Clicking "Check for Updates" in Windows 10 Makes You Download "Preview" Patches - Says Microsoft

[Drak3]

Just now, firelighter487 said:

what version of macOS are you running?

High Sierra. After the clusterfuck that was upgrading to Sierra on a Mac Mini and High Sierra on my MBP, I have no confidence that Mojave would be stable until at least a month after release.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

Just now, Drak3 said:

High Sierra. After the clusterfuck that was upgrading to Sierra on a Mac Mini and High Sierra on my MBP, I have no confidence that Mojave would be stable until at least a month after release.

i'm on High Sierra too... i think the difference is i don't actively check for updates on my Mac... i update when it asks me to. i also shut it down instead of just closing it... so it might update on it's own without having to ask me. 

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I sometimes wonder if you even use Windows 10, because your experience seems to be completely different from reality.

I ask myself the same things towards you

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Half the stuff I do on a regular basis does can not be done in the new settings menu.

As mentioned, I didn't say all panels. I did mention that it is work in progress, and work have been done on each version of Windows, you can't deny that.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

 

Here are 10 examples:

1) Change your IP, or any of the network adapter settings.

This is not something you do everyday. If it is, then maybe you should contact your network adapter manufacture.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

2) Uninstall certain older applications. For example, if you try to uninstall Firefox 3.6 in the new settings menu, it will fail (or at least it has never worked for me), but it does work in the old control panel.

No issue with mine. I can confirmed as I uninstalled Firefox recently, and re-install it due to an issue I was having. I use the Settings panel.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

3) Change UAC notification frequency (there is a link to it, but it goes to the old prompt you get from the control panel).

You don't change that everyday, and 90%+ of people don't even touch this. You are only touching this, because you can't get away from XP.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

4) Change firewall settings such as opening a port.

That is not part of the Control Panel. It is under Administrative Tools. Services, Disk Management, etc. are not Control Panel. They may come.. but I see the firewall settings panel to be part of Windows Defender Windows Security.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

5) Change some of the more granular power options (you can only change auto sleep, and turning off the display after a certain time of inactivity in settings).

6) Bitlocker options are not implemented at all in settings.

7) Storage space options are not implemented either.

8 ) You can not view or change saved credentials.

9) Can't add network printers from a print server (if you click on the "add printer" button in Settings, it will try and find all printers and list them (with no search function, and not listed in alphabetical order). Not just that, but it won't find printers which are being shared from another Windows computer either. Only the printer settings in the control panel allows you to type in a server name, and the specific printer you want to map.

I agree, and well, as mentioned for 1, it is ongoing process. The list is diminishing.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

10) Can't manage Outlook profiles.

Nha. That is Outlook option. You can open it from Outlook. Outlook just registered the panel in Control Panel, like how Java and Flash did.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Then there are a few more obscure things such as changing environmental variables, but I don't do that on a weekly or even monthly basis so I won't mention that. Plus, you can do that from cmd.

But the 10 things I listed above are very basic things. Just saying "it will get added later" is no excuse for not having basic things implemented in something released over 3 years ago.

Everything you mentioned is not every day things. Sorry, you won't convince anyone.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

And on top of that you have the things @dalekphalm mentioned, like not being able to have 2 windows open at the same time. I have no idea how Microsoft thought that was acceptable. But I think that's because Microsoft tried to turn peoples' PCs into phones where you only have 1 program open at once.

I agree. Sometimes it would be nice to have that. Well there is the feedback hub.
Joust doing a quick search, perhaps I am not using the proper terms, but all I see is this:

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Fun fact, it was not possible to code a UWP program to support running two instances at once until earlier this year. It was not until update 1803 that they added support for running two instances of the same UWP program.

UWP platform is new and growing. It has matured a lot since the OS was released, but of course mass amount of work still needs to be done.

Forget multiple instances, you could not open separate panels, you could not define a minimize window size, you could not have content reach the title bar of a window, you could not have a small floating window with always on top feature. But all this stuff, is stuff you can do now. I expect more to come.

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Settings is at best a dumped down version of the control panel which lets you change things like the color of the title bar, but barely anything more advanced than that.

I wouldn't even say Microsoft are very close to having all the BASIC settings implemented in Settings yet. Much less all the advanced things.

