Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[mr moose]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

if this is your argument, I guess people at conservapedia may actually be correct  then XD

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

[...] Beginning in 2016, the NFL has allowed displays of defiance against the National Anthem. Search on "demonic" and "NFL" on the internet and see nearly 4 million websites discussing it.

 

source: www.conservapedia.com/Unplug_the_NFL

 

 

Don't confuse an illustration of a common narrative with an argument regarding specifics. My post clearly in several places indicated why that was a common narrative and what it means.

  

[jagdtigger]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

How about you actually address the issue.   

The issue here is they are forcing updates, which they shouldnt do. Its not their job to keep safe everyone(aside from releasing updates*)....

 

*And by updates i mean quality ones, not the nowadays released lackluster ones.

[Blademaster91]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The issue here is they are forcing updates, which they shouldnt do. Its not their job to keep safe everyone(aside from releasing updates*)....

 

*And by updates i mean quality ones, not the nowadays released lackluster ones.

I'd really like to see MS release better quality updates, but everyone crapped on MS because they weren't installing updates, now everyone is upset that Windows is pushing updates to keep the OS more secure. It would be nice if there was an option to defer updates, but most average users would probably turn it off because waiting a few mins on an update is too inconvenient.

[Arika]

8 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The issue here is they are forcing updates, which they shouldnt do. Its not their job to keep safe everyone(aside from releasing updates*)....

 

*And by updates i mean quality ones, not the nowadays released lackluster ones.

the time before "forced" updates was the internet complaining that windows gets too many viruses and everyone should go to Mac

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

The issue here is they are forcing updates, which they shouldnt do. Its not their job to keep safe everyone(aside from releasing updates*)....

 

*And by updates i mean quality ones, not the nowadays released lackluster ones.

 

It is their job to look after their product and their clients.   The OS has to be updated to remain secure And it's not just one end user that suffers if they are compromised.   Maybe if you don't want forced updates you can find another way to get people to update voluntarily.

 

 

 

 

[porina]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

However the reason is moot if you don't update then lose everything to malware.

If. I've had exactly zero successful malware attacks in Vista+ era. The nearest I had to a successful malware/virus attack was a browser hijack in IE6 days. Plus I have a backup strategy on top of that, which I've only ever needed once due to ram corruption on one system. Nothing to do with malware.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

  As I and a few others have said, if you power cycle your pc regularly and have updates all set to recommended (including active hours set) and don't mess with it, those forced restarts and update installs are very rare.  I had one last year. 

Nice if it works for your circumstances, but my point it, it doesn't work for all.

 

Configured Win7 system just worked better for me overall. When I choose to push a button, it downloads and install updates. Push another button, it restarts. That's all I want. In that way it wont get in the way of other things I do. Auto-updates costs me time and money.

[jagdtigger]

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

but most average users would probably turn it off because waiting a few mins on an update is too inconvenient.

 

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Maybe if you don't want forced updates you can find another way to get people to update voluntarily

For simplicity i answer to these together. The solution here would be an update system like linux has, it updates then restarts programs/services as needed(or leave them running), the only time you need to reboot is kernel updates. It doesnt annoy users, not a resource hog like WU, and it is faster too.

But MS will never do this because the OS is one big pile of spaghetti code AFAIK.....

[LAwLz]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 what are you talking about, it was a pretty simple premise: idiots don't know what they are doing, do the best they can to avoid updates, have something go wrong as a result and try to tell every it was windows fault.   Then they come on here and make stupid reasons up for needing their pc on for 16 weeks straight and completely ignore the fact that not updating leads to serious issues, not just for the end user but for everyone else too.

Wait... I don't get your argument.

Is your justification for forcing updates so that idiots won't blame Microsoft if something goes wrong, even when they have dug through settings, clicked away warnings and disabled updates?

