Security updates for Windows 7 ostensibly end tomorrow, but also officially continue until 2023

[jagdtigger]

Well that explains a lot....

[Donut417]

48 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Actually, MS has admitted that they are using non-insider users as beta testers.

 

https://www.techspot.com/news/77846-microsoft-admits-non-insiders-beta-testing-windows-updates.html

 

So they are barely testing internally and not testing externally. I guess that’s why they have shit QA. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Not saying you.

 

But there are people like you who take my concerns and say I did something wrong. When I know I did not. That I did not have issues and its all in my head. Which makes it very frustrating. 

And those people need to stop, however there are a few here who are doing things to their PC which are causing them to break then telling everyone not to update.

 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

So are you saying you skipped the update that reset default programs then?

So either you do, or don't? Why do these discussions always have to jump to extremes? You did not post "you're not allowed to tell people the problems are less", you posted "don't". 

 

I don't find that [less] constructive to discussion. 

 

PS, which brings me back to the "other people deny our experiences" comment. While not as problematic as Win10, my allergies (thankfully not life threatening) are painful. So for 30 years "don't have milk in it" has been "because *I* am fine with milk" the others say and turns out, the things did have milk in it, and I was ill, and it was not in my head. So here, your "don't have problems" is, there are problems, but *I* think it's fine you say, so my problems are of no concern? Yeah... I'll back away from those thought processes towards others.

 

You missed the point entirely. 

7 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Actually, MS has admitted that they are using non-insider users as beta testers.

 

https://www.techspot.com/news/77846-microsoft-admits-non-insiders-beta-testing-windows-updates.html

 

 

2 year old article that tells us what we already knew.   When you cluck update now it gives you all the beta updates, when you leave it on auto updates it only installs the tested updates.  MS should be warning people about this when you click the button, the "You're up to date" heading with the big green tick is not enough when the button installs beta updates.

 

The other scary thing is people in this thread have responded to that article as if it is new news,  which makes me wonder how much they really understand about the update system while telling everyone how crap it is.

 

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

2 year old article that tells us what we already knew.   When you cluck update now it gives you all the beta updates, when you leave it on auto updates it only installs the tested updates.  MS should be warning people about this when you click the button, the "You're up to date" heading with the big green tick is not enough when the button installs beta updates.

 

The other scary thing is people in this thread have responded to that article as if it is new news,  which makes me wonder how much they really understand about the update system while telling everyone how crap it is.

So what? A lot of people here still didn't know it.

[SpikeSpiegel]

 

[mr moose]

50 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

So what? A lot of people here still didn't know it.

And yet they are happy to pontificate the erroneous (and silly) belief that updates are dangerous and people should avoid them.

 

EDIT: point being people should leave the update advice to those who actually understand the system.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And yet they are happy to pontificate the erroneous (and silly) belief that updates are dangerous and people should avoid them.

 

EDIT: point being people should leave the update advice to those who actually understand the system.

So, no updates have ever bricked computers? I had to restore images images because they bricked or cripped my computers, had nagware, or had spyware (and don't tell me MS doesn't put spyware on our computers) so many times, I got fed up and stopped updating.

 

I'm now on Linux Mint and no longer use Windows so, frankly, I don't give the north end of a south bound furry liitle rodent what MS and Windows does anymore. While I still have a lot to learn, Linux is faster, lighter, and, once I learned what I was doing, easier to use. I have yet to have an update cause a problem or have it rammed down my throat (although I always install the updates when they come down the pike, I'm not forced to).

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

So, no updates have ever bricked computers?

Where did I say anything that even resembles that,  in fact when did anyone in this thread or on this forum ever make a claim like that?  Why would you even ask a question like that? it has no bearing on what I said.

 

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I had to restore images images because they bricked or cripped my computers, had nagware, or had spyware (and don't tell me MS doesn't put spyware on our computers) so many times, I got fed up and stopped updating.

 

What are you trying to argue here?  You have gone from a strawman argument (yes asking about bricked updates has nothing to do with what I said) to claiming MS crippled your computer by putting malware on it.   

 

You'll have to forgive me if I don't entertain that,  There are lots of things I won't argue against, flat earth, vaccines being dangerous etc.  This is one of them.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I'm now on Linux Mint and no longer use Windows so, frankly, I don't give the north end of a south bound furry liitle rodent what MS and Windows does anymore. While I still have a lot to learn, Linux is faster, lighter, and, once I learned what I was doing, easier to use. I have yet to have an update cause a problem or have it rammed down my throat (although I always install the updates when they come down the pike, I'm not forced to).

