New Windows 10 Update KB3213986 may cause issues in games on multi monitor systems

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Thats exactly my point. Not enough people to test every configuration. Its why people need to participate in the beta updates..

How is installing broken beta updates a solution to people who want to avoid broken release updates? Calling them beta is irrelevant if you are installing it anyway, you'll get all the symptoms anyway. On the contrary, the whole point of "beta" labeling is for people who doesn't want to risk to stay away. There really is no logic in complaining about people not using betas.

 

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I'm also inclined to believe that most of the time a Windows Update screws something up, it's rarely Windows' fault. Y

It was taking too long 

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

I'm about to blow your mind. Windows has had forced updates long before Windows 10, they just weren't as nearly frequent, as well as having a pop up notification that enabled the user to either delay it, or start it that moment.

I don't remember any such update on a home computer. I have seen that in enterprise setups, but that's because they sysadmin set it to automatic installs (so you are only prompted for restarts). In home installations of XP / windows 7 I've always had the choice to delay, not install, or even not check for updates at all.

[RexinOridle]

Who else is having problem with unfixable sfc /scannow?

[Drak3]

28 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't remember any such update on a home computer. I have seen that in enterprise setups, but that's because they sysadmin set it to automatic installs (so you are only prompted for restarts). In home installations of XP / windows 7 I've always had the choice to delay, not install, or even not check for updates at all.

Like I said, they've upped the frequency quite a bit, but it was still there.

At first, it would ask you to save and then it would restart to install the updates in 15 minutes, with a delay and cancel option. After so many days since the update's download to the system, 'restart' would be replaced with 'update and restart,' allowing one to shut down without updating. Then it would also replace 'shut down' with 'update and shut down.' It didn't matter if it were Windows XP, Vista, or 7, but they also didn't have random feature updates either.

 

With Windows 10, it doesn't take 2 weeks to get to that point, it takes until the update is downloaded, if feature updates aren't deterred.

 

I've dealt with it on my custom XP rig, and I've dealt with it on my Win 7 laptop multiple times, and even my defunct Vista laptop. Only reason I remember it is because of how much I hated it, at least with 10, I can set a range of 12 hours where it won't update.

[SkilledRebuilds]

I installed this yesterday afternoon, restarted and have been using my PC exclusively for over 12 hours in many varied windowed and fullscreen instances.

When editing I move a lot of windows around when they pop up when I do certain tasks.

 

Happy to say Im not yet affected, in the 12 ish hours inc restarts and varied multi-monitor usage.

But my system is pretty lightweight.

Win10 boots and all I load are Netlimiter/MsiAB on startup, Windows10 has been pretty good to me so far, Ive read some horror stories too.

 

I know that at any time it could happen.

Just reporting that myself

..it hasn't yet is all.

[LAwLz]

15 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

 

It's not an issue on Windows 7 because there you can just hide the update. It was even less of an issue before when you had full control over updates on Windows 7 (but Microsoft didn't like that so they fucked Windows 7 over too). 

On Windows 10 most people will just have this broken update rammed down their throats. 

 

If you remove control over updates from the user, then you take a far bigger responsibility if anything goes wrong with updates. 

 

I think it is absolutely mind blowing how someone can defend Microsoft sending out an update they know is broken, without giving users the option to not install it. 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

I'm about to blow your mind. Windows has had forced updates long before Windows 10, they just weren't as nearly frequent, as well as having a pop up notification that enabled the user to either delay it, or start it that moment.

This is 100% false. Windows 7 and earlier never had any forced updates. The only thing that came close was the Windows 10 installer which fooled users by using malicious tactics. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 hours ago, AresKrieger said:

Windows ME, no I won't touch that thing, 98 was good, xp was good, that thing was trash

I've had two friends who used Me without issue, though they didn't go on the internet with their computers. I've also heard a major source of Me's issues was mixing the use of VxD drivers and whatever driver model NT used, and they two didn't like each other.

 

Not trying to say Me is actually good or decent, but I've found some outliers.