 

Not updating can lead to serious issues, but as we have seen with Windows 10 updates, sometimes updating causes issues too. I therefore think that it is best to let users have control over their own computers. At the end of the day, my computer is my computer, and I don't like the idea that Microsoft should be able to force me to install things I may not want, or in worse case may delete files on my computer.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'd really like to see MS release better quality updates, but everyone crapped on MS because they weren't installing updates, now everyone is upset that Windows is pushing updates to keep the OS more secure. It would be nice if there was an option to defer updates, but most average users would probably turn it off because waiting a few mins on an update is too inconvenient.

Give me evidence, and I mean real evidence not just "there are some hits on Google for it", that most average users would turn it off if they were given the choice. If you can't find evidence for Windows 10 then giving me statistics such as how many people turned off updates in Windows 7 will be sufficient. But it has to be for the average Joe, not corporations (which can still disable updates even in Windows 10).

 

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Don't confuse an illustration of a common narrative with an argument regarding specifics. My post clearly in several places indicated why that was a common narrative and what it means.

I genuinely don't see any difference in your argument and the sarcastic one made as a response. Both rely on "well a lot of websites talk about it, so therefore it is true and happening".

If you want me to take your argument more seriously you're going to need some facts and evidence to back your claims up with.

 

14 minutes ago, Arika S said:

the time before "forced" updates was the internet complaining that windows gets too many viruses and everyone should go to Mac

That narrative still hasn't changed. Hell, Windows 10 isn't even the most common version of Windows so even IF that narrative had changed, forced updates would not be the reason.

Even if both of those things were true, correlation does not imply causation.

 

 

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

For simplicity i answer to these together. The solution here would be an update system like linux has, it updates then restarts programs/services as needed(or leave them running), the only time you need to reboot is kernel updates. It doesnt annoy users, not a resource hog like WU, and it is faster too.

But MS will never do this because the OS is one big pile of spaghetti code AFAIK.....

That would solve some of the problems with Windows' terrible update system, but not all.

One of the big issues I have with updates for Windows 10 is that they always have some side effect. Side effect like adding more privacy intrusive features, resetting options I have changed, uninstalling programs, deleting files, and the list goes on. That would not change just because they made Windows update-able without needing to restart.

 

When I update I want a window where I can sit down, go through everything and check so things work and hasn't been changed.

[mr moose]

Just now, porina said:

If. I've had exactly zero successful malware attacks in Vista+ era. The nearest I had to a successful malware/virus attack was a browser hijack in IE6 days. Plus I have a backup strategy on top of that, which I've only ever needed once due to ram corruption on one system. Nothing to do with malware.

Lucky you, think of all those people who lost transactions and medical information in the wannacry incident.  This is not just about individual computers, it's about all computers on the internet.

Just now, porina said:

Nice if it works for your circumstances, but my point it, it doesn't work for all.

 

Configured Win7 system just worked better for me overall. When I choose to push a button, it downloads and install updates. Push another button, it restarts. That's all I want. In that way it wont get in the way of other things I do. Auto-updates costs me time and money.

The average user is not going to be able to do that. The average user (even the more advanced IT specialists) have proven they are incapable of looking after their own updates.   Most people are just not disciplined enough to put some time aside every week to run updates.  And more to the point (where I started in this thread) some people are actively fighting even that,  claiming all sorts of stupid things in order to justify shitting on the update system rather than working within the limitations of the system, and mark my words the system is comprised of every windows user and the limitations are set by the lowest common denominator, not by ideals held by tech forum minorities.

 

[Bouzoo]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not updating can lead to serious issues, but as we have seen with Windows 10 updates, sometimes updating causes issues too.

No no no, the Task Manager bug, the update self restart while in the mid of something and losing files, the file explorer bug, the self update program uninstall things were our fault obviously. Just to name a few of our faults. 

[Arika]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

That narrative still hasn't changed. Hell, Windows 10 isn't even the most common version of Windows so even IF that narrative had changed, forced updates would not be the reason.

no, but it's certainly been mitigated quite a bit with the updates. the number of viruses haven't gone down, but the chances of randomly getting one has

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Lucky you, think of all those people who lost transactions and medical information in the wannacry incident.  This is not just about individual computers, it's about all computers on the internet.