You are right, you can't:

• Have advance display settings with video playback options including HDR
• Set different audio volume per applications
• Define specific audio source to use per applications
• Rename sound source item
• Fine control on notification including muting them when playing videos, games, presenting, and more
• Configure touchpad gesture
• Add/remove device including Bluetooth devices
• Configure Mobile Hotspot
• Define data limit on internet
• Proxy settings
• Configure the Game bar
• Privacy control

and more...

oh wait you can.

 

 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

9 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Everything you mentioned is not every day things. Sorry, you won't convince anyone.

so? it should be easy to do, and from one place. 

11 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

You are right, you can't:

• Have advance display settings with video playback options including HDR
• Set different audio volume per applications
• Define specific audio source to use per applications
• Rename sound source item
• Fine control on notification including muting them when playing videos, games, presenting, and more
• Configure touchpad gesture
• Add/remove device including Bluetooth devices
• Configure Mobile Hotspot
• Define data limit on internet
• Proxy settings
• Configure the Game bar
• Privacy control

and more...

oh wait you can.

wow *claps*... that's not the basics.. that's basically nothing. there is so much stuff still in the legacy control panel. all of the mouse settings, most network settings, stuff like adding features such as .net etc... the settings app is worthless at this point. i only use it for the things MS removed from the control panel. 

 

15 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

As mentioned, I didn't say all panels. I did mention that it is work in progress, and work have been done on each version of Windows, you can't deny that.

I agree, and well, as mentioned for 1, it is ongoing process. The list is diminishing.

UWP platform is new and growing. It has matured a lot since the OS was released, but of course mass amount of work still needs to be done.

if it's a work in progress it shouldnt. be. released.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

i've been part of these C and D updates more than once in the last 6 months then. pressing check for updates should check for updates, no one agreed to take part in the test buid or is there any documentation anywhere that says its preview builds apart from saying on video or on site, how is this not a violation? 

[Drak3]

20 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

there is so much stuff still in the legacy control panel. all of the mouse settings, most network settings, stuff like adding features such as .net etc... the settings app is worthless at this point. i only use it for the things MS removed from the control panel.

At this point, the settings panel has everything the average user needs, in a layout similar to OSX/Linux and with the categories being set up to be more in line with Android and iOS. Overall, it's an improvement IMO.

 

There's a few stragglers left before the control panel is only useful to power users.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

At this point, the settings panel has everything the average user needs, in a layout similar to OSX/Linux and with the categories being set up to be more in line with Android and iOS. Overall, it's an improvement IMO.

 

There's a few stragglers left before the control panel is only useful to power users.

it has the (subjectively) awful touch screen interface. it annoys me to no end. 

this is what i want to see in Windows too. it's categorised, compact and has everything the casual user, and power user needs without being confusing. 

macOS has had this since OSX 10.1, which was released in september 2001!!!!

https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/macosx101

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, firelighter487 said:

this is what i want to see in Windows too. it's categorised, compact and has everything the casual user, and power user needs without being confusing. 

macOS has had this since OSX 10.1, which was released in september 2001!!!!

Asides for the arbitrary separation of catagories, the initial settings panels in Windows and OSX function the same way. Category> Subcategory.

 

3 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

compact and has everything the casual user, and power user needs without being confusing.

Having every option for both camps is inherently confusing for the one. Casual users get confused by the settings that power users need. Keep them separated and you'll avoid some headache by the casual users, who far outweigh us power users.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Having every option for both camps is inherently confusing for the one. Casual users get confused by the settings that power users need. Keep them separated and you'll avoid some headache by the casual users, who far outweigh us power users.

depends on the layout. to get to your IP settings you need to go to network, your connection, advanced and then TCP/IP... so it's buried enough that the casual user won't find it, and the power user will search for ipv4 which will automatically open the TCP/IP settings of the current connection. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If Microsoft had designed Windows properly then it would not be an issue.

The reason why people don't want to update are:

1) It requires them to restart their computer, interrupts their use, or it makes shutting down/starting up slower. This is not an issue on OSes which do not require restarts for applying patches, for example a lot of GNU/Linux based distros. If Microsoft had designed Windows properly, this would not be an issue.