[Mira Yurizaki]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If you remove control over updates from the user, then you take a far bigger responsibility if anything goes wrong with updates.

I think it is absolutely mind blowing how someone can defend Microsoft sending out an update they know is broken, without giving users the option to not install it. 

You were saying?

 

There are also workarounds to prevent Windows from downloading updates without going deep. But yeaaaah. I guess I can say how come there's no option to not install something.

 

EDIT: Ah wait, here it is maybe http://www.windowscentral.com/how-uninstall-and-reinstall-updates-windows-10#hide_update_windows10

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

This is 100% false. Windows 7 and earlier never had any forced updates. The only thing that came close was the Windows 10 installer which fooled users by using malicious tactics. 

No, it's not false at all. The only thing that changed was the time span before updates were force installed onto the system.

 

Unless you consider the eventual switch from "restart" and "shutdown to "update and restart" and "update and shutdown" after a few individual updates accumulated to be the exact opposite of forced (with the only workaround being hard shutting down the system, which still works on many systems running 10).

 

 

Forced updates only became an issue with Windows 10, and for a few reasons, some decent and others pathetic:

1) (decent) The timeframe for forced updates have been moved up considerably, typically being the day of release, or the first day that said update can be downloaded.

2) (spot on) Fewer man hours by professionals are spent on testing more feature/fix updates than previous Windows versions.

3) (pathetic) It's loosely related to Microsoft's Windows 10 adoption method switching to an underhanded tactic later in the free upgrade cycle.

4) (absolutely pathetic) It's ammo for anti Microsoft fan shills, and the rhetoric of why their OS is superior, when it reality, it's only different. Not better, not worse.

[LAwLz]

43 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

You were saying?

 

There are also workarounds to prevent Windows from downloading updates without going deep. But yeaaaah. I guess I can say how come there's no option to not install something.

 

EDIT: Ah wait, here it is maybe http://www.windowscentral.com/how-uninstall-and-reinstall-updates-windows-10#hide_update_windows10

1) You still need to download and install the update before you can remove it, for some reason. Terribly designed system don't you agree? Especially when we have had several updates which does actual damage (like corrupt GRUB and other such things).

2) Does that work for Windows 10 Home users?

 

 

37 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's not false at all. The only thing that changed was the time span before updates were force installed onto the system.

 

Unless you consider the eventual switch from "restart" and "shutdown to "update and restart" and "update and shutdown" after a few individual updates accumulated to be the exact opposite of forced (with the only workaround being hard shutting down the system, which still works on many systems running 10).

No, it is false. What you are describing happened when you had it set to update automatically. It was possible (even gave you the option during install) to set it to not install updates automatically.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

No, it is false. What you are describing happened when you had it set to update automatically. It was possible (even gave you the option during install) to set it to not install updates automatically.

What I'm describing happened regardless of automatic update settings (which I've always disabled because Microsoft's update schedule was far from ideal for me, and people like me).

 

Microsoft has not allowed users with stable internet access to not install updates outright in a long time, because they recognize how many users would skip nearly every security update. When that happens, users don't get patches that mitigate risk, and blame Microsoft for something that they failed to comprehend if/when something happens.

[LAwLz]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

What I'm describing happened regardless of automatic update settings (which I've always disabled because Microsoft's update schedule was far from ideal for me, and people like me).

 

Microsoft has not allowed users with stable internet access to not install updates outright in a long time, because they recognize how many users would skip nearly every security update. When that happens, users don't get patches that mitigate risk, and blame Microsoft for something that they failed to comprehend if/when something happens.

Then I will need some evidence. Because what you are describing has never happened to me nor to anyone else I know (which has automatic updates disabled), and what you are describing is exactly what happens when you have automatic updates enabled.

 

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[raphidy]

If you really need to hide an update, prevent it to reinstall after uninstalling it: download wushowhide.diagcab

from https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/3073930/how-to-temporarily-prevent-a-driver-update-from-reinstalling-in-windows-10 

[Fetzie]

It might have got lost in the thread, but are there any known configurations that have this issue?

