7 ms·

> receive Windows Updates during Sleep mode That is just peak level stupidity. I sometimes boot into Windows, and every time Windows Update runs, the fans are

by haspok 2y ago

> receive Windows Updates during Sleep mode That is just peak level stupidity. I sometimes boot into Windows, and every time Windows Update runs, the fans are on high, my system is taken hostage ("Do not turn off your computer - updates ready 100%" - showing for 15 minutes), and there is nothing I can do about it. Compared to this, an `apt upgrade` is basically an instant action (only kernel updates take a bit longer). Too bad Ubuntu is trying to break that with snap, but it is still a minor inconvenience.

taspeotis 2y ago
Windows updates take 5 minutes max on any semi-recent CPU and NVMe SSD. The major H1/H2 releases take a bit longer, up to 15 minutes. But not stuck at 100%.
- adezxc 2y ago
  You are completely missing the point of the original comment. Why is my computer unusable for X minutes when I didn't expect that and perhaps, needed some critical work done?
- _imnothere 2y ago
  > and NVMe SSD Yeah right, implying everyone should get specified hardware to have a decent user experience definitely seem to be making sense.
  - creshal 2y ago
    And apt/dnf/pacman finish major system updates in seconds on that sort of hardware, so Windows still underperforms by orders of magnitude.
vasco 2y ago
Yeah but nobody calls Torvalds about national security if he doesn't push out an upgrade pack, but the same cannot be said about windows.
- Rygian 2y ago
  No one has to call Torvalds, they can patch the stuff themselves if they're in such a hurry that they can't wait the few hours/days for a contributor to push a patch. The same cannot be said about Windows.
  - vasco 2y ago
    Exactly, that's my point. Because there's someone to call, these things work the way they do.
tannhaeuser 2y ago
I wouldn‘t call the always–on feature stupid but deliberate. The purpose of modern Windows being an ad surface and capture device for learning everything the user knows from user interaction. Switching off Windows Updates, even on Windows Pro and Windows 10, is practically impossible, short of isolating it from net access.
- quotemstr 2y ago
  Or maybe I just want my local email cache to be reasonably up-to-date when I take my laptop out of my backpack. Why is that such a bad thing?
  - haspok 2y ago
    Good for you. But I don't want that. At the moment, the user cannot choose, but is forced to be always "on".
    - quotemstr 2y ago
      The user can choose to use operating systems and applications that let him configure which apps get to run in the background and at which times. You don't want email updates while asleep? Configure your OS to implement this policy. There's no reason that hardware makers should continue to support multiple and legacy sleep modes like S3 just because OS vendors don't give users appropriate policy knobs in software.
      - haspok 2y ago
        Why is S3 "legacy"? Just because Microsoft says so? When it is working, S3 sleep covers my needs perfectly. And it is not about email updates. I don't want my laptop to do anything while in sleep. It's that simple.
      - michaelt 2y ago
        You're right. Why should hardware vendors target operating systems that exist? Sure, S0 on Windows makes your laptop turn on in your bag for impossible-to-disable updates, causing it to overheat or the battery to run down. And no laptops on the market will S0 on Linux without running down the battery in less than 24 hours. Why should hardware vendors mollycoddle users who make the foolish decision to use either Windows or Linux?
Kostarrr 2y ago
Apple does this during sleep when connected to power, so maybe Microsoft thought it needs that as well?
- arghwhat 2y ago
  This triggers connected screens to wake up despite no signal every time it does it. Unfortunately you cannot disable it on Apple silicon Mac’s…
  - isodev 2y ago
    Indeed, I need to remember to unplug the USB-C cable between my macbook pro and my screen, otherwise it flickers on and off every couple of seconds during the night
    - genewitch 2y ago
      wired controllers on nintendo switch docks do this, and yes, it is really annoying. It is about every 3 minutes. and it's for the same reason as the macs and windows machines - the switch wakes up and checks for updates then goes back to sleep.
    - OptionOfT 2y ago
      My Lenovo dock has the same issue when I put my Lenovo to sleep.
- angulardragon03 2y ago
  IIRC you can’t run updates while the laptop is asleep though, as that typically requires a user password to initiate. Even with MDM you can’t force updates during sleep
  - newdee 2y ago
    That problem is solved by the Bootstap Token in modern macOS and MDMs which support it. The token gets escrowed with the MDM during enrolment and can be used to unseal the volume for updates without prompting for a password. Good for unattended updates to kiosks or whatever.
bootsmann 2y ago
Its even worse if you have a bitlocker config that requires a pin. It will reboot during the update but then fail the boot because noone entered the pin in time, leaving you to complete the update actively when you open it back up. Ironically this happens even if you select "update and shutdown" because the restart happens during the update process.
RachelF 2y ago
One wonders how many giga-watts of electricity Windows update consumes each year?
vaylian 2y ago
> > receive Windows Updates during Sleep mode > That is just peak level stupidity. It also violates the core idea of sleep mode: Keep the current state of my computer intact until I continue working. If a windows update forces a reboot, then that computer state will be lost.
dathinab 2y ago
if it would work correctly it's acctually a grate UX boon for the user basically you don't block any bandwidth while a user is using the computer and instead when they are not also you download slower (less bandwidth) in the background because you have much more time available to download it (like e.g. the whole night) this feature is also only about downloads, that windows tends to force apply updates once they are downloaded is a different unrelated issue altogether so theoretically especially for laptops which are only used idk. 1-2h max a day for people with not so fast internet this could be grate could because it isn't, due to implementation details e.g. you would only want to run this if you are: plugged in (power), the internet is reliable (at least as reliable as "normally" for any given network) etc. but AFIK it doesn't really detect changes in power status, doesn't detect bad natwork conditions (which can lead to increased power use), and probably doesn't use "intentional slow" download either you also can't opt out so yeah it seems shit with how it's implemented -- but the idea by itself isn't bad

by haspok 2y ago

taspeotis 2y ago

Windows updates take 5 minutes max on any semi-recent CPU and NVMe SSD. The major H1/H2 releases take a bit longer, up to 15 minutes. But not stuck at 100%.