2) A lot of people get confused when things change, for example the look of a menu changes. Microsoft has changed the look of things in Windows 10 several times now. If they had sat down and thought things through a bit more before pushing it out, maybe they wouldn't have had to change the look of some menu 3 times in 3 years.

3) It creates compatibility issues. It is quite amazing at how many compatibility issues Windows 10 has created. Even some applications break from rather simple, semiannually updates. Nowadays Microsoft has to maintain a massive list of white and black listed applications, as well as constantly check which programs users has installed just to make sure they can push out a specific update to a specific computer without causing issues. They never had to do this with previous Windows versions, and it seems like we had fewer issues too, somehow.

 

4) Now it is also revealed that checking for updates apparently opts you in to receiving preview updates which aren't being rolled out to the mass market yet. So now I feel like I need to avoid checking for updates because I run the risk of downloading unstable updates if I do.

 

 

My point is that the reasons why people don't put aside 30 minutes to keep up to date are all because of things Microsoft have done or are doing. They could fix these things. Some other OSes do not have these issues. Microsoft is a company and because of that they exist to service their customers. It is not the customers' responsibility to adapt their usage to suit the desires of the company they are paying.

yep, my dog died and it's MS's fault.  You make it sound like they just got an F in finger painting.  For one of the best resourced software companies in the world (briefly over took apple in market value the other day)  and the fact they are where they are with updates kinda suggests that it's not that easy to fix (you think they enjoy having updates break which cost them reputation and service line help resources?).

 

 

Remember when updates where simple, optional and just as relevant but no one updated?  remember when updates didn't cause compatability issues, oh that's right they nearly always have.  People get confused, maybe, but I suggest if you know how to make the entire windows update situation better MS would love your input. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

On 12/16/2018 at 12:18 PM, captain_to_fire said:

How I wish I can still roll back to Fall Creators Update 

 

I had to use the rollback to a different version option restore point didnt work

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

2 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

I had to use the rollback to a different version option restore point didnt work

so that's broken too then...  

 

good to know though.. 

 

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Vocal minority are a minority. Power users tend to complain about change. 

So power users are displeased, and enterprise are displeased.

Users like my grandma are anything but pleased when things change and look different too. The way they use the computer is "click on the blue bird for email, and the colorful circle for Internet". They don't like when the look of things change either.

So who exactly are asking for all these changes?

Seems like it is mostly displeasing people to me.

 

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I agree. I think Microsoft is rushing things a bit too quickly, and rely too much on "we will fix it after, the deadline must be meat". But looking at how the next version of Windows 10, I don't want to jinx it, but so far, it looks like the company is pulling a back a bit, and taking their time. I expect the coming version to be mostly polishes with a sprinkle of new little features here and there, instead of anything really major. But, we will see. Next week, they might release a crap ton of new stuff and prove me wrong.. so I don't want to bring any hopes up. But so far so good.

If they do that, I think it'll only be to appease people temporarily after the 1809 fiasco. I doubt they will do it because they feel like it is a necessary change and they need to focus on higher quality releases, rather than shoving in a bunch of features.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

All the features works. Do you have any example of something released that doesn't work?

Well for one, the dark theme is extremely inconsistent and doesn't work in a lot of places. That's what I meant by "half-assed" and "half-working".

The Settings app is nowhere near complete either, despite having been worked on for 3 years in production as well as several years before release.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

People are indeed waking up and asking for polish and bugs fixes instead of new features. We saw Apple change their direction, and maybe Microsoft too, we will see.

Yes, so why do you use "others do it too. It's how the world is" as an excuse for why people shouldn't complain when Microsoft release stuff that clearly isn't done yet?

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

As mentioned, I didn't say all panels. I did mention that it is work in progress, and work have been done on each version of Windows, you can't deny that.

You said that:

1) If people gave Settings a try they would discover that you don't need the control panel anymore. This is clearly false as I were able to easily list 10 things that are not in the control panel that I know at least a quite large group of people need to access.

2) That "Microsoft is very close to have everything in the Settings panel". No they are not. If I had to guess I'd say they got maybe half of the stuff from the old control panel ported over. If we assume they won't speed up the process, that means we are maybe 5 years from fully being transitioned. That's not "very close" at all.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

This is not something you do everyday. If it is, then maybe you should contact your network adapter manufacture.