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Fetzie said:

It might have got lost in the thread, but are there any known configurations that have this issue?

I don't think it was ever publicized since nobody knew.

[porina]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Then I will need some evidence. Because what you are describing has never happened to me nor to anyone else I know (which has automatic updates disabled), and what you are describing is exactly what happens when you have automatic updates enabled.

This is also my experience. If you set in the Win7 WU settings not to check for updates, it does not check for or install updates. This is how I run my compute farm as I can't afford for systems to do things other than what I tell it to. Actually, Win7 WU was so broken at times last year, even if you searched for updates it never completed without resorting to applying manual fixes...

[mynameisjuan]

10 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

How is installing broken beta updates a solution to people who want to avoid broken release updates? Calling them beta is irrelevant if you are installing it anyway, you'll get all the symptoms anyway. On the contrary, the whole point of "beta" labeling is for people who doesn't want to risk to stay away. There really is no logic in complaining about people not using betas.

You obviously dont understand how bugs are found. You do realize that beta is needed on a small scale to prevent large scale issue. If only a few people who had multi monitor setups (but all people who do dont do beta update because they are like most people here) were in the beta this would of been found and only affected a handful of people and the bug could be reported and fixed before being pushed to EVERYONE and affecting thousands of setups. If you dont want to participate in a beta when you know their testing staff is limited then dont complain when there is an issue. There are too many possible pc configurations for microsoft to test by them selves.

[LAwLz]

42 minutes ago, porina said:

This is also my experience. If you set in the Win7 WU settings not to check for updates, it does not check for or install updates. This is how I run my compute farm as I can't afford for systems to do things other than what I tell it to. Actually, Win7 WU was so broken at times last year, even if you searched for updates it never completed without resorting to applying manual fixes...

I still have this problem. I decided to reinstall my Windows 7 VM a few days ago and it never finished searching for updates. Some googling later I found out that you need to manually install some updates before it will start working again.

 

 

32 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

You obviously dont understand how bugs are found. You do realize that beta is needed on a small scale to prevent large scale issue. If only a few people who had multi monitor setups (but all people who do dont do beta update because they are like most people here) were in the beta this would of been found and only affected a handful of people and the bug could be reported and fixed before being pushed to EVERYONE and affecting thousands of setups. 

This bug was found, but they decided to push the update out anyway. Probably because they think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Not many people have more than one screen, not all of those use programs which runs in fullscreen exclusive mode, and out of that minority still left, not everyone might even be affected.

But this is exactly why you should let users decide which updates they want and don't want. Just because an update works on most computers doesn't mean it will work on all of them.

[AresKrieger]

8 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

You were saying?

 

snip

There are also workarounds to prevent Windows from downloading updates without going deep. But yeaaaah. I guess I can say how come there's no option to not install something.

 

EDIT: Ah wait, here it is maybe http://www.windowscentral.com/how-uninstall-and-reinstall-updates-windows-10#hide_update_windows10

Yep you can manually disable the updates, though it isn't as simple as it use to be and the most reliable method is via regedit (allows blocking in which ever fashion you want), if dx12 actually becomes a requirement I'll eventually switch to 10 but until then I'll stick with 7 unless it becomes like XP security wise.

 

Funny enough based on how the registry is set up it appears forced updates were a idea that came late in development

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Microsoft has not allowed users with stable internet access to not install updates outright in a long time, because they recognize how many users would skip nearly every security update. When that happens, users don't get patches that mitigate risk, and blame Microsoft for something that they failed to comprehend if/when something happens.

That is again not true. I have an almost fresh (SP1) Windows 7 install from late 2015 with updates disabled and I'm still to see any attempt at updating. With automatic updates disabled there is nothing downloading, much less installing itself, on that front.

8 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

You obviously dont understand how bugs are found. You do realize that beta is needed on a small scale to prevent large scale issue. If only a few people who had multi monitor setups (but all people who do dont do beta update because they are like most people here) were in the beta this would of been found and only affected a handful of people and the bug could be reported and fixed before being pushed to EVERYONE and affecting thousands of setups. If you dont want to participate in a beta when you know their testing staff is limited then dont complain when there is an issue. There are too many possible pc configurations for microsoft to test by them selves.

