3 ms·

There is an overwhelming amount of "but the users NEED to update" in the Windows 10 community. Sorry but now users are running random scripts they find on the i

There is an overwhelming amount of "but the users NEED to update" in the Windows 10 community. Sorry but now users are running random scripts they find on the internet. This is worse than just "hacking the registry" or adding some group policy to disable auto-updates. I need security and no random shutdowns. I switched to linux about a year ago. Lots of complaints, yes, but no auto-updates. Example scripts (haven't used any): https://gist.github.com/alirobe/7f3b34ad89a159e6daa1 https://gist.github.com/alirobe/7f3b34ad89a159e6daa1 https://github.com/W4RH4WK/Debloat-Windows-10/blob/master/scripts/fix-privacy-settings.ps1 https://github.com/W4RH4WK/Debloat-Windows-10/blob/master/sc... https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater https://github.com/Sycnex/Windows10Debloater https://github.com/bmrf/tron https://github.com/bmrf/tron

apexalpha 9y ago
For every person running a script there are thousands now updating their computers who would've simply clicked 'no' on previous versions. Win10 is inherently more secure because of these forced updates. Think about WannaCry... it only worked _because_ people (and organisations) don't update. Now I understand that some people apparently need a system that will never update, but I agree with the policy of simply forcing the updates for 99% of the people.
- chopin 9y ago
  For security fixes, that is. Not for adware, crapware or phone home capabilities (or resetting your preferences) bundled on top. Microsoft ruined the benefits of auto-updates for which it should be criticized much more. I believe Microsoft wants two things: A more homogeneous installation base and the beloved walled garden with phone home capabilities. Both are directly adverse to users interests. Therefore people don't want to update.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    I think it’s a bit more mundane than that. Most people aren't putting that much thought into their computers after all. I think it's that Microsoft still hasn’t figured out how to do updates without requiring a reboot. Nobody wants to lose their working state or wait minutes to begin working to what appears at first glance to be pointless computer housekeeping.
    - chopin 9y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. At work, I am on Win10 Enterprise and have seen content pretty close to an ad. I can't imagine how it is for a Home user. And, as this thread shows, things are breaking after updates. I don't believe that only forced reboots make people think.
- LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
  And people and organisations dont update, because security still allows itself to be taken for a ride- so microsoft can shovell addware, unwanted bloat and instability (aka use users as unpaid beta-testers). If security researchers refuse to protest publicly and loud against beeing taken for a ride, then this hostilitys between users/powerusers will escalate further. The problem is, that microsoft doesent want customers anymore- they want facebook like subjects, and with every update these change in motives is becoming more transparent. There is no real opt-out, add-free, pay for, security only update edition. For now. My guess is that several linux distros are currently trying to fill that g-app. After that- windows will go out the window.
- smittywerben 9y ago
  And the missionaries come knocking... 1) "some people apparently need a system that will never update"... Didn't Microsoft literally ask to disable updates during install on every other editions? Whoops. Your statistics are really bad. 2) I see that WannaCry caused $130k in cryptocurrency damages. It's ironic because Bitcoin miners are the very users of these scripts. 3) Conversely, how much has this update policy lost in productivity? (the crypto miners lose twice I guess). It's insignificant to Microsoft's Telemetry and advertising profits. And hell, does Microsoft even need a support team anymore when you can provide it? How much must I pay Microsoft to disable auto-updates? It's increasing every year. No I'm not going to run some rogue script. No I don't need any snake oil "idiot insurance". Yes this matters to a broke-ass business. No I can't afford enterprise support. Yeah I get it, just enable "metered connection" and ur gucci bro you don't need those updates. I'm on Linux now, thanks for your concerns.

apexalpha 9y ago

For every person running a script there are thousands now updating their computers who would've simply clicked 'no' on previous versions. Win10 is inherently more secure because of these forced updates. Think about WannaCry... it only worked _because_ people (and organisations) don't update. Now I understand that some people apparently need a system that will never update, but I agree with the policy of simply forcing the updates for 99% of the people.

chopin 9y ago
For security fixes, that is. Not for adware, crapware or phone home capabilities (or resetting your preferences) bundled on top. Microsoft ruined the benefits of auto-updates for which it should be criticized much more. I believe Microsoft wants two things: A more homogeneous installation base and the beloved walled garden with phone home capabilities. Both are directly adverse to users interests. Therefore people don't want to update.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  I think it’s a bit more mundane than that. Most people aren't putting that much thought into their computers after all. I think it's that Microsoft still hasn’t figured out how to do updates without requiring a reboot. Nobody wants to lose their working state or wait minutes to begin working to what appears at first glance to be pointless computer housekeeping.
  - chopin 9y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. At work, I am on Win10 Enterprise and have seen content pretty close to an ad. I can't imagine how it is for a Home user. And, as this thread shows, things are breaking after updates. I don't believe that only forced reboots make people think.
LifeLiverTransp 9y ago
And people and organisations dont update, because security still allows itself to be taken for a ride- so microsoft can shovell addware, unwanted bloat and instability (aka use users as unpaid beta-testers). If security researchers refuse to protest publicly and loud against beeing taken for a ride, then this hostilitys between users/powerusers will escalate further. The problem is, that microsoft doesent want customers anymore- they want facebook like subjects, and with every update these change in motives is becoming more transparent. There is no real opt-out, add-free, pay for, security only update edition. For now. My guess is that several linux distros are currently trying to fill that g-app. After that- windows will go out the window.
smittywerben 9y ago
And the missionaries come knocking... 1) "some people apparently need a system that will never update"... Didn't Microsoft literally ask to disable updates during install on every other editions? Whoops. Your statistics are really bad. 2) I see that WannaCry caused $130k in cryptocurrency damages. It's ironic because Bitcoin miners are the very users of these scripts. 3) Conversely, how much has this update policy lost in productivity? (the crypto miners lose twice I guess). It's insignificant to Microsoft's Telemetry and advertising profits. And hell, does Microsoft even need a support team anymore when you can provide it? How much must I pay Microsoft to disable auto-updates? It's increasing every year. No I'm not going to run some rogue script. No I don't need any snake oil "idiot insurance". Yes this matters to a broke-ass business. No I can't afford enterprise support. Yeah I get it, just enable "metered connection" and ur gucci bro you don't need those updates. I'm on Linux now, thanks for your concerns.