 

Go with whatever OS floats your boat,  Want to use linux because you had issues with windows then by all means, just don't make the mistake of thinking that you having an issue means that that issue is representative of the update system as a whole.   I've had Linux brick my PC before, but I am not about to run around telling people not to update their Linux systems.

 

 

 

 

Now that I have addressed everything that had nothing to do with the post you quoted, I will reiterate what I said,   People who do not understand how the update system works and the importance of updating should not be giving advice or recommending people avoid updates.   By now anyone who doesn't know that the "check for updates" button installs beta updates are the ones who should be asking for advice, not giving it. 

 

 

[mr moose]

On 1/24/2020 at 8:49 AM, mr moose said:

 

As I said there are too many factors we don't know, yes Australia has more computers in its government* and a much higher cost of business.  As I pointed out simply installing a new network in just one agency in one state can cost up to $100M.   $8.8M is a not unexpected for the whole country. 

 

 

*that require windows 7 for now.

Just to add a bit to this post,  I have visited 4 hospitals now, One Urban public, 2 private and the Alfred in Melbourne (large public).   Everything was updated to windows 10, all the Nurse station PC's, Admin,  Embedded portable diagnostics (Ultrasound and IV machines), the portable patient record PC's/monitoring devices and various other tech device I have no idea what they do.   It seems from the outside that most of the health system has updated what it can before the change. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

*snip*

 

Seeing as we are not communicating well I'll elaborate.

 

Some updates cause problems, We know this.  However what we also know is that it isn't a widespread issue that effects the majority of users.  We know that updates are very important to maintain the security of your computer.   This is a position held by the vast majority of security experts in the industry.  It is a position that is born out in example after example. 

 

We also know that waiting one week to update gives you time to see if the update has any intrinsic issues that would cause a problem. We know from corporate networks that waiting 7 days to update yields the most stable update results.  Therefore the best advice is to hold  of updates until one week.  The worst advice is to not update at all.  Some where in the middle is all the other considerations like hardware, having some things updated but not others.  Running older versions of software or having only some windows updates installed and of course there is all the other programs installed that just conflict with WU for many unknown reasons. Software that edits the registry and AV are the worst for it. 

 

If someone knows so little about the update system that they do not understand what the "check for updates" button actually does, then they should not be giving advice. 

 

If someone has a personal experience that is bad they should tells us about it. More information is better. However if people are only interested in saying "my update failed = MS bad" and aren't willing to elaborate on everything they did and the situation it happened in, then no one benefits from it.   I am happy to tell people I have no update issues, but I explain what I do and how my system is setup up so people understand.  I do not just say it works fine and leave it at that.   My current settings are not optimal/preferred for everyone,  thus the fact my updates haven't failed yet is irrelevant to them.

 

 

Acknowledging the need for updates is not the same as ignoring that updates sometimes fail.  Many people in this thread have gone into detail about how MS try to avoid consequences from update failures and how we can mitigate against it too.  Nothing is 100% though and just because failures occur sometimes (not all the time and not as frequently as people make out) does not mean it is wise to avoid all of them.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by wkdpaul

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

Overall I agree with you but there are some things I would like to counter to.

 

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

However what we also know is that it isn't a widespread issue that effects the majority of users.

I'd say that this isn't entirely true.

First of all, there have been widespread issues with Windows update. For example updates that reset user preferences (like default PDF reader to Microsoft Edge, resetting privacy settings to collect more data, etc) have happened, and they have affected everyone. Or the update that uninstalled several programs (like AnyConnect, CCleaner, etc). That affected everyone who had those programs installed, although most people didn't have that installed.

This mostly happened in the beginning and it seems like Microsoft have gotten better at it. But if I had to guess a lot of people will not classify resetting settings as an "issue". I do however, and I think a lot of people do. Other issues like the update which deleted peoples' files have been things that affect a minority of people though.

 

But more importantly, I think that while each individual update fuck up only affects a minority of users, there have been so many that I would not be surprised if a majority of users have been affected by some update-related issue. If each update causes an issue for 1% of users, then after 50 updates, 50% of your users will have had some issue. You might point to each update and go "well it only affected 1% of users so it's not a big deal", but then you're missing the bigger picture stuff.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

We know from corporate networks that waiting 7 days to update yields the most stable update results.

