Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[GoodBytes]

3 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Then if people complain that all their downloads suddenly go away and they need to cover their work. Drakes method is better because it enforces the need to learn and manage storage, without losing data. If they run out, it will say they need to remove some files before they can download, other system services will be unaffected.

 

I think it’s one of those things that is simple to setup and you just don’t think of it at the time.

It's disabled by default. But if you want to learn how to manage your data, just have the discipline to actually sort your data and delete things by hand.

 

All you get with Drake method is the user opening Open instead of Save, and now the Temp folder is filling up. Or maybe get calls on why sometimes it opens, others not and saves out of space, because they pick mixing open or save.

[Guest]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

It's disabled by default.

And if you want to learn how to manage your data, just have the discipline to actually sort your data and delete things by hand.

 

All you get with Drake method is them doing Open instead of Save, and now the Temp folder is filling up.

Both options certainly have their major faults. Certainly not worth saving 10 bucks when upgrading in this current market.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

All you get with Drake method is the user opening Open instead of Save, and now the Temp folder is filling up. Or maybe get calls on why sometimes it opens, others not and saves out of space, because they pick mixing open or save.

If they're that dumb, they're doing that anyways.

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

So many secnarios where computers were sold as being good enough for long term... 5-10 year use are now shown to have been lies. 

If you believed the manufactures have lied because 10 years later your drive would be fine with its size.........I mean come on dude....120 were barely in the affordably range then. 

[jagdtigger]

38 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

It has reduced a lot of problems:

 

And created more issues, like when it throws in the towel when it sees another drive in the system and errors out, does not respect user config, reinstalls/installs unneeded junk, wiping out linux partitions, etc........

 

It seems to me it creates more problem than how many it "solves".

43 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

common issue is conflicts which the OS / packaging system doesn't know how to deal with.

Good to know, never happened on my end... (knock, knock, knock.....) Despite the fact that i have a whole bunch of software installed, and many more comes and goes as i try out new ones.

 

46 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Useful in the days of 56K internet.. not so much in always connected devices of today.

Not everyone is lucky enough to get gigabit speeds, hell some places dont even have 100Mbit(or even worse).... Its a neat and useful thing to have. This way if i reinstall one of my machines(pretty rare) or do a dist-upgrade(usually from one LTS to the next one) i dont have to waste time on waiting for downloads to finish. (Not to mention this way it wont interfere with my home game server[its open for my friends, they would be pretty pissed if i crush their party ])

[Uttamattamakin]

48 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

If you believed the manufactures have lied because 10 years later your drive would be fine with its size.........I mean come on dude....120 were barely in the affordably range then. 

Context of the thread at that time... Talking about large institutions who only upgrade once every 7-10 years.  
(Think of how many PC based cash registers you see still say IBM). 

 

i.e. the colleges I teach at often have a very VERY old computer in the classroom for conducting lecture or doing anything else.  Computers in the labs are often quite old (at least for scientific use scenarios.)  

 

Then there are the many many individual users who were sold on cheap but adequate computers who are now screwed basically because MS is lazy. 

[mynameisjuan]

7 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Then there are the many many individual users who were sold on cheap but adequate computers who are now screwed basically because MS is lazy. 

Fuck no. Blame Microsoft because you bought a drive that is 32GBs 10 years ago? How the fuck is that their problem. 

 

They are avoiding people who bought these laptops and tried updating, ran out of space and something fucked up and they were left without a PC for a bit. Not fucking lazy. They cannot control hardware. 

[Drak3]

I like the 10 years ago bit.

 

10 years ago was the release of Windows 7. We knew before then that 32GB was insufficient for a PC. We learned that in the Vista era.

[Arika]

45 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And created more issues, like when it throws in the towel when it sees another drive in the system and errors out, does not respect user config, reinstalls/installs unneeded junk, wiping out linux partitions, etc........

 

It seems to me it creates more problem than how many it "solves".

Good to know, never happened on my end... (knock, knock, knock.....) Despite the fact that i have a whole bunch of software installed, and many more comes and goes as i try out new ones

 

Zero issues with any w10 update

 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

They overlook many things, this """OS""" come out several years ago but its still a bugfest. Stop defending them because its boring as hell...

 

Is this really how you think?

 

Are you so wound up in hating it that anyone who is rational about it is viewed as "defending it"?   I've said on multiple occasions the updates system isn't the best, I agree no one likes forced updates, but if you're rational about it you can understand why it is the way it is.  But there in lies the problem, you are not being rational.  You'd rather throw childish insults around than discuss the problem at hand.

 

You make out that the whole thing is so broken that no one can use it, news flash 100's of  millions of people never have issues.  You just need to understand the difference between cognitive bias and proper analysis.  Searching for threads on update issues will show you all the update issues, this doesn't mean it's a massive problem for everyone. You can do this for every single product and service on the market.   You can do it for apple, you can do it for nvida and AMD you can even do it for Linux.  

