Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I've been learning Linux and if people prefer it thats fine, there are lots of things MS could copy like the update packages in Linux or reminding you to update whenever you're done like how OSX does rather than forcing you to update all the time. But like every Microsoft related thread turns into "windows sucks" threads.

I agree, but I just don't understand why people are justifying microsoft for that

There would be always an use case where someone needs its computer 24/7 on, should I even say it? Let's just say I work on a big company, and I have a timeline, and I need to do some night renderings that can't be interrupted by a system update while I do other stuff when I'm on it, maybe the sunday I would be free, but on how long could I keep delaying windows update? It's more annoying that it seems.

The only constructive thing I could think of is just letting Microsoft know that this is not ok for professionals, without saying that it just sucks.

Does it bother people that Linux doesn't suffer from such issues and could do some real work on too?
I mean, ok the fanboys are annoying, like the people no knowing an actual shit about it, but it's not false that in some cases (not just personal ones) could be a viable option, I could list you a real list of directly related Linux design issues but that's not one that you could argue about

Edited January 9, 2019 by Guest

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 The only time Linux is relevant is if it is better suited to individual needs, if so then use the damn thing and stop trying to insinuate the world is out to get you.

As a veteran of MS's war on Linux they used to be.  Microsoft used to file lawsuits against companies by way of 1/3 company called SCO.   To try and extort licensing fees from people who used Linux.

 

It was it was a long drawn-out battle and a lot of Linux users are quite right in thinking Microsoft was out to get them.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Uttamattamakin
Originally dictated to phone, editing errors.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

There would be always an use case where someone needs its computer 24/7 on, should I even say it? Let's just say I work on a big company, and I have a timeline, and I need to do some night renderings that can't be interrupted by a system update while I do other stuff when I'm on it, maybe the sunday I would be free, but on how long could I keep delaying windows update? It's more annoying that it seems

except those company's employees likely wouldn't be using their own PC, they would be using a company PC and wouldn't be running home or pro, they would and SHOULD be running enterprise which gives you a higher degree of control over everything. if you do work for such a company and you're using a personal PC, they should give you an enterprise key.

[jagdtigger]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

It's not an option because you put it in sleep mode instead of restarting? 

 

No because i have a lot of stuff open, especially in exam period and dont have time to waste on restaring just because updates. Since i switched to linux it isnt a problem because i can do it on the fly without restarting.....

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

except those company's employees likely wouldn't be using their own PC, they would be using a company PC and wouldn't be running home or pro, they would and SHOULD be running enterprise which gives you a higher degree of control over everything. if you do work for such a company and you're using a personal PC, they should give you an enterprise key.

Why wouldn't they? BYOD it's very common on companies, but other than that still this doesn't justify not adding at least an advanced option for letting the user control this, there could also be just people who just want this,  this shouldn't be a feature but a minimum requirement

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Linux sucks because Linux is a bad platform and was designed that way. Not because of Microsoft.

 

Unix doesn't have the same issues. 

Please explain to me, in your own words, why you believe Unix is better than GNU/Linux.

Explain to me in what ways GNU/Linux is a bad platform and badly designed.

 

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Microsoft doesn't hold anything. Windows is only on ~37% of systems. 

Linux based OS  is running on 0.85% of systems. 

I think you need to elaborate a bit more. Where did you get those numbers from and what do you use for the "total amount of systems"? Windows only running on ~37% of "systems" sounds very low, considering it holds like 90% market share for laptops and desktops. If you're taking smartphones and tablets into account then the Linux percentage seems extremely low, considering Android runs on Linux (the kernel, but not the standard username and GNU tools).

 

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

The biggest issue that most Linux based OS has, is the toxic environment that it set, promoting elitism and refusing to take criticism. This is why Linux from 1998 has not really changed when you compare it now. And this is why the growth of the OS has been lackluster beside on Server space, as for many application, it is the only option out there.

Ehm, no?

