thread proves the point of the article. Ye gods, people, if MS updates or win 10 defaults offend you so much, switch OS. If you consider it a crime that the most widely used consumer desktop operating system in the world's latest iteration dares to not be tailored on install to your specific philosophy or preferences, switch! The alternative is free!
• jacquesm 9y ago
  Microsoft is squarely to blame here. People would leave Windows update on if: - it would not potentially brick their computer - it would not install all kinds of spyware - it would be a net benefit to the user - it would not be used to further MS's business goals at the expense of the users Telling people not to turn of Windows Update is putting the horse behind the cart: Tell Microsoft to start respecting their users, then tell people to turn on Windows update. Fat chance of that happening though.
• mcguire 9y ago
  Having read the article and (most of) the comments here, there seems to be two basic responses: 1. For home users, turn on auto updates. Yes, MS's policies for updates suck, but the alternative is probably getting infected by something worse. For professional use, IT is probably going to turn it off, but then it is their responsibility to make sure critical updates get installed. 2. MS's policies suck, so everyone should disable auto updates. Then, make sure the machines have critical updates installed manually. Unfortunately, history has clearly demonstrated that the second step of #2 doesn't happen. Heck, the NHS probably has a dedicated IT staff and that particular update hadn't bubbled to the top yet. That produces option 3: 3. Turn off updates to be moar bettar, then be surprised when the machine starts acting funny.
• imhelpingu 9y ago
  Alternatively "Tell Microsoft not to market to people by forcing them to download gigabytes worth of extraneous shit through Windows Update."
• ksk 9y ago
  It seems like the idea is if you want to disable it for yourself, go ahead. Don't disable them for someone who isn't a technical person. IMO They should introduce a way to auto-approve only security updates, like its possible with WSUS. Maybe a cloud based WSUS for consumers?
• skc 9y ago
  Every time a topic like this comes up I always wonder what bizarro version of Windows I'm running because I've never experienced my personal machine rebooting at an inopportune moment, never seen ads, never seen it install software without my consent, never had an update cause my machine to become unstable. I'm going all the way back to Windows 7 here. The only machines that are terrible to use are those I use at work because they are laden with all sorts of corporate security crap that you can't escape and bring otherwise decent hardware to it's knees. Of course, the evidence that Windows Updates are problematic seems overwhelming but I do wonder if this is a case where the complainant numbers seem large simply because the install base is so massive.
• newman314 9y ago
  I think a lot of this is because people do not want to lose saved work. If Windows was to offer the ability to restore file state, that would be something that would help people keep Windows updates on. MacOS has been doing this for some time and while it's not perfect, it's definitely led me to be less concerned about rebooting my Macs.
• hackbinary 9y ago
  I turned off Windows Update the correct way. I installed Linux.
• camgunz 9y ago
  Yeah I'd be completely onboard with Troy if MS didn't force me to update my OS to one that overtly spies on me via Windows Update. "Should I enable/disable Windows Update" isn't the question, it's "Should I buy MS software ever". This is yet another episode in "hey, software isn't just to make you rich". It turns out it runs shit like hospitals. Maybe don't pervert the security tool for marketing purposes.