I work as a networking consultant. I regularly change my IP.

You also need it for changing all the network adapter options including VPN adapter options such as authentication methods (PAP, CHAP, etc), L2TP preshared passwords, PPP settings, etc.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

No issue with mine. I can confirmed as I uninstalled Firefox recently, and re-install it due to an issue I was having. I use the Settings panel.

Tried it on my computer now and it worked. Maybe it was an issue with the clients specific configuration.

Please note that I said Firefox 3.6 by the way. Not one of the Quantum versions.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You don't change that everyday, and 90%+ of people don't even touch this. You are only touching this, because you can't get away from XP.

I do it on a fairly regular basis.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

That is not part of the Control Panel. It is under Administrative Tools. Services, Disk Management, etc. are not Control Panel. They may come.. but I see the firewall settings panel to be part of Windows Defender Windows Security.

No, it's in the control panel.

Control Panel\System and Security\Windows Defender Firewall\Allowed apps

There are other settings for the firewall too which are in the control panel.

Maybe you're thinking of the advanced security window, which is not the same.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Nha. That is Outlook option. You can open it from Outlook. Outlook just registered the panel in Control Panel, like how Java and Flash did.

I've now tried to find that settings window from Outlook itself, and I can't.

Even Microsoft's own documentation tells me to access it from the control panel.

But one of the reasons why I sometimes need to access the Outlook profile settings is because Outlook won't start because of corrupt profiles. So even if I could access it from within Outlook, it wouldn't replace the functionality of the button in the control panel.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Everything you mentioned is not every day things. Sorry, you won't convince anyone.

Some of them are not daily things for me, but some of them are, and at the very least they are weekly or monthly stuff.

But why does that even matter? You're moving the goalpost. Even if I only used these things once every 5 years they would still need to be in the Settings menu before Microsoft removes it.

The control panel is not the average Joe opens often, if ever. But it is something that needs to be there for those rare times you do need to do things. Just because it isn't an everyday thing doesn't mean it is not needed.

Until every single option from the control panel is ported over, no matter how obscure, it needs to live on and Settings can't fully replace it.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I agree. Sometimes it would be nice to have that. Well there is the feedback hub.

I honestly do not believe that Microsoft reads the feedback hub. I might as well send my feedback to Santa.

If they don't even take "this update deletes files on my computer" seriously then I don't think they will care that I want some stuff ported over from the control panel. Hell, chances are they don't even know how to port stuff over from the control panel because Microsoft themselves don't know how parts of Windows works.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Joust doing a quick search, perhaps I am not using the proper terms, but all I see is this:

What is your point? That people have said they want multiple Settings windows and Microsoft has ignored them? It's cute how you think Microsoft cares about the feedback posted in the feedback hub, and then show an example of them not caring.

Also, I can't find those in my feedback hub. I even tried searching for the exact phrase "update settings so that you can have multiple instances of settings open at a time" and I can't find it.

 

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

UWP platform is new and growing. It has matured a lot since the OS was released, but of course mass amount of work still needs to be done.

Forget multiple instances, you could not open separate panels, you could not define a minimize window size, you could not have content reach the title bar of a window, you could not have a small floating window with always on top feature. But all this stuff, is stuff you can do now. I expect more to come.

Just another example of Microsoft rushing something out before it even has basic features implemented.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You are right, you can't:

• Have advance display settings with video playback options including HDR
• Set different audio volume per applications
• Define specific audio source to use per applications
• Rename sound source item
• Fine control on notification including muting them when playing videos, games, presenting, and more
• Configure touchpad gesture
• Add/remove device including Bluetooth devices
• Configure Mobile Hotspot
• Define data limit on internet
• Proxy settings
• Configure the Game bar
• Privacy control

and more...

oh wait you can.

Is that suppose to impress me? I say the Settings panel is a dumped down control panel which doesn't have the advanced settings and you go "no that's wrong! You can pair bluetooth devices in the settings menu and change the volume!"? Come on dude.