 

It is clear you are driven by emotional ideals when you can't articulate a single reason why for any of your claims and nearly always resort to petulant insults then instead of actually addressing an issue you just mark a post as "funny", which I Might add, most people view as a childish way of acknowledging you don't know what you are talking about.

 

If it sounds like I am talking down to you it is because I am,  you have the audacity to accuse me of being boring when your posts amount to little more than school yard taunts.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Good to know, never happened on my end... (knock, knock, knock.....) Despite the fact that i have a whole bunch of software installed, and many more comes and goes as i try out new ones

 

Zero issues with any w10 update

 

Impossibru!

 

 

I will say, the few issues I've had with 10 all come down to something I did. Same for 8.1, Vista, and XP. 7 and 8 were a bit fucky for the first month or two.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

I like the 10 years ago bit.

 

10 years ago was the release of Windows 7. We knew before then that 32GB was insufficient for a PC. We learned that in the Vista era.

In the Vista era....I had a 220gb HDD back in fucking 2004.

 

It's been painfully obvious that 32gb was passable and nothing more from the early days of XP.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, 79wjd said:

In the Vista era....I had a 220gb HDD back in fucking 2004.

Not everyone did, and during the XP era, 32-40GB was enough for most people because they didn't have a bunch of large shit on their systems.

[TechyBen]

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete

 

 

Unless you're arguing that:

• Windows 95/98 is not obsolete as businesses still use that when newer versions don't support specific applications and interfaces they require.
• Muzzle loading rifles are not obsolete as they're still manufactured and used for hunting.
• 90's era vehicles are not obsolete as there is still a considerable amount of them in use today.

It's still fine now for anyone that doesn't save dozens of gigabytes in garbage they won't touch.

What planet are you on? That is the same definition I gave?

Ok. But which of those 3 things have forced updates? Huh? Huh? XD

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

That is the same definition I gave?

Maybe read past the first definition.

[TechyBen]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Maybe read past the first definition.

Me:Definition: "no longer produced or used; out of date."

You: : to make (something) old-fashioned or no longer useful : make obsolete.

 

The difference between "used" and "useful" is like... what now? (Or do you mean something else. You seem to be having difficulty saying what you mean. Plainly lay it down! ).

 

32 GB was poor... but guess what. It was supported by 10. Same with Android supporting 8GB. But guess what, the device does not force updates.

 

It's literally not a problem. But it is a sorry state for MS to be in with their OS deployment.

[Drak3]

Just now, TechyBen said:

Me:Definition: "no longer produced or used; out of date."

You: : to make (something) old-fashioned or no longer useful : make obsolete.

Both of those are correct definitions.

And by one of them, the machines are obsolete.

 

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

It was supported by 10

As a minimum. And for a minimal use case (meaning internet browsing), it's still technically enough.

[TechyBen]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Both of those are correct definitions.

And by one of them, the machines are obsolete.

 

As a minimum. And for a minimal use case (meaning internet browsing), it's still technically enough.

They are both used (definition 1 excluded then) and useful (definition 2 excluded then). Minimum == working. So still no problem. Again, I am having problems following your points.

 

The next "version" of Windows 10 will reserve 7GB. Can you tell me of any other update system or install system that does this in advance?

 

I can guess why MS is doing this. And it's not because users were filling up useable disk space (They already took out the system restore reserve option... I'll give you a guess why. So adding this new feature back in, means they are changing focus. Guess where it went from, and where to!!!).

 

[edit]

Ah, problem averted. I blame bad reporting. It is a "universal cache/store".

Quote

Instead we designed an elegant solution that would require new support being added to NTFS. The idea is NTFS provides a mechanism for the servicing stack to specify how much space it needs reserved, say 7GB. Then NTFS reserves that 7GB for servicing usage only. What is the effect of that? Well the visible free space on C : drops by 7GB, which reduces how much space normal applications can use. Servicing can use those 7GB however.

For a second there, I thought it was a forced storage area for MS software (OS or Apps) only. As in, a sure guarantee to squeeze in their apps no matter what, as even a full disk would always have "7gb" free to install new Candy Crush. XD

But if it's a universal store, then MS cannot abuse it, it's being used system wide, and any developer can unpack/cache into it.

 

Someone needs to update the first post?!

 

 

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Typically Megabytes. Like Windows. Hundreds of Megabytes if needed.

Except Apple doesn't force you to update, which is better than MS telling people to go pound sand.

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

No, unlike the Linux dev community, Apple is capable of moving on and adapting at a decent rate.

You can't compare a free OS to one that requires you to buy their computer just to use the OS.

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

No, it's a solution to update issues.

And the kicker, for over a decade, actual Windows users complained about not getting updates (because they don't do them) and updates failing (partially because they clutter their systems with too much shit).

 

So, basically, no matter what Microsoft does, people complain.

The complaining is because Windows shouldn't be forcing updates when there is no way to choose what gets installed, especially drivers which breaks stuff. Every Win10 feature update Windows forgets most of my settings and screws with sound drivers.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I can guess why MS is doing this.