What is up with you and spouting unsubstantiated nonsense all the time? What happened was that when GNU/Linux threatened Microsoft's monopoly they had already established, they used illegal business methods such as threatening computer manufacturers. They also threatened to sue companies that used GNU/Linux for violating Microsoft's patents. That resulted in GNU/Linux on desktops never taking off and now we have a chicken and egg problem where very few large companies want to support GNU/Linux because the user base is so small, and the user base is so small because of a lack of software from large companies (as well as people suffering heavily from baby duck syndrome, and struggle to change from Windows because of it).

 

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't see many people voting for what you are asking on the Feedback hub.

Microsoft will improve if they are many people voting on it.

You don't actually believe that, do you? Microsoft has time and time again locked and ignored change requests with very high ratings because it does not suit their vision.

Sending feedback on the feedback hub is like sending a letter to a paper shredder.

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

people really do love clutching at straws,  I still haven't heard a decent argument for needing 24/7 up time on a home computer or a solution to the problem of people not updating.   Instead we get pages of irrelevant discussion trying to argue how good Linux is.   The only time Linux is relevant is if it is better suited to individual needs, if so then use the damn thing and stop trying to insinuate the world is out to get you. 

I don't necessarily need 24/7 uptime, but I do need 24/7 uptime because I run several services on my computer. Things such as a distributed hosting platform for a website. Turning it off lowers the trust rating of my node. I've been looking into moving it to my NAS, but my NAS does not have the Java graphics libraries needed to run it.

But here are some other reasons why I don't want Microsoft to control when I update.

1) It's a principle. It's my computer, so therefore I should be in control what gets installed and when it gets installed. I don't let Volkswagen control when and where I can drive, nor do I let Electrolux control what I put in my fridge and when I eat.

 

2) Whenever I install an update I go through settings and various other parts of the OS to make sure Microsoft have not changed things, like they have been caught doing in the past. For example sneak in additional telemetry functions inside security updates, resetting privacy settings, introduces more privacy invasive features (like in the last update when they introduced the feature to send everything you ctrl+c to Microsoft's own servers) or other such changes. And before you call me paranoid, they have been caught doing those things in the past, and they have not regained my trust whatsoever. Anyway, going through those things takes time, and I don't always feel like doing all that work, so I delay updates until I can take the time to do it.

 

 

If you want examples on what I would change to improve the update process then here goes:

1) Redesign Windows so that it becomes more modular, and then implement a system like kpatch (live kernel patching). That would reduce or completely eliminate the need for rebooting, which is one of the major reasons people don't want to update.

 

2) Stop with the massive cumulative updates. Release everything as individual updates. This would allow users to install critical updates when necessary, but also make it so that people who have issues with specific updates did not need to install the updates causing them issues. If I need some program that breaks by a Windows update, and Microsoft releases a separate patch for fixing some security issue, I am fucked. I have to pick between either my program not functioning, or not fixing the security issue. This would not be an issue if updates could be downloaded separately and granularly.

 

3) Bring back the detailed descriptions of what updates did. Back in Windows 7 you used to be able to see which files each update changed, and explanations for what changed and why. It made it far easier to troubleshoot which updates may have caused problems. Now you just get descriptions which are essentially "fixed some things".

These explanations already exists inside Microsoft, so I am not sure why they are keeping them hidden from people. It's like they want to keep people in the dark about what gets changed on their computers.

 

4) Get rid of this rolling release cycle. Microsoft clearly can't handle it. They are rushing out half-done features, breaking things left and right, and the whole thing is just a big mess. Instead have longer dev cycles, with more rigorous testing and quality control. Maybe keep the biannual, or make it yearly, major update but have it for insiders. There are probably plenty of people who would like getting updates faster (just look at how often people want access to beta programs, even for things like their phone OS), and the average Joe or people who want more stable stuff would get a more stable and reliable platform as a result.

 

5) Make automatic updating the default, but introduce an option to opt out of updates in Windows 10 Pro. Put it behind several warning popups if you want. And don't give me some bullshit about "the average Joe would just turn off updates and everyone would get infected with viruses!" unless you have hard evidence to support that statement. Right now, I have not seen a single person provide any evidence that people turning off automatic updating in Windows 7 was even a problem, and that OS asked users "do you want automatic or manual updating" during the initial OS setup. Even IF (again, no evidence posted at all) it was a widespread issue, there is no evidence that it would still be an issue if the changes I suggested were implemented.