7 days seems a bit short to me. I don't think any of the corporations I work for has such a short testing period. Maybe for some trivial updates, but for the major releases (which happens twice a year) the testing period has been more like ~1 month.

 

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Software that edits the registry and AV are the worst for it. 

I think this gets a lot of unsubstantiated blame. So far I have not seen any update related issue where the description is something along the lines of "causes issues if X or Y is set in the registry". I have seen lots of things get blamed (and proven) for update issues, like anti-virus software or drivers, but never registry edits. I mean, if registry entries caused issues then it would be really easy for Microsoft to fix it. It is far easier to check and change registry entries than it is checking and changing anti-virus software or drivers. The registry is basically just a big text file that doesn't have any function of its own.

 

Anyway, what bothers me with this is that a lot of people who are quick to blame "registry edits" for update issues are the same people who goes "you don't like X about Windows 10? But you can change it!" and then post some registry edit or something. I don't think you can have it both ways. If you ask me, if someone has suggested someone else to change a registry entry, or apply a GPO or something, then you disqualify yourself from going "well it's your fault Windows update failed because you made this change", because you can't have it both ways. You can't point to the registry or GPOs to show flexibility and freedom in Windows when it's convenient, and then blame users for using the tools Microsoft has provided when Microsoft's updates causes issues.

 

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

If someone knows so little about the update system that they do not understand what the "check for updates" button actually does, then they should not be giving advice. 

While I totally agree, I also think that Microsoft's has fucked up massively by making "check for updates" download and install unreleased updates. I mean, clicking "check for updates" should not be equal to "I want to be a beta tester!". That's fucking retarded and I think whoever came up with that idea at Microsoft deserve to be fired. Also, they didn't even tell us about it until people started having issues. How the hell were users suppose to know if they weren't told about it and Microsoft changed the behavior of a core function without any announcement?

[leadeater]

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

7 days seems a bit short to me. I don't think any of the corporations I work for has such a short testing period. Maybe for some trivial updates, but for the major releases (which happens twice a year) the testing period has been more like ~1 month.

7 days is shorter than a typical business update model but it is long enough for an update to be revised or withdrawn. Larger updates, Build updates, generally aren't pushed out at all and it's a year between each one actually getting rolled out. Cumulative security updates are the ones that should be targeted to be installed within that month window.

 

Like I posted few a pages back all easy to configure options in every edition of Windows under the new Settings panel, it's really not hard to find.

 

Thing is the defaults are set to 0 days, not a problem in itself but if you are trying to make sure the updates are stable and you and every single other person sets 7 days for example then the same issue is just getting delayed 7 days. So there is a bit of give and take here, updates needs to be more reliable but if you do feel you have more problems with updates than you should then delay by however many days you think you should. There's still going to be a large number of computers getting updated in the corporate sector through the targeted trial update computer groups and that will weed out the more common issues especially with things like AV.

 

Setting active hours and delayed updates really is not hard, if you can find your way to Facebook and can figure out how to create a profile and post you can achieve this.

 

However these options should be OOBE questions Windows asks when you install it so even if you don't change them you at least either know they exist of have been shown they do. I get the feeling even though Microsoft gives these options they don't really actually want home users to change them, less people subjected to testing means they have to do more.

 

Oh and even though I know how clicking check updates works it pisses me off to no end that it's done like that, sometimes I want to trigger a check for updates and see what is there and I do not want them to install. Having to use cli to do it when there was previously a perfectly functional button that did it is stupid, check for updates then install not check for updates and install. Bare minimum why is it like that on server OS.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

7 days is shorter than a typical business update model but it is long enough for an update to be revised or withdrawn. Larger updates, Build updates, generally aren't pushed out at all and it's a year between each one actually getting rolled out. Cumulative security updates are the ones that should be targeted to be installed within that month window.

Not following you here. Are you saying that the businesses you work with delay the larger releases for up to a year?

The ones I have been to usually delay them like two months or so. Some a bit shorter, some a big longer.

Or are you saying that the major updates only happens once a year from Microsoft? Because the screenshot you posted (the one with semi-annual) is the channel where you get 2 major updates a year, not one.

 

If you have everything configured like in the screenshot, you will get a minimum of 2 major updates every year.

