6 ms·

Well, Windows 10 1803 update is a problem NOW. I'll take future problems over current problems. Also, disabling update service is a perfectly legitimate way to

by x0054 8y ago

Well, Windows 10 1803 update is a problem NOW. I'll take future problems over current problems. Also, disabling update service is a perfectly legitimate way to stop the updates from coming in. You can always turn it back on and control the update process manually, when you are good and ready, and have your HD backed up. You can do so on your schedule, not when MS chooses to spring it on you.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
Exactly. And if Microsoft doesn't like users disabling updates, maybe it should stop releasing updates that break stuff.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  That is really easy for Apple to do, with a limited range of hardware they can literally test every device that is receiving the update. Much harder for Microsoft, who are trying to support a vast range of hardware.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    That's true. So why is it that 7 was so much more stable? Certainly at first I could say that it's just because 7 has been around for eons and 10 is brand new, but it's been out for years now and we're still seeing things break (anecdotally, r/sysadmin was emphatically not happy with the last couple of updates). Is it this thing where they've declared 10 to be the last version and so what we're seeing is major updates that would have been 11, 12, etc. including all the growing pains of a new release? Is it because Microsoft decided to throw out their entire QA division? I'm happy to agree that Microsoft has an extraordinary large problem space across which they try to maintain stability, but that doesn't seem to explain why they would have gotten worse at it.
    - hiram112 8y ago
      I'm almost permanently ready to ditch Windows for good and move to MacOS and Linux. And I've been a Windows user since 3.1. If we're really moving to the equivalent of Windows 11 and 12, I must ask: who is paying for these releases (besides OEMs with new hardware)? I'm not paying the upgrade fee I paid for 98, XP, and 7 on old hardware. Microsoft is obviously not a charity and their devs don't work for free, and they have to recoup their costs and more. But telemetry, tie-ins to other MS products like XBox, media subscriptions, Azure and Office 365, and even advertising on my desktop, along with now being volunteered by Microsoft to take on their QA as they force-install beta software on my PCs are NOT things I'm willing to exchange for the former $100 upgrade costs I've always willingly paid previously and made them a very profitable company. In other words, each newer update brings fewer features I want as a paying user, and more and more anti-features I'm not willing to trade for my privacy, time, and attention. The fact that they have to nerve to explicitly reset, upon each update, the settings that took me hours to find and apply - turning off Cortana, the telemetry (the most I can, anyway), all the privacy-invading phone / tablet features, the demands to sign-in to MS account, etc - pisses me off and makes it easier to swallow the issues with Linux and the absurb prices Apple charges.
      - spronkey 8y ago
        macOS is no better. It's getting worse too, High Sierra has been a clusterfuck all around.
        pdimitar 8y ago
        Any examples? I do programming on my MacBook Pro 2015 with several databases and 10+ language runtimes installed and very rarely had any issue at all.
        x0054 8y ago
        But unless things changed quite a bit (I am still on 10.11.6) doesn't Apple always give you the option to update or not update MacOS? Even with iOS it's a positive action, you have to click something to update, no? I am fine with that, I just want to do the updates on my schedule, not Apples and Microsoft's. On macOS I have a lot of dev stuff setup and I would be pretty pissed if it did an update without me specifically and affirmatively concerning to it.
    - jimnotgym 8y ago
      > so what we're seeing is major updates that would have been 11, 12, I think you are spot on with this, MS have pushed some really major updates, which would at least have been a service pack in the past, if not a new version. Not least I believe they have made some breaking changes to the update process which should do away with the enforced restarts in future
L0stLink 8y ago
You should schedule backups first (if you have not already) I have 2 live backups of my primary computer, a dell laptop. One to a separate HDD installed in it and one to the cloud. I have windows file history configured to copy file changes to the HDD on an hourly basis too. I don't use 3rd party crap-ware such as 'anti-viruses' and use non installer versions of software when possible and open-source over closed. I do not trust 3rd party code/installers and use windows defender + uBlock origin + common sense as my first line of defense. So far no updates have ever broken my PC since I got it. Even if my SSD was to die or the windows install to become unrecoverable, all I will have to do after a clean Install is copy over my backup of extracted programs to the SSD root and reconfigure the path (I should write a script for that too). Their are so many other advantages to this setup but this comment is already too long for that.