 

6) Do not treat you regular users as beta testers. I am not sure if you saw it, but clicking "check for updates" in Windows 10 could cause your computer to download and install pre-release updates. This is by design because Microsoft thinks that people who click "check for updates" are users who "seek out" new features and updates. That should not happen or be acceptable.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

I've ran into a couple issues with automatic updates.

 

As a general rule I don't want to waste time waiting for an update/restart to happen, so I'll never initiate it on my own. As such, there were quite a few instances where Windows would update itself overnight and then when I went to use my Surface in class (for the first time that day) I would have to wait for it to finish the update process -- which could often take 20 minutes. Because for some reason that doesn't happen automatically with an update.

 

The other time(s) I've ran into an issue with Windows update is when I was running a queue of encodes, which take many hours each. Often windows would decide to update while in the middle of the encode, so not only would the progress on that specific encode be lost, but the whole process would cease to see progress until I logged back in and restarted it.

 

I can fully understand the reasoning behind forcing updates, but it absolutely does interfere with my workflow, and which is why I don't use Windows except where I have to (games).

That is exactly why people, given the option, will turn them off or just keep postponing.  I fully understand how frustrating it can be, it seems people are confusing necessary with inconvenient.  Just because something is inconvenient doesn't make it optional.

59 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

It's not just that, you can't totally control when your PC is downloading and installing updates, is it hard to understand that for someone that actually need to work with their PC needs to decide when to install them? You can postpone them but not always, it's a bit annoying imo.
 

It's not actually that hard to understand at all, if it is interfering with work that often then you should be on enterprise with a managed update regime.

 

59 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Lol seriously? Those are only two posts, while on the other hand others are saying wrong things about it too, so it's definitely not just that. But on the update side, I could say it's definitely better so that's in part true

yes seriously, it really doesn't matter if people are technically correct about Linux or not,  Linux has nothing to do with the issue other than providing an alternative for some people.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Why wouldn't they? BYOD it's very common on companies, but other than that still this doesn't justify not adding at least an advanced option for letting the user control this, there could also be just people who just want as this shouldn't be a feature but a minimum requirement

but if you're doing rendering on a timeline, you need to have a damn good PC, they are not going to accept "oh my PC is slow and still rendering" as an excuse.

 

there is an option for people to turn it off, it's called LTSC. If you're doing "work" that absolutely requires you to never turn off your PC, then you shouldn't be running home or pro. Or you know...Linux if it supports your software. If your running on OS that is not designed for your use case, then that's the fault of the user, not the OS.

 

If i switched every PC i had to Linux, i can't complain that 60% of my programs and games don't work and shit talk Linux and shout that it's Linus Torvald's fault that nothing works, no it's my fault, because i'm not using an OS that fits my use case.

Windows isn't the only OS that exists and home isn't even the only version of windows 10 that exists.

[Guest]

 

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That is exactly why people, given the option, will turn them off or just keep postponing.  I fully understand how frustrating it can be, it seems people are confusing necessary with inconvenient.  Just because something is inconvenient doesn't make it optional.

As far as I remember you couldn't always postpone, so a day it would come the problem where it will force you to update

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's not actually that hard to understand at all, if it is interfering with work that often then you should be on enterprise with a managed update regime.

Harder to just have an option as it basic it could be even on regular Windows 10 Pro or Home install for something this stupid? Let me say this justifies people being mad at Microsoft, they just should have an option, and that's it
I'm not saying ooga booga f*ck windows and microsoft this sucks, this suggestion already exist on the Insider forum
 
As I said before, BYOD is not that uncommon thing.
 

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

yes seriously, it really doesn't matter if people are technically correct about Linux or not,  Linux has nothing to do with the issue other than providing an alternative for some people.

The thread concern is about updates so I would say that should apply also a bit, like Mac OS.
 

10 minutes ago, Arika S said:

but if you're doing rendering on a timeline, you need to have a damn good PC, they are not going to accept "oh my PC is slow and still rendering" as an excuse.