But like I said earlier, it doesn't matter if the Settings app can do some of the stuff. It needs to be able to do EVERYTHING the control panel can do.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

yep, my dog died and it's MS's fault.  You make it sound like they just got an F in finger painting.  For one of the best resourced software companies in the world (briefly over took apple in market value the other day)  and the fact they are where they are with updates kinda suggests that it's not that easy to fix (you think they enjoy having updates break which cost them reputation and service line help resources?).

"They make a lot of money so therefore they must know what they are doing".

Great argument you got there.

 

I think the problems are that Windows is fundamentally poorly designed, but it works "well enough" for Microsoft to make money.

As for updates breaking stuff costing them money, I think that's a thing they have done cost analysis on. Microsoft COULD hire a ton of people, maybe even start a program where insiders gets paid for being in the program, and heavily encourage people to report any and all bugs and issues they encounter, and then have a big staff of people reading and analyzing feedback by hand. I am sure they would catch far more bugs than they do now, but the cost of that would too big so they don't want to do it. It would result in a better product, but it would hurt their profits.

And no, I am not saying that I want Microsoft to do that, but I am using it as an example where sometimes they know how they can improve their products but choose not to because of monetary reasons (which is understandable).

 

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Remember when updates where simple, optional and just as relevant but no one updated?  remember when updates didn't cause compatability issues, oh that's right they nearly always have.  People get confused, maybe, but I suggest if you know how to make the entire windows update situation better MS would love your input. 

No, I don't remember the times where people didn't update. I see this get brought up all the time, that people never installed updates back when users had more control over them, but I have never seen any hard evidence that it was the case. My anecdotal evidence has told me that most people, outside of power users who really should be in control of updates, were deadly afraid of navigating the control panel to the update settings hidden behind several sub-menus, to turn off automatic update and then dismiss the several warning messages that appears when doing so.

 

I do think I know how to make the Windows update situation better, and I have given feedback to Microsoft about it. Both through things like the feedback hub, as well as the contacts I have from working at a Microsoft gold certified partner. They don't care because my suggestions goes against their goals.

For example I have suggested:

1) Slowing down the updates and focus more on polishing things before releasing them. The rolling release cycle clearly doesn't work for them.

2) Take feedback more seriously.

3) Make changes to things like the HAL less frequently, because it keeps breaking a bunch of stuff.

4) Make Windows more modular to make the update process smoother. For example it made no sense that Edge could not get updated by itself, and had to rely on Windows updates containing changes to the browser. And this was Edge, their brand new browser, and it still had the same fundamentally broken and terrible non-modular design as Windows itself have had since the 90's.

5) Let Pro and Enterprise users have full control over updates without relying on clunky registry hacks or third party programs. Automatic updating should be opt-out, not forced on these SKUs. Have it stock on automatic updating in Home if you want. That makes sense. Don't have it mandatory in Pro or Enterprise though.

6) Provide more detailed information on each individual update is for and which components it affects. You already track this in your internal systems, so let the end users get that visibly too. Don't just say "various stability fixes".

7) Stop bundling updates together. I want to be able to install one update but not another. If I am having issues with one update, but need another one installed I should be able to pick individual updates to install. This used to be possible in Windows 7, but not in Windows 10.

 

Those are some of the examples given.

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

"They make a lot of money so therefore they must know what they are doing".

Great argument you got there.

I did not say they must know what they are doing because they make money, I said they are the best resourced software company, and given that if they can't fix the issues within the update system then that suggests they are not easy fixes. And you are making it out that they are doing it on purpose.

 

 

Come back to me when you could be bothered reading what I post rather than make whatever assumptions you just did.

 

 

[8==D]

Ahhhh shit, I should have gone with Windows 8.1 or Windows 7. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

it doesn't matter if the Settings app can do some of the stuff

People actually use that at all? I struggle to think of when I ever use it beyond it force opening for some reason and me clicking on the advanced setting button which throws you back to control panel or a different application/screen.

[8==D]

Just now, OnyxArmos said:

I love Windows 10  

You love Windows 10 1809 issues? I am glad I am still on 1803 right now. 

[mr moose]

Just now, OnyxArmos said:

I love Windows 10  

They all work for me,  Apart from issues with anything less than 10 not being supported on the Ryzen CPU (BIG WTF to that), they all still do the job they are supposed to.

