9 ms·

Microsoft resumes rollout of Windows 10 version 1809, promises quality changes

57 points by ilamont 8y ago

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
In retrospect, the October update's flaws were incredibly tiny: What had us all scurrying to make backup copies of our Documents folder ended up affecting only people with really weird/niche configurations that didn't really make a lot of logical sense[1]. Data loss is always bad, but it strikes me every time I see this sort of thing that no other company[2] has even tried to maintain compatibility with so many arbitrary niche options this long. Neither Apple nor Google sell products which could have a weird configuration in a 2009 era OS which could be upgraded and officially supported in 2018. That being said, Microsoft's month-to-month patch reliability has been absolutely terrible. While not causing data loss, the monthly updates have been regularly show-stopping of late, and anything that gets Microsoft to realize it made a mistake on axing it's testers (and removing the ability to cherry-pick security fixes) is something I can stand behind. [1] Complete aside, I have actually heard of someone applying version control to the folder that contains the Windows registry, and being upset at Microsoft that it broke their PC. [2] Linux is not a company, and truly open source platforms do some amazing things for long term support. I think they just dropped support for 386 processors a couple years ago.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
  It was a fuckup resulting in customer data loss in production.
- TremendousJudge 8y ago
  >ended up affecting only people with really weird/niche configurations that didn't really make a lot of logical sense Did it now? afaik if you only had one drive, and one partition, and had Windows installed there, and you didn't have enough free space, you lost everything. That's not exactly niche
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    That's incorrect. You had to be using folder redirection (very rarely seen outside of corporate environments, and no longer popular in those either), and then placed files in the original folder that was supposed to be redirected elsewhere, which you shouldn't be doing even if you are using folder redirection. (In short, to have this issue, you had to use a feature almost nobody uses, and also be using it improperly.) Note that the reason that Microsoft failed to address it is because while a Feedback submission had been made, it didn't have any upvotes, because it was so niche that almost none of the Insiders experienced it. Despite the fact that Insiders are the sort of power users most likely to have fiddled with weird features like folder redirection. Details are here: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/10/09/updated-version-of-windows-10-october-2018-update-released-to-windows-insiders/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/10/09/updat...
    - TremendousJudge 8y ago
      I'm not sure that was the only way for it to happen. I don't have sources, only the anecdote of a friend that got his install ruined and had to reformat. I don't know what he did, but I'm 100% sure he wasn't doing any folder redirection
      - nikbackm 8y ago
        How would Windows deleting his personal files ruin his installation and why would a re-format help in that case? But maybe you're referring to another bug.
        TremendousJudge 8y ago
        I think it didn't just deleted his personal files; it corrupted the installation itself. It might be another bug. I'm not sure though. Searching around for some sort of source, I found this article[1], which says "...some of my readers told me their hard drives were corrupted and thus were unable to roll back the update." Of course this may be hearsay and false information in times of panic, so I take the statement with a grain of salt. [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/10/06/microsoft-confirms-windows-10-update-mistake-was-your-data-lost/#2a737723665b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/10/06/micro...
- makecheck 8y ago
  The installed base is so huge that it will be a significant number of people affected no matter how weird the edge case. Also, if they’re going to implement a feature they should expect it to be used and know when they broke it (especially for a company with the absurd resources of Microsoft).
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Two major data loss bugs which caused real damage their customers' businesses are not what I would call "incredibly tiny". Niche security bugs, or issues with nonstandard or unsupported configurations often don't end up hurting many people; this set of bugs damaged businesses, and those businesses in some cases could not avoid installing the update, or would not have been able to preempt doing so. If the configuration is marketed as supported, and users don't have a choice in the matter (as is often the case with Windows Update), then it doesn't matter how relatively niche the circumstances are, because it doesn't make those data any less gone. What's more? These are not ancient or obscure configurations. In October, on top of the data loss bugs, on top of the loss of the file replace dialog in some circumstances, they broke compatibility with some of the most popular video games released since 2013.
- tmd83 8y ago