 

there is an option for people to turn it off, it's called LTSC. If you're doing "work" that absolutely requires you to never turn off your PC, then you shouldn't be running home or pro. Or you know...Linux if it supports your software. If your running on OS that is not designed for your use case, then that's the fault of the user, not the OS.

 

If i switched every PC i had to Linux, i can't complain that 60% of my programs and games don't work and shit talk Linux and shout that it's Linus Torvald's fault that nothing works, no it's my fault, because i'm not using an OS that fits my use case.

Windows isn't the only OS that exists and home isn't even the only version of windows 10 that exists.

So you are saying that someone needs to pay for another OS with that option? Considering how OEM's just put Home or Pro, this is stupid honestly, I would definitely upgrade to Pro or Enterprise for something like HyperV, BitLocker, but not on something that basic, and I'm not saying I like to have some sophisticated piece of software for free on basic licenses 

 

[jagdtigger]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

other than providing an alternative for some people.

Not just some, but a whole lot of ppl if they werent lazy  AF... Most average user would be fine with using a linux distro for viewing FB, mail, youtube, and other basic stuff. Even Libre Ofiice is totally fine for home use(corporate is different because of MS and their proprietary stuff).

[Arika]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

So you are saying that someone needs to pay for another OS with that option?

If you're doing a work load that you cannot have interrupted by updates, yes. because ultimately this issue affects the smallest minority of people. The excuse of "i just don't like to turn my PC off" is not an excuse.

 

If you need to tow a large trailer, you dont get a hatchback.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

I agree, but I just don't understand why people are justifying microsoft for that
 

What do you mean?  No one hear is saying their update system couldn't be better, some of us are just trying to point out the reason it is forced.

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I don't necessarily need 24/7 uptime, but I do need 24/7 uptime because I run several services on my computer. Things such as a distributed hosting platform for a website. Turning it off lowers the trust rating of my node. I've been looking into moving it to my NAS, but my NAS does not have the Java graphics libraries needed to run it.

If you want/need 24/7 then get the proper OS for that.  We have already established why the updates are forced on home, you can't just use it knowing its limitations then blame MS for it not working properly.

 

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But here are some other reasons why I don't want Microsoft to control when I update.

1) It's a principle. It's my computer, so therefore I should be in control what gets installed and when it gets installed. I don't let Volkswagen control when and where I can drive, nor do I let Electrolux control what I put in my fridge and when I eat.

 

It might be your computer but its everone's internet and we don't need it clogged up with unnecessary malware and worms and shit because people  refuse to update. MS have a duty of care to their consumer and have decided to force updates,  either get used to it or use a different OS.

 

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

2) Whenever I install an update I go through settings and various other parts of the OS to make sure Microsoft have not changed things, like they have been caught doing in the past. For example sneak in additional telemetry functions inside security updates, resetting privacy settings, introduces more privacy invasive features (like in the last update when they introduced the feature to send everything you ctrl+c to Microsoft's own servers) or other such changes. And before you call me paranoid, they have been caught doing those things in the past, and they have not regained my trust whatsoever. Anyway, going through those things takes time, and I don't always feel like doing all that work, so I delay updates until I can take the time to do it.

 

Just run anti beacon if you are concerned.  Or you could use the data viewer MS provide.

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you want examples on what I would change to improve the update process then here goes:

1) Redesign Windows so that it becomes more modular, and then implement a system like kpatch (live kernel patching). That would reduce or completely eliminate the need for rebooting, which is one of the major reasons people don't want to update.

Send them an email, I am sure they haven't considered ways to improve the update system.

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

2) Stop with the massive cumulative updates. Release everything as individual updates. This would allow users to install critical updates when necessary, but also make it so that people who have issues with specific updates did not need to install the updates causing them issues. If I need some program that breaks by a Windows update, and Microsoft releases a separate patch for fixing some security issue, I am fucked. I have to pick between either my program not functioning, or not fixing the security issue. This would not be an issue if updates could be downloaded separately and granularly.

 

3) Bring back the detailed descriptions of what updates did. Back in Windows 7 you used to be able to see which files each update changed, and explanations for what changed and why. It made it far easier to troubleshoot which updates may have caused problems. Now you just get descriptions which are essentially "fixed some things".