You keep ignoring the fact that the forced updates only apply to the Home and Pro edition of Windows.

The medical institutions, financial institution and all other things which lost information in the wannacry attack? Those still don't need to install updates. Those are exempt from Microsoft's new forced update strategy.

 

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The average user is not going to be able to do that. The average user (even the more advanced IT specialists) have proven they are incapable of looking after their own updates.   Most people are just not disciplined enough to put some time aside every week to run updates.  And more to the point (where I started in this thread) some people are actively fighting even that,  claiming all sorts of stupid things in order to justify shitting on the update system rather than working within the limitations of the system, and mark my words the system is comprised of every windows user and the limitations are set by the lowest common denominator, not by ideals held by tech forum minorities.

Windows does not have to be a "one-size fits all" solution.

If the average user can't handle it, then make the default one thing, and make it possible for those people who can handle it to change it.

Imagine if we started applying this logic to other areas. "The average person can't be trusted to drink responsibly, so let's ban alcohol. It's for the greater good". "The average person can't be trusted to drive safely with both hands on the steering wheel and focus on the road. So let's ban cars. It's for the greater good".

 

There is no reason why limits must be set by the lowest common denominator is configurable.

[jagdtigger]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That would solve some of the problems with Windows' terrible update system, but not all.

One of the big issues I have with updates for Windows 10 is that they always have some side effect. Side effect like adding more privacy intrusive features, resetting options I have changed, uninstalling programs, deleting files, and the list goes on. That would not change just because they made Windows update-able without needing to restart.

 

When I update I want a window where I can sit down, go through everything and check so things work and hasn't been changed.

I think a linux like updater would solve that, so far all updater i seen lists the updated packages, and gives you the option to install it or not, or to hide it. But for this they would have to drop their black box update system too.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

 

For simplicity i answer to these together. The solution here would be an update system like linux has, it updates then restarts programs/services as needed(or leave them running), the only time you need to reboot is kernel updates. It doesnt annoy users, not a resource hog like WU, and it is faster too.

But MS will never do this because the OS is one big pile of spaghetti code AFAIK.....

It may well be a big pile of shit code, but that doesn't change situation.  Again, we can only work within the limitations of what can done.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Wait... I don't get your argument.

Is your justification for forcing updates so that idiots won't blame Microsoft if something goes wrong, even when they have dug through settings, clicked away warnings and disabled updates?

no, the justification is that they don't get malware that screws everything up for more than just them.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not updating can lead to serious issues, but as we have seen with Windows 10 updates, sometimes updating causes issues too.

Not as many as people make out. Yes the update system isn't perfect, far from it, it has issues, in fact all updates systems have issues, even the apple ios update system bricks iphones.   So unless you have some stats on how many updated PC have an issue due to the update versus how many people are effected by botnets, malware etc then your argument is literally throwing an unknown figure around to refute a known issue from not updating.

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I genuinely don't see any difference in your argument and the sarcastic one made as a response. Both rely on "well a lot of websites talk about it, so therefore it is true and happening".

If you want me to take your argument more seriously you're going to need some facts and evidence to back your claims up with.

An industry specialist maybe:

https://www.troyhunt.com/about/

 

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That narrative still hasn't changed. Hell, Windows 10 isn't even the most common version of Windows so even IF that narrative had changed, forced updates would not be the reason.

Even if both of those things were true, correlation does not imply causation.

You're damn right the narrative hasn't changed, there are just as many people today trying to disable updates as before even though we know what that looks like.

 

It's not a correlation that wannacry spread through all the systems that weren't updated.

[porina]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Lucky you, think of all those people who lost transactions and medical information in the wannacry incident.  This is not just about individual computers, it's about all computers on the internet.