  I don't know about this particular issue and how bad the fault was. But I do feel this aspect of Microsoft (regardless of how horrible they have been or is) gets downplayed to oblivion. OsX would have data loss every minor release if the current issues of the OS is anything to go by considering how few configuration it has to support.
- greycol 8y ago
  I believe you are undervaluing the consequences and likelihood of that bug. These are one set of steps to be effected by the bug. 1. Have a primary hardrive that is nearly full. 2. Get a second hard drive to store more pictures to your machine. 3. Change My pictures folder location to save on the new hard drive. (The least likely step but not super unlikely if your searching ways to stop your primary hard drive filling up) 4. Click no when asked if you want to copy everything across to the new location (ignoring it saying it's recommended (but only so you can see your older photos easier)) 5. Have the update roll out and delete all of the old photos you had. Losing those old photos (perhaps of passed loved ones) you may not have anywhere else can be heartbreaking. The fact that a very small percentage of users is effected does not change the fact that as we're talking about a massive user base, the absolute number of users is always going to be high.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    This seems like an excellent time to point out that storing a single copy of irreplaceable data like photos is a really bad idea. I am certainly not undervaluing the consequences. Data loss is always huge, but I would say, comparatively, the likelihood of losing your data to this Windows bug pales in comparison to say, getting locked out of your Google Photos account and having no way to appeal. (I have a friend who is unable to get into a Google account with correspondence from a deceased family member.) I don't feel like Microsoft is even close to the industry worst in putting your data at risk because of this bug. And with regards to the massive user base, bear in mind, this was caught in the very early stages of a slow, phased rollout process, explicitly for this sort of reason. So it was a small percentage of a very small rollout to begin with.
- chrismorgan 8y ago
  The issues were not at all tiny: OneDrive is installed by default, I think (it is on the Surface Book), and it uses known folder redirection; yet it’s easy to end up with things in %USERPROFILE%\Documents as well as %USERPROFILE%\OneDrive\Documents, whether deliberately or accidentally. For me, I used to deliberately put some things in OneDrive and some things not in OneDrive, depending on things like their size and how often they’d change and how much I cared about them. After OneDrive app broke on my account, I gave up on using it. All up, I think data loss was probably uncommon, but not rare. And data loss of such things is always severe.
thibran 8y ago
I wish Microsoft would update Windows to use a Chrome OS like update system with delta updates and read-only system partitions. When partition A is in use (mounted read-only), an update would create a copy of A on partition B. Then download a binary delta and apply it to B to update B to the newest OS version. On the next system start partition B would be booted, if there is an error restart to partition A (a known working state), otherwise B is marked as 'good'. It's 2018 and updates are still slow to apply and/or break computers... what a strange world.
- lostgame 8y ago
  Actually, I was surprised to find that MacOS does a form of this, apparently - I recently attempted an update that failed and simply had to hold down ‘option’ on boot to select my regular drive instead of the update. The second time I tried the update it worked just fine.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    I'm not 100% sure what you were experiencing, but this is not how macOS works under normal circumstances. Maybe while the update is in progress, but you can't just downgrade to High Sierra from Mojave so easily, once the installation is complete.
    - Tsiklon 8y ago
      I suspect the GP saw this during a point release update on Mojave. Baseless speculation: I suspect that they were referring to Apple making use of the ability to spin up a new temporary APFS volume to store the Update packages + Staging environment and blessing it for boot. It makes a certain amount of sense to push out a static staging environment to then run the requisite OS updates and firmware updates from that controlled environment. That way you can reboot as many times as is required for the updates in the point release and still come back to the staging environment ready to go to the next stage - only needing to touch the User Data Volume when absolutely necessary. While not nearly as 'clean' as an atomic update on a read only root filesystem, this method could be significantly more controllable and more 'clean' than doing it live on the User's Data Volume. I suspect with iOS Software updates - it's a transactional atomic update as those machines all use read only root filesystems regardless.
tkcins 8y ago
I also made quality changes: I switched to LTSC.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Post-Nadella Microsoft is trying to project an image of being customer focused. Well, what I'm seeing are a lot of customers who say that they don't want Windows 10's feature updates, or that they want them less frequently. It just so happens that the version of Windows these customers are asking for already exists, as an actively-supported product. But you can't buy it. I can't describe this behavior as anything but anti-customer.
