Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

2 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

You could just disable the Windows Update Service. That's what I do. But then you don't get anything at all (which is what I want personally).

i want updates. i care about my security. however i sometimes want to leave my pc on for 24 to 48 hours without it rebooting on it's own.

 

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I understand.  It sucks for you, but you are in the minority of tech users who would benefit from that one ability (and have the wherewithal to arrange suitable update procedures), meanwhile the other 600Million home users need updates automatic or they become part of botnets and spread malware.

it does. kinda annoying honestly. it would be nice if updates were managed by a cortana-like AI that would realize that i reboot my pc at least a few times a week.

[TempestCatto]

3 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

i want updates. i care about my security. however i sometimes want to leave my pc on for 24 to 48 hours without it rebooting on it's own.

 

it does. kinda annoying honestly. it would be nice if updates were managed by a cortana-like AI that would realize that i reboot my pc at least a few times a week.

Just have a good A/V, good VPN, and common sense. That's the best security right there. But I'm pretty sure you can schedule the updates, so I think you set it up to only install on certain days. Then it wouldn't restart until then, or I think you can set it to not even restart automatically. But then when you shutdown, it will update.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

1 minute ago, TempestCatto said:

Just have a good A/V, good VPN, and common sense. That's the best security right there. But I'm pretty sure you can schedule the updates, so I think you set it up to only install on certain days. Then it wouldn't restart until then, or I think you can set it to not even restart automatically. But then when you shutdown, it will update.

@mr moose siad that as well. i haven'tfound the option to schedule to certain days yet. if you know where it is tell me

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

@mr moose siad that as well. i haven'tfound the option to schedule to certain days yet. if you know where it is tell me

It's called update hours.

 

Click the start button and type update to search for an app, the second or third option should be "windows update settings". On that page you can select "change active hours". I have mine set to 8am until 5pm, I only need to leave the computer on for a day or two after update Tuesday and the thing hardly reboots on me. you could set the hours to: from 12am until 5 am and then just leave the pc on over night a couple of times after update Tuesday and that should have the same effect.

 

EDIT: Once it has done its update and rebooted if necessary after update Tuesday,  it shouldn't need to reboot again until the next month.  The only time it might is if a serious security update has been pushed through.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

macOS is free

It isn't really free. To get OSX, you have to buy Apple's hardware, which is set at a price premium.

2 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

and Linux is free

Linux is free because it's not worth paying for.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Linux is free because it's not worth paying for.

ouch

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I know your trying to make a point here but I think it got lost in a few lateral leaps and some sideways analogies.

 

Nope. I have literally no reason to accept anything you say. Likewise, I have no reason to stick to Windows 10 if it starts to cause problems. You yourself said this is a business deal between MS and the user. Well guess what, the user can go elsewhere (Mac, Android, Linux etc).

 

Or, we can act like adults and realise communication and business is a two way street, and if MS want to take control of their OS while on my computer, they may lose me as a customer.

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I understand.  It sucks for you, but you are in the minority of tech users who would benefit from that one ability (and have the wherewithal to arrange suitable update procedures), meanwhile the other 600Million home users need updates automatic or they become part of botnets and spread malware.

I think the feature should be there in Windows 10 Home to delay the updates if I need to have my PC on without restarting, most don't need all the features of Pro but may need to have their PC on for critical work, the option could be hidden in settings so most home users wouldn't delay the important security patches.

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

or they become part of botnets and spread malware.

This is pretty much false, even with updates it still happen and it always will. Why? Because the source of the problem isnt the missing updates but the person sitting in front of the PC. Up until last year December i used my Win7 PC to surf the web, the last tim e it seen updates was back in 2016, and it never had an infection, hell my AV didnt even had any job...

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Nope. I have literally no reason to accept anything you say. Likewise, I have no reason to stick to Windows 10 if it starts to cause problems. You yourself said this is a business deal between MS and the user. Well guess what, the user can go elsewhere (Mac, Android, Linux etc).

I've never actually said people should stick with windows if they find a more appropriate OS. Edit: in fact I have been a loud proponent that if windows isn't working for them they should try Linux or consider other options.