These explanations already exists inside Microsoft, so I am not sure why they are keeping them hidden from people. It's like they want to keep people in the dark about what gets changed on their computers.

Personal opinon, doesn;t really change the issue of people refusing to update causing security issues.

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

4) Get rid of this rolling release cycle. Microsoft clearly can't handle it. They are rushing out half-done features, breaking things left and right, and the whole thing is just a big mess. Instead have longer dev cycles, with more rigorous testing and quality control. Maybe keep the biannual, or make it yearly, major update but have it for insiders. There are probably plenty of people who would like getting updates faster (just look at how often people want access to beta programs, even for things like their phone OS), and the average Joe or people who want more stable stuff would get a more stable and reliable platform as a result.

 

5) Make automatic updating the default, but introduce an option to opt out of updates in Windows 10 Pro. Put it behind several warning popups if you want. And don't give me some bullshit about "the average Joe would just turn off updates and everyone would get infected with viruses!" unless you have hard evidence to support that statement. Right now, I have not seen a single person provide any evidence that people turning off automatic updating in Windows 7 was even a problem, and that OS asked users "do you want automatic or manual updating" during the initial OS setup. Even IF (again, no evidence posted at all) it was a widespread issue, there is no evidence that it would still be an issue if the changes I suggested were implemented.

You are still missing the point, auto updates was the default but people still kept turning them off and postponing.  The issue is if you give people the option they will take the easiest 9 times out of 10.  This means not updating.  You literally have to solve the issue of people not updating before you can make it optional.

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

6) Do not treat you regular users as beta testers. I am not sure if you saw it, but clicking "check for updates" in Windows 10 could cause your computer to download and install pre-release updates. This is by design because Microsoft thinks that people who click "check for updates" are users who "seek out" new features and updates. That should not happen or be acceptable.

They don't.  Don't click that link and leave everything to recommended and you aren't installing beta updates and services (by default).  But again this comes back to issues with the update system that no one is arguing is fine.

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'm blaming the OEM's for limiting the machines on purpose to get you buying another laptop when you realize how much it sucks with only 2GB of ram and 32GB of storage. I don't consider 32GB to even be enough for my phone, and quite a few phones now come with 4GB of ram and 64GB storage for around $300 so it's definitely the computer OEM's making an extra few cents in margins by not opting for at least a 64GB eMMC drive and 4GB of ram,especially if the OEM's are getting Windows for free. 

I think 32GB is enough for ChromeOS,with how limited you are on the device, until you sideload a bunch of Android apps and actually use the laptop.  Not sure about Minecraft, but if its like how most games are developed,the devs program the game to work on what people are using the most,rather than spending a lot of extra time and money getting it to work with older hardware. 

Again. 32GB would be fine if Windows wasn't so bloated.

It's an issue that could be solved either through throwing more hardware at the problem, or fixing the software. Can you at the very least admit that it would be less of an issue if Windows took up less space? I mean come on... There are two solutions to this issue and you refuse to acknowledge one of them.

Yes, if OEMs put more storage into the computers it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but again throwing more hardware at it does not fix the underlying issue (bloat).

 

22 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It's a valid argument when there are always people in MS or Windows threads that act like they can make a better OS while calling something "trash" or "cancer". 

Can you please link to the person in this thread claiming that they can code a better operating system than Windows? If you can't, then you are strawmanning.

In any case, just saying "you do better" is not a valid argument, in any scenario. It's just an attack on the person criticizer something instead of addressing the actual points being made. It's shitty and intellectually insulting behavior that should not be encouraged.

 

24 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I haven't seen Solaris on anything that wasn't a server,and apparently the FOSS community considers the OS to be dead since Oracle made the OS proprietary with a restrictive license. 

GoodBytes claimed that it was dead because it no longer got updates. That is VERY different from FOSS community saying it is dead because the license got changed.

I was merely refuting GoodByte's incorrect statement. I was not making a comment on what FOSS or any other community thinks of Solaris.

 

26 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I've been learning Linux,haven't had any issues yet on Mint, and if people prefer Linux thats fine, there are lots of things MS could copy like the update packages in Linux or how OSX does it reminding you to update whenever you're done rather than forcing you to update all the time. But like every Microsoft related thread turns into "windows sucks" threads.