  - nolok 8y ago
    > Well, what I'm seeing are an awful lot of customers saying they don't want MS's Windows 10 feature updates, or they want them less frequently. This is similarity bias affecting your judgment. I believe the way windows 10 currently runs update is wrong for me, and for most tech users, by far. I'm glad it takes 10 second to fix it to allow delayed updates again, but still I would like it to come out of the box easier to manage. On the other hand, for the very very vast majority of windows users, this is superior to the end result they experienced before (updates never installed, and not by choice). What's wrong here is a clear case of "one size fits all", they apply the same system they made for the majority to everyone, and it end up not work for some users for a variety of reason, but it's (imho) wrong of you to think this is not exactly what most users want: "do it like my phone/tablet, I don't care about updates"
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      Just to be clear, I'm not saying a majority of customers dislike MS's feature updates, just that there are a lot who do. The amount of people asking for something like LTSC is large enough that Microsoft really, really ought to make that version more widely available. IMO, Microsoft's refusal to do so says a lot about their values as a company.
      - 8y ago
lostgame 8y ago
I’m not an ardent supporter of Windows, or, at this point any particular OS or infrastructure, but, and especially after the ludicrous nature of Windows 8, I have found Windows 10 to actually be a fairly stable and usable OS. To hear the recent stories of updates causing issues is surprising, but with so many supported configurations for Windows, I find it a lot more excusable than MacOS or ChromeOS. That doesn’t mean things like this shouldn’t be caught in QA, it just means it’s not always easy.
- azeirah 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm also pretty "anti-windows", whatever that may mean, but I've been happy in using it. I've had some problems, but then again, I expect my computer to do weird things sometimes, I guess that's expected if you're a software engineer :p
- Laforet 8y ago
  The previous file loss incident was more of a UX problem rather than a technological one. To paraphrase, the update would , at one point, ask the user whether they'd like to migrate their existing documents and settings. If the user chose no then their documents will be deleted. This is why it only affected some people, and a simple warning would have been sufficient to clear up any confusion, though some might argue the option should have never been offered in the first place. This is the very same problem I had with the 1st gen clickwheel iPod. When I first connected one to a new computer, iTunes asked me if I wanted to 'initialize' the device. Oblivious of its meaning I went with 'yes' and wiped a borrowed iPod clean. Friendship ruined forever.
  - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
    Wow. That reminds me of my experience with the Lisa back around 1983. It said that the boot disk needed to be initialized, and my attitude (it a school computer) was that if it was stupid enough to reformat the floppy it just booted off of, I was going to let it. Sounds like Apple just doesn't learn some lessons.
    - 8y ago
throwawaymanbot 8y ago
MS have merely become the masters of making you think they have changed their ways.
maxharris 8y ago
When are they going to make WSL usable for developers, though? I have a nice Core i7 Surface Pro that's collecting dust because anything that touches the filesystem under WSL is too slow to use for most of the work I do.
- setquk 8y ago
  This is literally never going to get better despite promises. It’s a filesystem limitation of NTFS. Small files cause MFT contention due to the architecture of NTFS. This has always been a problem. Check out a really big git or SVN repo on the native box using native windows tools and compare to a native Linux install on ext4. Ext4 can take 10% of the time to complete. ReFS suffers the same fate too. I can’t say anything more than walk away. Using a VM is orders of magnitude faster.
- quietbritishjim 8y ago
  I find WSL to be pretty amazing. I can compile and test Linux binaries on my Windows laptop, and I can even directly use the same directory of source code as I use to build Windows binaries. I haven't noticed a difference in compilation or test times, but I wouldn't expect to unless it was at least an order of magnitude bigger. It's not like I sit there waiting for it to build (normally). Of course it's absolutely fair if you find WSL poor for your use case. But performance is not really the main thing that makes it "usable for developers", IMO.
StanislavPetrov 8y ago
Its a problem for Microsoft (or any other company) to force updates on consumers who paid for the OS and don't want updates. It isn't about security concerns, because the security-related updates are only a small fraction of the overall changes that Microsoft forces onto our systems. This would be true even if their forced updates worked flawlessly and didn't brick machines or cause other unwanted problem. End-users should have the ability to turn off updates and voluntarily accept whatever risks come with their choice.