Quote

Or, we can act like adults and realise communication and business is a two way street, and if MS want to take control of their OS while on my computer, they may lose me as a customer.

I am already doing that, MS make a product and if you don;t like it you can always upgrade to enterprise or use Linux. 

 

11 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think the feature should be there in Windows 10 Home to delay the updates if I need to have my PC on without restarting, most don't need all the features of Pro but may need to have their PC on for critical work, the option could be hidden in settings so most home users wouldn't delay the important security patches.

I really don;t know how any of that would look.  I would assume if MS could make the whole process less obtrusive they would.

8 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

This is pretty much false, even with updates it still happen and it always will. Why? Because the source of the problem isnt the missing updates but the person sitting in front of the PC. Up until last year December i used my Win7 PC to surf the web, the last tim e it seen updates was back in 2016, and it never had an infection, hell my AV didnt even had any job...

What you have just claimed here is false, absolutely false.  off course keeping your system upto date helps prevent it become infected by malware and botnets.   You don't have to be a technical expert to know this.  Remember I have already linked the proof, non updated windows 7 computers were the main culprit for the spread of wannacry and it had nothing to do with the user. it was not a worm and it did not rely on user interaction, you only had to be linked to an infected network.

 

Remember when CCleaner was infected with malware, it was a tool recommended and used by many on these forums at that time.  The existence of spiders is still a thing using drive by downloads. 

 

You seem to forget that we are talking about the general public who use their computers and not enthusiasts who might retain a tight control over how their system is used.

[ZacoAttaco]

10 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Linux is free because it's not worth paying for.

Ok, now you've just gone too far, thankfully there are no hardcore Linux users in this thread.

 

Also IBM bought Red Hat for $34 Billion USD so they thought Linux was worth something...

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/ibm-buys-red-hat-in-us34-billion-deal-514631

 

My goal is not to derail this thread with a discussion on Linux however, so let's just move on.

[79wjd]

18 minutes ago, ZacoAttaco said:

Ok, now you've just gone too far, thankfully there are no hardcore Linux users in this thread.

 

Also IBM bought Red Hat for $34 Billion USD so they thought Linux was worth something...

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/ibm-buys-red-hat-in-us34-billion-deal-514631

 

My goal is not to derail this thread with a discussion on Linux however, so let's just move on.

I wouldn't quite equate RHEL with Linux being that the former is actually well supported.

[ZacoAttaco]

3 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

I wouldn't quite equate RHEL with Linux being that the former is actually well supported.

I understand it's an exaggeration but to say Linux, which is made up of many distros including Red Hat, is not worth paying for is just wrong. Like with anything, there are good implementations and bad implementations. It's just semantics in the end.

[Drak3]

Just now, ZacoAttaco said:

understand it's an exaggeration

No, it's not. Linux is not worth paying for at any consumer level.

 

1 minute ago, ZacoAttaco said:

Like with anything, there are good implementations and bad implementations

Good Linux implementations are ones that corporations create for themselves, by themselves, and keep to themselves. Highly customized and specialized to the point that they resemble nothing that we see.

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, JustAnotherTechGuy99 said:

 IF Microsoft allowed users to never update then only the most I.T. minded individuals would update their systems.

 

Even some of them don;t update, that why wannacry took out large corporations.  It highlighted just how lax some can be.  And with regard to IT minded individuals, well, we have one or two here that like to boast they never update and that updates don't reduce security security holes.  If the rest of the tech community won't attenuate that kind of rhetoric then I guess it's no wonder we have so many debates over the importance of updates.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

10 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:

Ok, now you've just gone too far, thankfully there are no hardcore Linux users in this thread.

i am one, but i'm also not stupid enough to explode in anger becuase i don't wanna get banned

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Even some of them don;t update, that why wannacry took out large corporations.  It highlighted just how lax some can be.  And with regard to IT minded individuals, well, we have one or two here that like to boast they never update and that updates don't reduce security security holes.  If the rest of the tech community won't attenuate that kind of rhetoric then I guess it's no wonder we have so many debates over the importance of updates.

Applying Windows updates is a bit like an upside down bell curve. As people get more experienced in computers the likelihood of actually applying those updates reduces, when you get experienced enough you start to realize that is stupid and install them again.