I think every Microsoft related thread turns into "Windows sucks" because of 3 reasons.

1) Microsoft have done a lot of very controversial things. Not just in the past but very recently too (such as forcing updates, which is a very polarizing issue for people).

2) The pro-Microsoft side is quite hostile too, for example I have been called a liar only to get apologized to once proven right several times in the past. It takes two to tango.

3) Windows has many issues. A lot of issues that people suffer from, and a lot of problems that some people refuse to acknowledge.

[ZacoAttaco]

Woah, this thread is something else

 

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Not just some, but a whole lot of ppl if they werent lazy  AF... Most average user would be fine with using a linux distro for viewing FB, mail, youtube, and other basic stuff. Even Libre Ofiice is totally fine for home use(corporate is different because of MS and their proprietary stuff).

i actually agree with this. i'm not one of them, but a whole bunch of people would be better off on linux. They just need to make it less reliant on the terminal.

 

I installed linux (i tried mint and ubuntu) on an old laptop and i'm pretty proficient with computers and windows, and when i got stuck with something and googled it, most of the time the answer was

 

"put <string of gibberish into terminal>"

 

unfortunately this is going to be intimidating as hell to most "average" users.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

 

As far as I remember you couldn't always postpone, so a day it would come the problem where it will force you to update

7 was when they put a limit on that, but people still found a way around it.

6 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Harder to just have an option as it basic it could be even on regular Windows 10 Pro or Home install for something this stupid? Let me say this justifies people being mad at Microsoft, they just should have an option, and that's it
I'm not saying ooga booga f*ck windows and microsoft this sucks, this suggestion already exist on the Insider forum
 

huh? if you need 24/7 up time you should be on a system designed to give you that, 99% of home users do not need 24/7.  Trying to argue that 1 or 2 % of home enthusiasts want to is not a valid reason to give everyone an option that ends in issues.

 

6 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

 

So you are saying that someone needs to pay for another OS with that option? Considering how OEM's just put Home or Pro, this is stupid honestly, I would definitely upgrade to Pro or Enterprise for something like HyperV, BitLocker, but not on something that basic, and I'm not saying I like to have some sophisticated piece of software for free on basic licenses 

 

Yes,  if you want a drill that can drill through concrete you can't just buy a $20 wood drill and then complain because it doesn't work. properly. 

 

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Not just some, but a whole lot of ppl if they werent lazy  AF... Most average user would be fine with using a linux distro for viewing FB, mail, youtube, and other basic stuff. Even Libre Ofiice is totally fine for home use(corporate is different because of MS and their proprietary stuff).

So we agree people are lazy AF, end result = forced updates.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What do you mean?  No one hear is saying their update system couldn't be better, some of us are just trying to point out the reason it is forced.

Which it is still stupid... Because a thing is leaving an option by default, another thing is forcing this for everyone
 

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

If you're doing a work load that you cannot have interrupted by updates, yes. because ultimately this issue affects the smallest minority of people. The excuse of "i just don't like to turn my PC off" is not an excuse.

 

If you need to tow a large trailer, you dont get a hatchback.

Good luck telling someone that they need to pay 300€ (or whatever it is) for having control on their system they already paid for something this stupid honestly

And it's not just turning it off, because the forced updates could also happen for a reboot after a driver install, in the case you need something working right now, and you postponed enough times

You literally have no reason to blame people that are mad with this, not just for linux fanboys but for actual MS Windows users

How would you even do that comparison lol...

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Guest

[Blademaster91]

37 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

I agree, but I just don't understand why people are justifying microsoft for that

There would be always an use case where someone needs its computer 24/7 on, should I even say it? Let's just say I work on a big company, and I have a timeline, and I need to do some night renderings that can't be interrupted by a system update while I do other stuff when I'm on it, maybe the sunday I would be free, but on how long could I keep delaying windows update? It's more annoying that it seems.

The only constructive thing I could think of is just letting Microsoft know that this is not ok for professionals, without saying that it just sucks.