[TechyBen]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

Spoiler

 

No need for that.

 

But seeing as we are not communicating well I'll elaborate.

 

Some updates cause problems, We know this. 

 

However what we also know is that it isn't a widespread issue that effects the majority of users.

Spoiler

  We know that updates are very important to maintain the security of your computer.   This is a position held by the vast majority of security experts in the industry.  It is a position that is born out in example after example. 

 

We also know that waiting one week to update gives you time to see if the update has any intrinsic issues that would cause a problem. We know from corporate networks that waiting 7 days to update yields the most stable update results.  Therefore the best advice is to hold  of updates until one week.  The worst advice is to not update at all.  Some where in the middle is all the other considerations like hardware, having some things updated but not others.  Running older versions of software or having only some windows updates installed and of course there is all the other programs installed that just conflict with WU for many unknown reasons. Software that edits the registry and AV are the worst for it. 

 

If someone knows so little about the update system that they do not understand what the "check for updates" button actually does, then they should not be giving advice. 

 

If someone has a personal experience that is bad they should tells us about it. More information is better. However if people are only interested in saying "my update failed = MS bad" and aren't willing to elaborate on everything they did and the situation it happened in, then no one benefits from it.   I am happy to tell people I have no update issues, but I explain what I do and how my system is setup up so people understand.  I do not just say it works fine and leave it at that.   My current settings are not optimal/preferred for everyone,  thus the fact my updates haven't failed yet is irrelevant to them.

 

 

Acknowledging the need for updates is not the same as ignoring that updates sometimes fail.  Many people in this thread have gone into detail about how MS try to avoid consequences from update failures and how we can mitigate against it too.  Nothing is 100% though and just because failures occur sometimes (not all the time and not as frequently as people make out) does not mean it is wise to avoid all of them.

 

"I am not made ill by milk, so I will let you get ill when you get exposed to milk". Or are you saying, other people's decisions and things that affect them are reason to not do the same as you?

Win 7 last update *broke* some desktop wallpapers. [insert a ton of facepalming and ROLFing smileys here). That's minour, but also non-user friendly. So... again. Am I making it up that I do not like forced updates (Win 19 style) because they *will* at times break my system, or not?

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

However these options should be OOBE questions Windows asks when you install it so even if you don't change them you at least either know they exist of have been shown they do. I get the feeling even though Microsoft gives these options they don't really actually want home users to change them, less people subjected to testing means they have to do more.

I'm sure Microsoft doesn't.  It likely still has flashbacks to the Blaster worm, which wreaked havoc in part because many people didn't bother to patch Windows XP/2000 even though the fix had been available for a while.  This makes it more likely that the people who delay security updates are those who understand the consequences.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not following you here. Are you saying that the businesses you work with delay the larger releases for up to a year?

Yes the ones that actually update the Windows build are not commonly rolled out more than once a year because they are effectively an upgrade of the OS, they don't have anything to do with security only new features so unless you need them they are not time sensitive. Those updates are also the ones with the most problems.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you have everything configured like in the screenshot, you will get a minimum of 2 major updates every year.

That's just my home computer set to the maximum possible values for the purpose of showing what they are, it's not what I actually use anywhere.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, TechyBen said:

"I am not made ill by milk, so I will let you get ill when you get exposed to milk". Or are you saying, other people's decisions and things that affect them are reason to not do the same as you?

Win 7 last update *broke* some desktop wallpapers. [insert a ton of facepalming and ROLFing smileys here). That's minour, but also non-user friendly. So... again. Am I making it up that I do not like forced updates (Win 19 style) because they *will* at times break my system, or not?

 

I don't think I can find a simpler way to say it,   Updates causing issues for some users is not enough of a problem in and of itself (either in numbers or severity) to out weigh the importance of updates, especially when there are precautions you can take to mitigate 99.9% update issues. 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

I think this gets a lot of unsubstantiated blame. So far I have not seen any update related issue where the description is something along the lines of "causes issues if X or Y is set in the registry". I have seen lots of things get blamed (and proven) for update issues, like anti-virus software or drivers, but never registry edits. I mean, if registry entries caused issues then it would be really easy for Microsoft to fix it. It is far easier to check and change registry entries than it is checking and changing anti-virus software or drivers. The registry is basically just a big text file that doesn't have any function of its own.