[LAwLz]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I did not say they must know what they are doing because they make money, I said they are the best resourced software company, and given that if they can't fix the issues within the update system then that suggests they are not easy fixes. And you are making it out that they are doing it on purpose. 

 

 

Come back to me when you could be bothered reading what I post rather than make whatever assumptions you just did.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

 

Best resourced =! Best results

"What one programmer can do in one month, two programmers can do in two months".

 

I also question if Microsoft has the best resources. They might have a lot of money, but I'd argue that plenty of good developers are working at companies other than Microsoft. Some even refuse to work at Microsoft for philosophical or emotional reasons.

It's very hard to quantify, but I don't think it is right to say that Microsoft's developers are better than the software developers working at Apple, or Google, or maybe even the Linux foundation.

Bad management can also hinder people from performing at their best. For example "dogfooding" (forcing your employees to use their own tools, sometimes even alpha and beta builds) might be a good concept for some tasks and some people, but not everyone. Imaging having to develop on a platform full of bugs, or just implement changes you as the developer feel are necessary, despite your own work environment not matching your customers' environments.

 

Also, you are making the assumption that Microsoft have an interest in making it better.

It might just be that they could fix it, but they have deemed it "good enough" and that the money invested in fixing it would not be recouped in any reasonable time-frame.

Why invest 100 million dollars in something if it will only save you 80 million dollars (numbers taken out of thin air to illustrate my point)?

Fixing the issue might not make any economical sense.

"Our current system works well enough" is a very common mentality to have.

 

 

With that being said, I do think it's a very hard issue to fix, because I think Windows is, like I said earlier, fundamentally poorly designed. Microsoft made the bet that having all the various components of the OS integrate very tightly with one another was the right choice and as we can see now, it wasn't. Making one chance to one part of the OS can have very strange effects on completely different parts of the OS as a result of this design. It's really sad to see that Microsoft don't seem to have realized that this is an issue till this day, because Edge was designed the same way. Cortana seems to be designed the same way too.

 

Changing Windows to be more modular and less integrated with itself is a massive undertaking, and from what I've heard from (supposed) Microsoft employees the documentation of Windows is garbage in many places, so the current developers at Microsoft don't even know how large portions of the OS works.

It's a very bad situation to be in.

 

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

People actually use that at all? I struggle to think of when I ever use it beyond it force opening for some reason and me clicking on the advanced setting button which throws you back to control panel or a different application/screen. 

I usually go through all the options in Settings once every update, because it contains quite a lot of options they have removed or not implemented in the control panel. Stuff like settings for UWP and the spell checking. It's also where all the privacy options are, and they tend to change themselves after updates.

But yeah, for most tasks I just go to the control panel as the first thing. Why bother navigating through Settings when there is a high chance it won't have the option you're looking for, or just throw you to the control panel anyway?

But hey, according to some people in this thread almost everything that's in the control panel also exists in Settings.

 

 

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They all work for me,  Apart from issues with anything less than 10 not being supported on the Ryzen CPU (BIG WTF to that), they all still do the job they are supposed to.

Artificial limited imposed by Microsoft to force people to migrate to Windows 10.

If you disable the CPU detection function Microsoft added to Windows 7 not too long ago, Windows 7 works just fine on Ryzen.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You're making a lot of assumptions.

 

Best resourced =! Best results

"What one programmer can do in one month, two programmers can do in two months".

It wasn't an assumption (as such), It was an observation that if the most resourced company can't fix their shit then their is something inherently wrong with the shit (which is the case for all online software companies so not likely an intrinsic MS thing), or the problem is so complex that what they have is close to the best fix they have.  The idea that updates being shit is a result of intentional programing and planning seems a little to counter intuitive.  This speaking as someone who has worked in a business/corporate enterprise before trying to rectify consumer issues before they become consumer issues.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I also question if Microsoft has the best resources. They might have a lot of money, but I'd argue that plenty of good developers are working at companies other than Microsoft. Some even refuse to work at Microsoft for philosophical or emotional reasons.

They can employ them, they can sack them, they have no real limitations (especially financial) to how they want to address the situation, that is why I said they have the best resources and not specifically the best programmers or anything debatable like that.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's very hard to quantify, but I don't think it is right to say that Microsoft's developers are better than the software developers working at Apple, or Google, or maybe even the Linux foundation.