Does it bother people that Linux doesn't suffer from such issues and could do some real work on too?
I mean, ok the fanboys are annoying, like the people no knowing an actual shit about it, but it's not false that in some cases (not just personal ones) could be a viable option, I could list you a real list of directly related Linux design issues but that's not one that you could argue about

I completely agree though, if I need the computer on for work I shouldn't be worried about losing anything important to a surprise update. If Microsoft insists that updates run even when i might be busy could it really be that difficult to change the auto updating to detect if you have a render processing? Linux has some bugs but i think it is a nice alternative that can get work done for most people. I don't have a problem with 7GB being reserved but i'd rather MS fix the real issue and let you delay the updates a bit especially when I paid for a copy of Windows 10.

[mr moose]

Just now, Lukyp said:

Which it is still stupid... Because a thing is leaving an option by default, another thing is forcing this for everyone
 

Again, this is because when they gave people the option they chose not to run updates.  People will nearly always choose the laziest or easiest option regardless of the consequences. When updates where option they turned them off.

Just now, Lukyp said:

Good luck telling someone that they need to pay 300€ (or whatever it is) for having control on their system they already paid for something this stupid honestly

 

No, what is stupid is buying the cheapest OS you can then complaining because it doesn't have features you knew it didn't have, you know what elsee is stupid, trying to use a drill to hammer in a nail.

 

Just now, Lukyp said:

And it's not just turning it off, because the forced updates could also happen for a reboot after a driver install, in the case you need something working right now, and you postponed enough times

You literally have no reason to blame people that are mad with this, not just for linux fanboys but for actual MS Windows users

 

You are missing the point, we all agree the update system is frustrating, we get it, we know,  but updates in windows are necessary, you can't avoid them, and becasue people did for so long they became forced. 

 

Again, solve the people choosing not to update when they have the option and then there wil be no excuse for forced updates.

 

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i actually agree with this. i'm not one of them, but a whole bunch of people would be better off on linux. They just need to make it less reliant on the terminal.

 

I installed linux (i tried mint and ubuntu) on an old laptop and i'm pretty proficient with computers and windows, and when i got stuck with something and googled it, most of the time the answer was

 

"put <string of gibberish into terminal>"

 

unfortunately this is going to be intimidating as hell to most "average" users.

Well to be fair removing UWP apps required the use of PS, and some cases involve cmd on windows so maybe its not that intimidating . I like to test out distros in VM just for fun and most of the time for what the average users do the GUI stuff is more than enough. Plus from my personal experience if they have issues even with windows they just call the family's nerd .

[ZacoAttaco]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i actually agree with this. i'm not one of them, but a whole bunch of people would be better off on linux. They just need to make it less reliant on the terminal.

 

I installed linux (i tried mint and ubuntu) on an old laptop and i'm pretty proficient with computers and windows, and when i got stuck with something and googled it, most of the time the answer was

 

"put <string of gibberish into terminal>"

 

unfortunately this is going to be intimidating as hell to most "average" users.

For me, it's a lot of jargon straight up that is foreign to me, I was running Ubuntu on a full install but now I'm kind of cheating in that running Linux in a VM makes a lot of the process easy and at the same time might be easier to learn. I've had a lot of issues with just the install process so if I can learn the OS in a Virtualized environment where there's no risk and I just make a new install if something happens it should be a good process and enjoyable process.New SSD should help with speed too .

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So we agree people are lazy AF, end result = forced updates.

Noppe, i meant lazy to learn new stuff, BTW its still not a reason for MS to force stuff onto us that we do not want.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you want/need 24/7 then get the proper OS for that.  We have already established why the updates are forced on home, you can't just use it knowing its limitations then blame MS for it not working properly. 

Okay, which OS do you recommend?

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It might be your computer but its everone's internet and we don't need it clogged up with unnecessary malware and worms and shit because people  refuse to update. MS have a duty of care to their consumer and have decided to force updates,  either get used to it or use a different OS.

So I am not allowed to suggest improvements for the products I use, and want to keep using? You have to understand that I am not complaining about the update situation because I think it's fun to shit on Microsoft. I am complaining because I want the product to improve so that I enjoy using it more. I want to enjoy using it.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Just run anti beacon if you are concerned.  Or you could use the data viewer MS provide. 