 

Anyway, what bothers me with this is that a lot of people who are quick to blame "registry edits" for update issues are the same people who goes "you don't like X about Windows 10? But you can change it!" and then post some registry edit or something. I don't think you can have it both ways. If you ask me, if someone has suggested someone else to change a registry entry, or apply a GPO or something, then you disqualify yourself from going "well it's your fault Windows update failed because you made this change", because you can't have it both ways. You can't point to the registry or GPOs to show flexibility and freedom in Windows when it's convenient, and then blame users for using the tools Microsoft has provided when Microsoft's updates causes issues.

 

 

I read an article about a year ago that was an in depth look at why some peoples updates failed causing issues (bricking, boot loops etc) and why others didn't.  I really wish I could find it again but it has either been pulled or it's buried under a flood of articles a with the same search terms (update failure causes etc).  From memory it was saying the biggest cause of update failures was 3rd party software and hardware drivers that were not adequately being maintained to operate with the changing windows environment.  I don't know exact what bits MS change when they update or what needs to be maintained by 3rd party software vendors.    I mention the registry because that is what I remember reading,  not because people may have edited it themselves or done something to it trying to fix another issue.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

While I totally agree, I also think that Microsoft's has fucked up massively by making "check for updates" download and install unreleased updates. I mean, clicking "check for updates" should not be equal to "I want to be a beta tester!". That's fucking retarded and I think whoever came up with that idea at Microsoft deserve to be fired. Also, they didn't even tell us about it until people started having issues. How the hell were users suppose to know if they weren't told about it and Microsoft changed the behavior of a core function without any announcement?

 

I can't even work out why they do it.  It would be fine if there was a warning, but it's like they are inviting people to have problems (not a smart business move).

 

 

[brain__washed]

Hmm, I've had the pleasure of updating quite a few machines for the company I work in. The experience has varied wildly across systems. Our secretary still had Windows 7 running, and so did I. I updated her machine straight to 1909, she walked in on Monday and commented that it felt only the Task bar had changed, she was able to carry on working right where she left off before the weekend.

 

On my own workstation, that, for software compatibility reasons needed 1807, required 1,5 day of setting up, fixing broken software and as a finale, the GPU literally blew up (FirePro vapor chamber went *poof*, probably unrelated however).

 

So, for some people, the update is probably just fine, while others will have massive problems. That's how it's been ever since Windows 98, and probably the way it's going to be in the future.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Here is a snippet from the latest EFF article, which was talking about HTTPS and public wifi access points:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/why-public-wi-fi-lot-safer-you-think

Quote

The best defense is to always keep your software up-to-date so it has the latest bug fixes.

 

So, <where is your> excuse now?

Edited January 30, 2020 by wkdpaul
cleanup

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, TechyBen said:

"You are not important enough for us to stop feeding you milk". Ok. I understand. As said. I'll be off then. Enjoy your "club" on Win 10.

 

If you are putting windows updates in the same category as bottle feeding then you are being very disingenuous to the subject.    Not at the very least being petulant treating  windows 10 as if it is some sort of us v them activity. 

[Blademaster91]

On 1/29/2020 at 4:13 PM, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

*snip*

It couldn't possibly be completely valid reasons like MS pushing insider updates to regular users, not testing updates before pushing them out, or updates randomly deleting files from users documents folders.

On 1/29/2020 at 4:11 PM, Colonel_Gerdauf said:

Here is a snippet from the latest EFF article, which was talking about HTTPS and public wifi access points:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/why-public-wi-fi-lot-safer-you-think

 

So, to the people saying not to update blah blah blah: what is your fairytale excuse now?

Updates aren't going to save you from someone getting your data over an open wifi network, lol. I wouldn't trust unsecured wifi at all.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

It couldn't possibly be completely valid reasons like MS pushing insider updates to regular users, not testing updates before pushing them out, or updates randomly deleting files from users documents folders.

 

Not completely valid, but there is a difference between being concerned about such things happening and avoiding updates altogether or arguing they are nothing but trouble. 

3 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Updates aren't going to save you from someone getting your data over an open wifi network, lol. I wouldn't trust unsecured wifi at all.

It will help reduce risk though, that is something that will not change no matter how much you trust or don't trust an open network.  Something doesn't need to be 100% effective in order to be the better option.  

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

14 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

It couldn't possibly be completely valid reasons like MS pushing insider updates to regular users, not testing updates before pushing them out, or updates randomly deleting files from users documents folders.