It's not right to say that, that's why I didn't.  In fact If we look at all the software companies that have online update systems they are all broken to a larger or lesser degree,  this indicates that the issue is more inherent to the nature of the system as a whole and not so much the technicalities of the software or the engineers.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Bad management can also hinder people from performing at their best. For example "dogfooding" (forcing your employees to use their own tools, sometimes even alpha and beta builds) might be a good concept for some tasks and some people, but not everyone. Imaging having to develop on a platform full of bugs, or just implement changes you as the developer feel are necessary, despite your own work environment not matching your customers' environments.

I have no doubt that happens, I just don;t think it happens to the degree that it would cause these issues (issues being the general update mayhem).

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Also, you are making the assumption that Microsoft have an interest in making it better.

Are you saying they don't? It is a fairly safe assumption that a company wants it's products to work without pissing of it;'s clients.  They might be moving to a cloud based business practice but they are not a monopoly in that field and if windows issue makes people think MS are crap then that may well follow on through to decisions regarding which cloud service or data centre to employ. In fact I would say it does effect that.  Have you ever wondered why companies like BHP and RIO into advertise on TV?  they don't sell direct to the consumer, advertising nets them no immediate business.  But what it does is set them up in peoples minds as something worth doing business with. Because everyday tv watches are also the ones who make board room decisions.   MS in this regard will be facing the same issues, if their products fail they loose reputation, that reputation could be enough to loose them a cloud contract.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It might just be that they could fix it, but they have deemed it "good enough" and that the money invested in fixing it would not be recouped in any reasonable time-frame.

Not generally a trait I see promoted anywhere in business.  In fact quite the opposite, any business that promotes near enough is good enough is a business looking to go down the toilet.

 

I really, highly doubt they have that attitude. 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why invest 100 million dollars in something if it will only save you 80 million dollars (numbers taken out of thin air to illustrate my point)?

Fixing the issue might not make any economical sense.

"Our current system works well enough" is a very common mentality to have.

 

I think you will find it is fear of failure in a new system that causes people to say that and generally it is referring to implementing a whole new systems rather than trying to improve the old one.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

Artificial limited imposed by Microsoft to force people to migrate to Windows 10.

If you disable the CPU detection function Microsoft added to Windows 7 not too long ago, Windows 7 works just fine on Ryzen.

Thank you, I will give that ago.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's not right to say that, that's why I didn't.  In fact If we look at all the software companies that have online update systems they are all broken to a larger or lesser degree,  this indicates that the issue is more inherent to the nature of the system as a whole and not so much the technicalities of the software or the engineers.

I'm happy with how well Steam does game updates, damn site better than it was pre-steam and dealing with all those file upload sites and not knowing updates existed at all.

 

Steam is a great example of keep it simple, simple means simple problems, simple fixes. Get all fancy with multiple update streams, wave releases, developer releases, multiple release windows, rollups for everything etc etc and you end up with equally fancy and complicated issues. Patch Tuesday used to mean something.

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

I'm happy with how well Steam does game updates, damn site better than it was pre-steam and dealing with all those file upload sites and not knowing updates existed at all.

 

Steam is a great example of keep it simple, simple means simple problems, simple fixes. Get all fancy with multiple update streams, wave releases, developer releases, multiple release windows, rollups for everything etc etc and you end up with equally fancy and complicated issues. Patch Tuesday used to mean something.

I never actually thought about steam.  Which I have to admit you never really hear about those issues regarding updates, but fuck me they can have a few everywhere else in the system. But I was thinking about all the "help me" threads you get after an android update, ios update or  the MAC and windows updates in general.  I've had issues with ubisoft, origin and blizzard.  Sony hasn't been the greatest experience. So I just put it down to the whole system including the internet, the vast variance in users and systems and the god knows what between us and the server that might be causing issues.

[GoldenLag]

55 minutes ago, Fah Q said:

You love Windows 10 1809 issues? I am glad I am still on 1803 right now. 

If you dont go looking for update or update to the very latest version of Windows by the use of insider programs or other methods.

 

Odds are that you are going to have a pretty nice experience.