adezxc 2y ago
You are completely missing the point of the original comment. Why is my computer unusable for X minutes when I didn't expect that and perhaps, needed some critical work done?
_imnothere 2y ago
> and NVMe SSD Yeah right, implying everyone should get specified hardware to have a decent user experience definitely seem to be making sense.
- creshal 2y ago
  And apt/dnf/pacman finish major system updates in seconds on that sort of hardware, so Windows still underperforms by orders of magnitude.

vasco 2y ago

Yeah but nobody calls Torvalds about national security if he doesn't push out an upgrade pack, but the same cannot be said about windows.

Rygian 2y ago
No one has to call Torvalds, they can patch the stuff themselves if they're in such a hurry that they can't wait the few hours/days for a contributor to push a patch. The same cannot be said about Windows.
- vasco 2y ago
  Exactly, that's my point. Because there's someone to call, these things work the way they do.

tannhaeuser 2y ago

I wouldn‘t call the always–on feature stupid but deliberate. The purpose of modern Windows being an ad surface and capture device for learning everything the user knows from user interaction. Switching off Windows Updates, even on Windows Pro and Windows 10, is practically impossible, short of isolating it from net access.

quotemstr 2y ago
Or maybe I just want my local email cache to be reasonably up-to-date when I take my laptop out of my backpack. Why is that such a bad thing?
- haspok 2y ago
  Good for you. But I don't want that. At the moment, the user cannot choose, but is forced to be always "on".
  - quotemstr 2y ago
    The user can choose to use operating systems and applications that let him configure which apps get to run in the background and at which times. You don't want email updates while asleep? Configure your OS to implement this policy. There's no reason that hardware makers should continue to support multiple and legacy sleep modes like S3 just because OS vendors don't give users appropriate policy knobs in software.
    - haspok 2y ago
      Why is S3 "legacy"? Just because Microsoft says so? When it is working, S3 sleep covers my needs perfectly. And it is not about email updates. I don't want my laptop to do anything while in sleep. It's that simple.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      You're right. Why should hardware vendors target operating systems that exist? Sure, S0 on Windows makes your laptop turn on in your bag for impossible-to-disable updates, causing it to overheat or the battery to run down. And no laptops on the market will S0 on Linux without running down the battery in less than 24 hours. Why should hardware vendors mollycoddle users who make the foolish decision to use either Windows or Linux?

Kostarrr 2y ago

Apple does this during sleep when connected to power, so maybe Microsoft thought it needs that as well?

arghwhat 2y ago
This triggers connected screens to wake up despite no signal every time it does it. Unfortunately you cannot disable it on Apple silicon Mac’s…
- isodev 2y ago
  Indeed, I need to remember to unplug the USB-C cable between my macbook pro and my screen, otherwise it flickers on and off every couple of seconds during the night
  - genewitch 2y ago
    wired controllers on nintendo switch docks do this, and yes, it is really annoying. It is about every 3 minutes. and it's for the same reason as the macs and windows machines - the switch wakes up and checks for updates then goes back to sleep.
  - OptionOfT 2y ago
    My Lenovo dock has the same issue when I put my Lenovo to sleep.
angulardragon03 2y ago
IIRC you can’t run updates while the laptop is asleep though, as that typically requires a user password to initiate. Even with MDM you can’t force updates during sleep
- newdee 2y ago
  That problem is solved by the Bootstap Token in modern macOS and MDMs which support it. The token gets escrowed with the MDM during enrolment and can be used to unseal the volume for updates without prompting for a password. Good for unattended updates to kiosks or whatever.

bootsmann 2y ago

Its even worse if you have a bitlocker config that requires a pin. It will reboot during the update but then fail the boot because noone entered the pin in time, leaving you to complete the update actively when you open it back up. Ironically this happens even if you select "update and shutdown" because the restart happens during the update process.

RachelF 2y ago

One wonders how many giga-watts of electricity Windows update consumes each year?

vaylian 2y ago

> > receive Windows Updates during Sleep mode > That is just peak level stupidity. It also violates the core idea of sleep mode: Keep the current state of my computer intact until I continue working. If a windows update forces a reboot, then that computer state will be lost.

dathinab 2y ago

if it would work correctly it's acctually a grate UX boon for the user basically you don't block any bandwidth while a user is using the computer and instead when they are not also you download slower (less bandwidth) in the background because you have much more time available to download it (like e.g. the whole night) this feature is also only about downloads, that windows tends to force apply updates once they are downloaded is a different unrelated issue altogether so theoretically especially for laptops which are only used idk. 1-2h max a day for people with not so fast internet this could be grate could because it isn't, due to implementation details e.g. you would only want to run this if you are: plugged in (power), the internet is reliable (at least as reliable as "normally" for any given network) etc. but AFIK it doesn't really detect changes in power status, doesn't detect bad natwork conditions (which can lead to increased power use), and probably doesn't use "intentional slow" download either you also can't opt out so yeah it seems shit with how it's implemented -- but the idea by itself isn't bad