I do not fully trust anti-beacon either. It can also cause issues, and since Microsoft are constantly changing things anti-beacon is not always up-to-date.

Which data viewer are you referring to? Also, I don't trust that it actually shows everything. For example if it claims to show telemetry data then it may not include things like the collection of copy/paste data since that's a feature rather than telemetry. Microsoft seriously harmed my trust for them when they started including telemetry functionality in security updates, and implemented privacy settings which doesn't fully turn things off despite claiming to do so. I do not trust them to do what they claim to do.

 

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Send them an email, I am sure they haven't considered ways to improve the update system.

I have spoken to Microsoft contacts through work and sent feedback to the feedback hub. They are not interested in implementing the things I suggest because it goes against their current plans.

 

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Personal opinon, doesn;t really change the issue of people refusing to update causing security issues.

I gave real, objective examples of when this is useful. It's not an opinion that being able to install individual updates is useful if one update is giving you issues, but another fixes a security hole. How can you possibly dismiss that as just an opinion? Also, even if it was an opinion it could still be an improvement. If 9/10 people like orange marmalade then "make orange marmalade" would be a valid suggestion to increase sales of a companies marmalade (assuming they didn't have that in their assortment already). When talking about how Microsoft can make the update experience better for people, and encourage them, to willingly update, the opinions of their users matters.

 

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are still missing the point, auto updates was the default but people still kept turning them off and postponing.  The issue is if you give people the option they will take the easiest 9 times out of 10.  This means not updating.  You literally have to solve the issue of people not updating before you can make it optional.

Prove it. I asked you for evidence to prove it, and you haven't given me any.

Prove that people were turning it off (not just some search results, but actual statistics of how many were turning it off) and prove that people would still turn it off if the changes I suggested were implemented. Unless you can prove it, you're just making baseless assumptions.

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Good luck telling someone that they need to pay 300€ (or whatever it is) for having control on their system they already paid for something this stupid honestly

And it's not just turning it off, because the forced updates could also happen for a reboot after a driver install, in the case you need something working right now, and you postponed enough times

You literally have no reason to blame people that are mad with this, not just for linux fanboys but for actual MS Windows users

How would you even do that comparison lol...

 

most people dont even pay full price for W10 home. there was a link on page 2 to ebay for LTSC keys for $20-$30. and if anyone does "need" the enterprise version for personal use, then they are going to be smart enough to find them cheap, since they technically can't by the key officially.

 

If you're updating a driver during a workload then that's the user's fault again, you don't get to that point of using windows 10 and go "oh, what? it needs to restart?" you would already know this. 

 

there are legitimate reasons to be mad, yes, but most of them can be fixed/mitigated by using the correct software for the job and managing the restart times correctly

 

easily. surely you've heard the saying "the right tool for the right job" same thing applies.

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i actually agree with this. i'm not one of them, but a whole bunch of people would be better off on linux. They just need to make it less reliant on the terminal.

 

I installed linux (i tried mint and ubuntu) on an old laptop and i'm pretty proficient with computers and windows, and when i got stuck with something and googled it, most of the time the answer was

 

"put <string of gibberish into terminal>"

 

unfortunately this is going to be intimidating as hell to most "average" users.

Just because the suggested fixes are "put thing into terminal" does not mean it is the only way.

The reason why the terminal gets recommended in fixes so often is because it is super quick, easy and clear to give instructions and solutions through it.

 

Saying:
 

Quote

Put this into the terminal

is far faster, and less error prone than saying:

Quote

Open this menu, and then look for the menu which says XXXXX. Depending on which version of the program you have, the menu might also say YYYYY. Then int hat menu, change to this tab, and then click on this button. That will bring up a menu which is called ZZZZZZ. In there, click on this button and fill in this.

which is how a lot of solutions for GUI-only programs are described.

 

The instructions for changing language in Word is about 3 pages long, and that does not include the instructions for how to download the language pack, which is another 1.5 pages, plus separate instructions depending on which version of Office you got.

If the same thing could be done with a command or two then you would see that get recommended way more often than the GUI way of doing it.