I can tell you why. Microsoft changed the update system to address issues and complaints that were a result of the preceeding system.

 

7 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Can you tell me of any other update system or install system that does this in advance?

That's irrelevant. The new system is being done because the old system (which, btw, functionally the same as mist Linux and Unix distros as far as users are concerned) proved inadequate.

 

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

You can't compare a free OS to one that requires you to buy their computer just to use the OS.

Yes, I can.

 

Or should I use your logic and say you can't compare a free OS to a paid one?

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The complaining is because Windows shouldn't be forcing updates when there is no way to choose what gets installed, 

People have been complaining how Microsoft did updates for over a decade prior to 10. Now, they're actually addressing said complaints with Windows 10.

[Blademaster91]

41 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

I can tell you why. Microsoft changed the update system to address issues and complaints that were a result of the preceeding system.

Reserving 7GB for forced updates doesn't fix anything,it's a bandaid fix over the real problem of MS not optimizing updates.

41 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's irrelevant. The new system is being done because the old system (which, btw, functionally the same as mist Linux and Unix distros as far as users are concerned) proved inadequate.

The old system was fine unless you knew how to off updates on purpose, which isn't that different than finding workarounds to turn off updates in Windows 10. The "same functionality" of automatic updates is there in quite a few Linux distros but its easy to change.

41 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, I can.

 

Or should I use your logic and say you can't compare a free OS to a paid one?

Your comparison has been since Linux didn't work for your use case it should be a complete pile of shit for everyone and they should go buy a Mac instead if they don't like Windows.

41 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

People have been complaining how Microsoft did updates for over a decade prior to 10. Now, they're actually addressing said complaints with Windows 10.

Addressing the complaints by screwing over everyone that can't afford an update to screw up their system or update during important work, Microsoft fixed what wasn't broken with the previous update system.

[Arika]

54 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The complaining is because Windows shouldn't be forcing updates when there is no way to choose what gets installed,

Think of it in the way of Vaccines and herd immunity.

 

if people keep turning off their updates then computers will become susceptible to security holes/breaches etc etc. while some people know how to keep themselves safe, the majority of people do not, so if you give these people the option of disabling updates, or even parts of updates, then that's more people to potentially infect and more points in which the infection can spread from. whereas if you make it a requirement to update, then there's just the few outliers that are vulnerable and the risk is much lower.

 

Microsoft only has 2 options

 

1. Force updates and annoy the enthusiasts who think they should have full control over everything (minority)
2. Allow updates to be optional leaving the less tech savvy people at a much higher risk and then complain and blame microsoft that they didn't get critical updates to protect form the virus #1311 and hardware vulnerability #276 (Majority)

In trying to make an OS built for the majority of people (as of December 2018)

 

then yes, they are going to have to compromise to protect the majority of their customers at the expense of annoying the (vocal) minority because i guarantee, most windows 10 users don't experience the issues you see on these forums, they probably don't even know that there are issues with the updates.

[TechyBen]

Yeah, polarization is peaked. Time for sunglasses. 

This is not the ideal solution. Other ones were there. It is a "backup" of their previous decision that System restore would be taken away to *free up space*. If this that come in to replace Sys restore, then fine.

It did not. They had a gap thus "to fix the problems" is less a correct statement but "to fix *their* problems" is better. They made this mess, now are having to correct for it (by not having a proper cache location, cache management, rollback management, update management etc etc).

 

Forced update to protect us all from the evils? Yeah. So guess how many times my PC has been hacked? Guess how many times a Windows update has failed (any version of windows).

 

But yeah, if forced updates is how we are going, then I'll just skip to an OS that teaches and trusts me to set a time and place to do it. MS could block your net use until you updated. Block your usb/cd use until you updated.

 

But nope, they force the update, thus it's not a vaccine. It's a service "upgrade" to the latest cash cow.

[RaccoonX]

Most of you are forgetting that some of these updates also have to do with keeping various brands of your rig supported by. True most of the system updates come from those companies.  But when mircrosoft has your cpu by the balls.  People dont seem to complain about the size of the update.  Just so you can keep playing fortnight. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by RaccoonX

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Forced update to protect us all from the evils? Yeah. So guess how many times my PC has been hacked? Guess how many times a Windows update has failed (any version of windows).

 

But yeah, if forced updates is how we are going, then I'll just skip to an OS that teaches and trusts me to set a time and place to do it. MS could block your net use until you updated. Block your usb/cd use until you updated.

 

Congratulations on not being hacked.  But that has nothing to do with updates or security for the masses.  As has already been pointed out in this thread too many times,  forced updates have had an effect on the number malware infections and updates have reduced serious malware infections in the past.   You know which version of windows didn't get wannacry? windows 10 you know which one did? windows 7 machines that were not updated.

 

By all means use whatever Os suits your needs, but if you think avoiding updates is wise move or that this is akin to locking internet/USb device use then you are missing the whole reason it was introduced.