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Applying Windows updates is a bit like an upside down bell curve. As people get more experienced in computers the likelihood of actually applying those updates reduces, when you get experienced enough you start to realize that is stupid and install them again.

Except in the cases where updates cause issues (which happens quite often, although not every issues affects all users).

For example I doubt an experienced person would install the Windows update that broke Cisco AnyConnect when their clients rely on it just because "only inexperienced people don't install updates lol!".

 

I don't think updates is so simple that you can put a group of people into one bucket and say "these people are just ignorant" or "these people are the same ones".

[leadeater]

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Except in the cases where updates cause issues (which happens quite often, although not every issues affects all users).

For example I doubt an experienced person would install the Windows update that broke Cisco AnyConnect when their clients rely on it just because "only inexperienced people don't install updates lol!".

 

I don't think updates is so simple that you can put a group of people into one bucket and say "these people are just ignorant" or "these people are the same ones".

That's not even the point, you took the time to check the updates to make sure they are compatible ergo you are on the other side of the bell. Straight up not bothering/blocking is on the other side/tip.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Applying Windows updates is a bit like an upside down bell curve. As people get more experienced in computers the likelihood of actually applying those updates reduces, when you get experienced enough you start to realize that is stupid and install them again.

I just think in the grander scheme of things that there are too many humans in control.  Things will always go wrong somewhere, that doesn't mean people should stop trying to solve problems, hell it doesn't even mean the mess we have now isn't the best option. We're just not omnipotent enough to be perfect about it.

[TechyBen]

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I just think in the grander scheme of things that there are too many humans in control.  Things will always go wrong somewhere, that doesn't mean people should stop trying to solve problems, hell it doesn't even mean the mess we have now isn't the best option. We're just not omnipotent enough to be perfect about it.

Again. But should I let MS decide? Should MS be able to decide I cannot work today? I have Win 7 because I do not wish to give that control to MS. What they are doing to 10 makes things worse in that regards.

 

However, this is a mute point. The 7GB is a general cache, and there is nothing stopping say Steam from using it also, as well as Updates.

[GoldenLag]

On 1/24/2019 at 10:56 AM, firelighter487 said:

because macOS is free,

its free the same way OEM windows is "free".

 

it comes with the hardware

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

Again. But should I let MS decide? Should MS be able to decide I cannot work today? I have Win 7 because I do not wish to give that control to MS. What they are doing to 10 makes things worse in that regards.

 

However, this is a mute point. The 7GB is a general cache, and there is nothing stopping say Steam from using it also, as well as Updates.

Given that it's not forced on you and you can choose to use whatever OS you want, yeah, sure. Microsoft can do whatever they want with 10.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

Given that it's not forced on you and you can choose to use whatever OS you want, yeah, sure. Microsoft can do whatever they want with 10.

They can *try* to do whatever they want with their software running on my hardware. 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's not even the point, you took the time to check the updates to make sure they are compatible ergo you are on the other side of the bell. Straight up not bothering/blocking is on the other side/tip.

Checking updates takes time though, and you can not always allocate that time the day of the release. So blocking updates and then letting them through once they have been tested is a pretty valid strategy if you ask me.

 

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I just think in the grander scheme of things that there are too many humans in control.  Things will always go wrong somewhere, that doesn't mean people should stop trying to solve problems, hell it doesn't even mean the mess we have now isn't the best option. We're just not omnipotent enough to be perfect about it.

I am pretty sure Microsoft has demonstrated that they are not exactly omnipotent enough to be perfect about updates either. I prefer being in control of my own computer.

 

I guess you can think of it like with self driving cars. Humans make mistakes, but I am not sure replacing all drivers with self driving cars is a good idea until the system is almost perfect.

 

Right now I think it's a stretch to say Microsoft is even "decent" with update quality. They are far from when I would feel comfortable handing the wheel over to them, and every time an update has issues they slip even further in my eyes. Maybe if they don't have any issues that could affect me in all of 2019 I might turn on automatic updates for 2020. None of this "shit we need to pull this update because it is deleting files on our customers' computers" or "oops, this update reset a bunch of settings which benefits us but screws customers over. Sorry".