57 points by ilamont 8y ago

In retrospect, the October update's flaws were incredibly tiny: What had us all scurrying to make backup copies of our Documents folder ended up affecting only people with really weird/niche configurations that didn't really make a lot of logical sense[1]. Data loss is always bad, but it strikes me every time I see this sort of thing that no other company[2] has even tried to maintain compatibility with so many arbitrary niche options this long. Neither Apple nor Google sell products which could have a weird configuration in a 2009 era OS which could be upgraded and officially supported in 2018. That being said, Microsoft's month-to-month patch reliability has been absolutely terrible. While not causing data loss, the monthly updates have been regularly show-stopping of late, and anything that gets Microsoft to realize it made a mistake on axing it's testers (and removing the ability to cherry-pick security fixes) is something I can stand behind. [1] Complete aside, I have actually heard of someone applying version control to the folder that contains the Windows registry, and being upset at Microsoft that it broke their PC. [2] Linux is not a company, and truly open source platforms do some amazing things for long term support. I think they just dropped support for 386 processors a couple years ago.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
It was a fuckup resulting in customer data loss in production.
TremendousJudge 8y ago
>ended up affecting only people with really weird/niche configurations that didn't really make a lot of logical sense Did it now? afaik if you only had one drive, and one partition, and had Windows installed there, and you didn't have enough free space, you lost everything. That's not exactly niche
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  That's incorrect. You had to be using folder redirection (very rarely seen outside of corporate environments, and no longer popular in those either), and then placed files in the original folder that was supposed to be redirected elsewhere, which you shouldn't be doing even if you are using folder redirection. (In short, to have this issue, you had to use a feature almost nobody uses, and also be using it improperly.) Note that the reason that Microsoft failed to address it is because while a Feedback submission had been made, it didn't have any upvotes, because it was so niche that almost none of the Insiders experienced it. Despite the fact that Insiders are the sort of power users most likely to have fiddled with weird features like folder redirection. Details are here: https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/10/09/updated-version-of-windows-10-october-2018-update-released-to-windows-insiders/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/10/09/updat...
  - TremendousJudge 8y ago
    I'm not sure that was the only way for it to happen. I don't have sources, only the anecdote of a friend that got his install ruined and had to reformat. I don't know what he did, but I'm 100% sure he wasn't doing any folder redirection
    - nikbackm 8y ago
      How would Windows deleting his personal files ruin his installation and why would a re-format help in that case? But maybe you're referring to another bug.
      - TremendousJudge 8y ago
        I think it didn't just deleted his personal files; it corrupted the installation itself. It might be another bug. I'm not sure though. Searching around for some sort of source, I found this article[1], which says "...some of my readers told me their hard drives were corrupted and thus were unable to roll back the update." Of course this may be hearsay and false information in times of panic, so I take the statement with a grain of salt. [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/10/06/microsoft-confirms-windows-10-update-mistake-was-your-data-lost/#2a737723665b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/10/06/micro...
makecheck 8y ago
The installed base is so huge that it will be a significant number of people affected no matter how weird the edge case. Also, if they’re going to implement a feature they should expect it to be used and know when they broke it (especially for a company with the absurd resources of Microsoft).
microcolonel 8y ago
Two major data loss bugs which caused real damage their customers' businesses are not what I would call "incredibly tiny". Niche security bugs, or issues with nonstandard or unsupported configurations often don't end up hurting many people; this set of bugs damaged businesses, and those businesses in some cases could not avoid installing the update, or would not have been able to preempt doing so. If the configuration is marketed as supported, and users don't have a choice in the matter (as is often the case with Windows Update), then it doesn't matter how relatively niche the circumstances are, because it doesn't make those data any less gone. What's more? These are not ancient or obscure configurations. In October, on top of the data loss bugs, on top of the loss of the file replace dialog in some circumstances, they broke compatibility with some of the most popular video games released since 2013.
tmd83 8y ago
I don't know about this particular issue and how bad the fault was. But I do feel this aspect of Microsoft (regardless of how horrible they have been or is) gets downplayed to oblivion. OsX would have data loss every minor release if the current issues of the OS is anything to go by considering how few configuration it has to support.
greycol 8y ago
I believe you are undervaluing the consequences and likelihood of that bug. These are one set of steps to be effected by the bug. 1. Have a primary hardrive that is nearly full. 2. Get a second hard drive to store more pictures to your machine. 3. Change My pictures folder location to save on the new hard drive. (The least likely step but not super unlikely if your searching ways to stop your primary hard drive filling up) 4. Click no when asked if you want to copy everything across to the new location (ignoring it saying it's recommended (but only so you can see your older photos easier)) 5. Have the update roll out and delete all of the old photos you had. Losing those old photos (perhaps of passed loved ones) you may not have anywhere else can be heartbreaking. The fact that a very small percentage of users is effected does not change the fact that as we're talking about a massive user base, the absolute number of users is always going to be high.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  This seems like an excellent time to point out that storing a single copy of irreplaceable data like photos is a really bad idea. I am certainly not undervaluing the consequences. Data loss is always huge, but I would say, comparatively, the likelihood of losing your data to this Windows bug pales in comparison to say, getting locked out of your Google Photos account and having no way to appeal. (I have a friend who is unable to get into a Google account with correspondence from a deceased family member.) I don't feel like Microsoft is even close to the industry worst in putting your data at risk because of this bug. And with regards to the massive user base, bear in mind, this was caught in the very early stages of a slow, phased rollout process, explicitly for this sort of reason. So it was a small percentage of a very small rollout to begin with.
chrismorgan 8y ago
The issues were not at all tiny: OneDrive is installed by default, I think (it is on the Surface Book), and it uses known folder redirection; yet it’s easy to end up with things in %USERPROFILE%\Documents as well as %USERPROFILE%\OneDrive\Documents, whether deliberately or accidentally. For me, I used to deliberately put some things in OneDrive and some things not in OneDrive, depending on things like their size and how often they’d change and how much I cared about them. After OneDrive app broke on my account, I gave up on using it. All up, I think data loss was probably uncommon, but not rare. And data loss of such things is always severe.