 

Updates aren't going to save you from someone getting your data over an open wifi network, lol. I wouldn't trust unsecured wifi at all.

You have missed, and even dodged, the point here. What EFF is saying: with the fact that almost everything is run through HTTPS nowadays, the concerns about connecting to public wifi is largely moot. While metadata gathering is still a concern (and for that, you could use a VPN), it is not serious enough to affect most users.

 

As for the updates, I have already mentioned that in enterprise scenarios, delaying the update up to a week is acceptable (but not a month or a year as others here are mentioning). Anything beyond a week is absurd, as bugs found after that period of time since update release is for multiple reasons not worth anyone's time to get so scared over.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not completely valid, but there is a difference between being concerned about such things happening and avoiding updates altogether or arguing they are nothing but trouble. 

I assume you are lumping me in the latter category.

I have no problem with updates. For example I always keep my Android phone updated, my browser updated, and so on. Lots and lots of stuff I use are updated very frequently.

The problem I have is not with updates in general, it's specifically how Microsoft handles updates with Windows 10. I think it's terrible for a long list of reasons.

 

1) They are forced. Even though I believe 99% of people should run up to date software, there is always that 1% which need control over it, and those should have that control provided to them. And no, "some people might misuse it" is not a valid excuse to lock your products down. By the same logic we should ban all email because it's a primary cause of virus attacks.

 

2) Their updates has been really unstable. They have gotten somewhat better over the years, but they still seem pretty plagued with issues. Settings being reset to defaults and programs being uninstalled are just some examples of updates that were not isolated issues, but happened to everyone (unless you ran with default settings, or didn't have some of the programs installed like AnyConnect or CCleaner).

 

3) No granular control over the updates. I should be able to pick and choose which updates I install. I shouldn't have to run a WSUS server at home to get that capability. Sometimes some specific updates causes issues, and having to block 20 good updates just because the 21th patch causes issues is bad design which results in lower security overall.

 

4) Clicking "check for updates" should not cause your computer to download unreleased updates, and it's crazy that there isn't a warning popup or something to inform users about it. The only reason I know about it is just evidence that it's a problem, the infamous update that deleted peoples' files. If Microsoft hadn't done that massive fuck up and mentioned in their blog post that pressing "check for updates" labels you as a "seeker" who gets unreleased updates, I still wouldn't know about it.

 

5) Microsoft have so far been really rushed with their features updates and they have been half-baked at most. It took like a year between dark mode being released, and dark mode actually being usable. I don't want a bunch of half-baked and half-assed features being pushed to my computer constantly. Fully develop them before pushing them out dammit.

 

6) No detailed descriptions over what the updates does. Microsoft used to be great for this. If some update caused issues you could go in and look at exactly what the update did and which files were modified by it. Now updates are just big black boxes which does something, and if it fucks up your computer you have no way of knowing what happened or why. It feels like Microsoft are force feeding us something that tastes bad, and won't tell us what's in it. Just tell me what's inside it and why I am being forced to eat this and I would feel much better about it.

 

7) Microsoft's update system is pretty outdated. I shouldn't have to reboot my computer for these many updates. On top of that, a feature update should not be installed like a brand new OS (Windows essentially does a reinstall when you upgrade to a newer version). It's slow, annoying and outdated.

 

 

Fix these issues and I will gladly update my machine much more often. Microsoft has made quite a lot of improvements on some of these fronts and they deserve credit for it. The things mentioned above used to be far bigger issues than they are today, but they are still there. I think the old days of Windows 10 has left a bad taste for a lot of users as well. First impressions are important, and my first impression of Windows 10's update system was that it was awful and it made me actually think Microsoft made it terrible on purpose. Because how else would such a large company fuck up so badly?

It's the same with the spying stuff in Windows 10. It used to be awful (like, really really bad). Today it's far better (but I still wouldn't call it good), but it has left a bad taste for a lot of people.

If Windows 10 had been released today, in its current shape, and people just started upgrading from Windows 7, I think it would have gotten a much better reputation.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Today it's far better (but I still wouldn't call it good), but it has left a bad taste for a lot of people.

Far better is a bit of overstatement IMO, it might be less bad, maybe. But its still a paid OS so its absurd that it datamines users as a bonus and "nobody" cares about it..... What will be enough to get these ppl pull thier head out of the sand?