by x0054 8y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

Exactly. And if Microsoft doesn't like users disabling updates, maybe it should stop releasing updates that break stuff.

jimnotgym 8y ago
That is really easy for Apple to do, with a limited range of hardware they can literally test every device that is receiving the update. Much harder for Microsoft, who are trying to support a vast range of hardware.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  That's true. So why is it that 7 was so much more stable? Certainly at first I could say that it's just because 7 has been around for eons and 10 is brand new, but it's been out for years now and we're still seeing things break (anecdotally, r/sysadmin was emphatically not happy with the last couple of updates). Is it this thing where they've declared 10 to be the last version and so what we're seeing is major updates that would have been 11, 12, etc. including all the growing pains of a new release? Is it because Microsoft decided to throw out their entire QA division? I'm happy to agree that Microsoft has an extraordinary large problem space across which they try to maintain stability, but that doesn't seem to explain why they would have gotten worse at it.
  - hiram112 8y ago
    I'm almost permanently ready to ditch Windows for good and move to MacOS and Linux. And I've been a Windows user since 3.1. If we're really moving to the equivalent of Windows 11 and 12, I must ask: who is paying for these releases (besides OEMs with new hardware)? I'm not paying the upgrade fee I paid for 98, XP, and 7 on old hardware. Microsoft is obviously not a charity and their devs don't work for free, and they have to recoup their costs and more. But telemetry, tie-ins to other MS products like XBox, media subscriptions, Azure and Office 365, and even advertising on my desktop, along with now being volunteered by Microsoft to take on their QA as they force-install beta software on my PCs are NOT things I'm willing to exchange for the former $100 upgrade costs I've always willingly paid previously and made them a very profitable company. In other words, each newer update brings fewer features I want as a paying user, and more and more anti-features I'm not willing to trade for my privacy, time, and attention. The fact that they have to nerve to explicitly reset, upon each update, the settings that took me hours to find and apply - turning off Cortana, the telemetry (the most I can, anyway), all the privacy-invading phone / tablet features, the demands to sign-in to MS account, etc - pisses me off and makes it easier to swallow the issues with Linux and the absurb prices Apple charges.
    - spronkey 8y ago
      macOS is no better. It's getting worse too, High Sierra has been a clusterfuck all around.
      - pdimitar 8y ago
        Any examples? I do programming on my MacBook Pro 2015 with several databases and 10+ language runtimes installed and very rarely had any issue at all.
      - x0054 8y ago
        But unless things changed quite a bit (I am still on 10.11.6) doesn't Apple always give you the option to update or not update MacOS? Even with iOS it's a positive action, you have to click something to update, no? I am fine with that, I just want to do the updates on my schedule, not Apples and Microsoft's. On macOS I have a lot of dev stuff setup and I would be pretty pissed if it did an update without me specifically and affirmatively concerning to it.
  - jimnotgym 8y ago
    > so what we're seeing is major updates that would have been 11, 12, I think you are spot on with this, MS have pushed some really major updates, which would at least have been a service pack in the past, if not a new version. Not least I believe they have made some breaking changes to the update process which should do away with the enforced restarts in future

L0stLink 8y ago

You should schedule backups first (if you have not already) I have 2 live backups of my primary computer, a dell laptop. One to a separate HDD installed in it and one to the cloud. I have windows file history configured to copy file changes to the HDD on an hourly basis too. I don't use 3rd party crap-ware such as 'anti-viruses' and use non installer versions of software when possible and open-source over closed. I do not trust 3rd party code/installers and use windows defender + uBlock origin + common sense as my first line of defense. So far no updates have ever broken my PC since I got it. Even if my SSD was to die or the windows install to become unrecoverable, all I will have to do after a clean Install is copy over my backup of extracted programs to the SSD root and reconfigure the path (I should write a script for that too). Their are so many other advantages to this setup but this comment is already too long for that.