thibran 8y ago

I wish Microsoft would update Windows to use a Chrome OS like update system with delta updates and read-only system partitions. When partition A is in use (mounted read-only), an update would create a copy of A on partition B. Then download a binary delta and apply it to B to update B to the newest OS version. On the next system start partition B would be booted, if there is an error restart to partition A (a known working state), otherwise B is marked as 'good'. It's 2018 and updates are still slow to apply and/or break computers... what a strange world.

lostgame 8y ago
Actually, I was surprised to find that MacOS does a form of this, apparently - I recently attempted an update that failed and simply had to hold down ‘option’ on boot to select my regular drive instead of the update. The second time I tried the update it worked just fine.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  I'm not 100% sure what you were experiencing, but this is not how macOS works under normal circumstances. Maybe while the update is in progress, but you can't just downgrade to High Sierra from Mojave so easily, once the installation is complete.
  - Tsiklon 8y ago
    I suspect the GP saw this during a point release update on Mojave. Baseless speculation: I suspect that they were referring to Apple making use of the ability to spin up a new temporary APFS volume to store the Update packages + Staging environment and blessing it for boot. It makes a certain amount of sense to push out a static staging environment to then run the requisite OS updates and firmware updates from that controlled environment. That way you can reboot as many times as is required for the updates in the point release and still come back to the staging environment ready to go to the next stage - only needing to touch the User Data Volume when absolutely necessary. While not nearly as 'clean' as an atomic update on a read only root filesystem, this method could be significantly more controllable and more 'clean' than doing it live on the User's Data Volume. I suspect with iOS Software updates - it's a transactional atomic update as those machines all use read only root filesystems regardless.