You obviously don't understand what coherence means, because you are incoherent af. First, you claim people must install betas. Then you claim betas must be installed on a small scale to prevent large scale issues. And then you revert yet again to conclude that small scale should actually be large scale to detect issues, contradicting your previous definition.

If you don't want to participate in beta is because you want to avoid issues. Then you are to blame when issues happen nonetheless?

You are proposing a catch 22 to users: install betas or suffer the consequences of all updates being betas. You get screwed either way, which kind of alternative is that?

 

"You know their testing staff is limited" is not a valid argument. We know it and we complain about it, because that's exactly how you avoid having betas for everyone: by doing your own (costly) damned testing if you can't get a large enough base of willing beta-testers (or "insiders", or whatever). Or you just say "fuck it, I'm releasing it as it is and we'll deal with bugs later", but then don't become butthurt if people express their discontent (funny thing is the butthurt doesn't come from M$ itself, but unexplainable fanboys).

[grayperview]

No problems with this update for me so far.

[mynameisjuan]

On 1/13/2017 at 4:53 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

You obviously don't understand what coherence means, because you are incoherent af. First, you claim people must install betas. Then you claim betas must be installed on a small scale to prevent large scale issues. And then you revert yet again to conclude that small scale should actually be large scale to detect issues, contradicting your previous definition.

If you don't want to participate in beta is because you want to avoid issues. Then you are to blame when issues happen nonetheless?

You are proposing a catch 22 to users: install betas or suffer the consequences of all updates being betas. You get screwed either way, which kind of alternative is that?

 

"You know their testing staff is limited" is not a valid argument. We know it and we complain about it, because that's exactly how you avoid having betas for everyone: by doing your own (costly) damned testing if you can't get a large enough base of willing beta-testers (or "insiders", or whatever). Or you just say "fuck it, I'm releasing it as it is and we'll deal with bugs later", but then don't become butthurt if people express their discontent (funny thing is the butthurt doesn't come from M$ itself, but unexplainable fanboys).

You call me incoherent af but you apparently can't fucking read. 

 

First where did I say people must install betas? I didnt. I said we need people to participate in beta, not for everyone to fucking install beta updates. 

Second I said it needs to be install on a small scale, as in a handful of multi-monitor setups, for them to test and report issue if it comes up and report it. 

Thrid, what the fuck are you saying when you said I" then you revert yet again to conclude that small scale should actually be large scale to detect issues, contradicting your previous definition" Where the hell do I mention and say small scale should be large scale? Like you are just making shit up at this point. 

 

Does microsoft need a bigger testing department. Damn right they do. But how big do you expect them to be? How do you plan to tackle MILLIONS of hardware configurations? Also on top of that how do you prioritize what to push? This issue came up in a security patch. So how do you decide whether to push out a patch and piss off a handful of people with multi-monitor setups or fix a critical security hole? By the sounds of it you rather the patch not be released which would be idiotic depending on the security holes fixed.

 

Look im not defending microsoft, I am defending ALL OS developers. Shit cannot be fixed before they know what is needed to be fixed, there is just too much shit to test with for any company to tackle it alone. Without beta participants to test the patch you dont know what will break. Even with this patch it didnt break all multi-monitor setups so even if a few participated in the beta it might not of been caught to begin with. 

 

What pisses me off are the people that come here to blame microsoft for bugs in updates are the same ones who say they want the ability to defer updates and then down the road bitch and whine because their system was infected or complain how vulnerable windows is. Shit happens with every company and their software updates. Shit breaks all the time, you think people would realize this has been this way for years and will never change. If an update breaks something revert back or remove the update. 

[divito]

I run four screens and haven't experienced any adverse effects. Can someone clarify, is it with games that are run across multiple monitors, or simply having multiple monitors while gaming?