tkcins 8y ago

I also made quality changes: I switched to LTSC.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Post-Nadella Microsoft is trying to project an image of being customer focused. Well, what I'm seeing are a lot of customers who say that they don't want Windows 10's feature updates, or that they want them less frequently. It just so happens that the version of Windows these customers are asking for already exists, as an actively-supported product. But you can't buy it. I can't describe this behavior as anything but anti-customer.
- nolok 8y ago
  > Well, what I'm seeing are an awful lot of customers saying they don't want MS's Windows 10 feature updates, or they want them less frequently. This is similarity bias affecting your judgment. I believe the way windows 10 currently runs update is wrong for me, and for most tech users, by far. I'm glad it takes 10 second to fix it to allow delayed updates again, but still I would like it to come out of the box easier to manage. On the other hand, for the very very vast majority of windows users, this is superior to the end result they experienced before (updates never installed, and not by choice). What's wrong here is a clear case of "one size fits all", they apply the same system they made for the majority to everyone, and it end up not work for some users for a variety of reason, but it's (imho) wrong of you to think this is not exactly what most users want: "do it like my phone/tablet, I don't care about updates"
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    Just to be clear, I'm not saying a majority of customers dislike MS's feature updates, just that there are a lot who do. The amount of people asking for something like LTSC is large enough that Microsoft really, really ought to make that version more widely available. IMO, Microsoft's refusal to do so says a lot about their values as a company.
    - 8y ago

lostgame 8y ago

I’m not an ardent supporter of Windows, or, at this point any particular OS or infrastructure, but, and especially after the ludicrous nature of Windows 8, I have found Windows 10 to actually be a fairly stable and usable OS. To hear the recent stories of updates causing issues is surprising, but with so many supported configurations for Windows, I find it a lot more excusable than MacOS or ChromeOS. That doesn’t mean things like this shouldn’t be caught in QA, it just means it’s not always easy.

azeirah 8y ago
Yeah, I'm also pretty "anti-windows", whatever that may mean, but I've been happy in using it. I've had some problems, but then again, I expect my computer to do weird things sometimes, I guess that's expected if you're a software engineer :p
Laforet 8y ago
The previous file loss incident was more of a UX problem rather than a technological one. To paraphrase, the update would , at one point, ask the user whether they'd like to migrate their existing documents and settings. If the user chose no then their documents will be deleted. This is why it only affected some people, and a simple warning would have been sufficient to clear up any confusion, though some might argue the option should have never been offered in the first place. This is the very same problem I had with the 1st gen clickwheel iPod. When I first connected one to a new computer, iTunes asked me if I wanted to 'initialize' the device. Oblivious of its meaning I went with 'yes' and wiped a borrowed iPod clean. Friendship ruined forever.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  Wow. That reminds me of my experience with the Lisa back around 1983. It said that the boot disk needed to be initialized, and my attitude (it a school computer) was that if it was stupid enough to reformat the floppy it just booted off of, I was going to let it. Sounds like Apple just doesn't learn some lessons.
  - 8y ago

throwawaymanbot 8y ago

MS have merely become the masters of making you think they have changed their ways.

maxharris 8y ago

When are they going to make WSL usable for developers, though? I have a nice Core i7 Surface Pro that's collecting dust because anything that touches the filesystem under WSL is too slow to use for most of the work I do.

setquk 8y ago
This is literally never going to get better despite promises. It’s a filesystem limitation of NTFS. Small files cause MFT contention due to the architecture of NTFS. This has always been a problem. Check out a really big git or SVN repo on the native box using native windows tools and compare to a native Linux install on ext4. Ext4 can take 10% of the time to complete. ReFS suffers the same fate too. I can’t say anything more than walk away. Using a VM is orders of magnitude faster.
quietbritishjim 8y ago
I find WSL to be pretty amazing. I can compile and test Linux binaries on my Windows laptop, and I can even directly use the same directory of source code as I use to build Windows binaries. I haven't noticed a difference in compilation or test times, but I wouldn't expect to unless it was at least an order of magnitude bigger. It's not like I sit there waiting for it to build (normally). Of course it's absolutely fair if you find WSL poor for your use case. But performance is not really the main thing that makes it "usable for developers", IMO.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago

Its a problem for Microsoft (or any other company) to force updates on consumers who paid for the OS and don't want updates. It isn't about security concerns, because the security-related updates are only a small fraction of the overall changes that Microsoft forces onto our systems. This would be true even if their forced updates worked flawlessly and didn't brick machines or cause other unwanted problem. End-users should have the ability to turn off updates and voluntarily accept whatever risks come with their choice.