That's not a broken Windows Update system, that was professional incompetence. Preventing people from doing stupid things also gets in the way of doing things they want to. That's the trade off I think isn't well balanced currently.

 

Actually, would Win10 have prevented similar? On the assumption they would have firewalled off the network, and push updates manually, the same scenario could still happen?

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Most people are just not disciplined enough to put some time aside every week to run updates.

MS push the bulk of their updates on 2nd Tuesday of each month. Do it some time after than, and done. There is a small risk of missing an out of cycle update if done manually once a month.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It may well be a big pile of shit code, but that doesn't change situation.  Again, we can only work within the limitations of what can done.

And there is only two option:

Consumer grade router: delete wu service

Advenced firewall(business gear, pfsense, etc): Block WU servers.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You keep ignoring the fact that the forced updates only apply to the Home and Pro edition of Windows.

I'm not ignoring anything, I am using that as an example of the level of neglect in people updating.   Even IT admins weren't updating.

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The medical institutions, financial institution and all other things which lost information in the wannacry attack? Those still don't need to install updates. Those are exempt from Microsoft's new forced update strategy.

You don't get it,  I never said they were getting forced updates, I said wannacry on those systems was a result of NOT UPDATING.  This is the degree to which people do not update. MS can;t just force corporate systems to auto update for a myriad of reasons. But they can do it to the home users who are by and large the largest group of people whio kept clicking ignore to updates.  Home users who also once infected becoome part of the network that spreads this malware.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Windows does not have to be a "one-size fits all" solution.

Of course it doesn't.

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If the average user can't handle it, then make the default one thing, and make it possible for those people who can handle it to change it.

So they can ignore it too and show others how to?  yeah that's not going to work, have you seen humans in action?

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Imagine if we started applying this logic to other areas. "The average person can't be trusted to drink responsibly, so let's ban alcohol. It's for the greater good". "The average person can't be trusted to drive safely with both hands on the steering wheel and focus on the road. So let's ban cars. It's for the greater good".

 

That actually happens, there are places with curfews, you need license in most places to sell alcohol, you have to be of a certain age to buy it, you're not allowed to drink and drive or sign legal documents.  Plenty of enforced regulations in place to curb behaviour in people.

 

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is no reason why limits must be set by the lowest common denominator is configurable.

Yes there are, this is how all communities work,  our entire life is dictated by the lowest common denominator, regardless of whether they are criminals that cause your insurance to cost more or politicians with kickbacks, or people not updating resulting in forced updates. 

 

You watch these idiots flying drones at airports get drones banned with in a certain radius of airports or worse licensing regulation.  We are all beheld to the lowest common denominator in life.  You either have to make your piece with that  or you are going to spend a lot of your life being discontented.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, porina said:

That's not a broken Windows Update system, that was professional incompetence. Preventing people from doing stupid things also gets in the way of doing things they want to. That's the trade off I think isn't well balanced currently.

I never said that was a broken windows system, I said that was a result of not updating. I was showing you just how widespread the issue of people not updating is.

9 minutes ago, porina said:

Actually, would Win10 have prevented similar? On the assumption they would have firewalled off the network, and push updates manually, the same scenario could still happen?

The updates for wannacry were out for all OS's months before the attack.  Had people updated as they should, it wouldn't have been anything to wrote home about, Nearly all of the attacks were on windows 7 (98%) and XP machines, with 2008 and server versions being less than 1%. No win 10 machines were reported to be affected.

9 minutes ago, porina said:

MS push the bulk of their updates on 2nd Tuesday of each month. Do it some time after than, and done. There is a small risk of missing an out of cycle update if done manually once a month.

But again you are still relying on people to voluntarily do it, that is the problem, it is not the update system, it is not the services or the time, it is getting people to actually do it or at the very least not disable it.

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And there is only two option:

Consumer grade router: delete wu service

Advenced firewall(business gear, pfsense, etc): Block WU servers.

Or turn on auto updates and set your system work hours accordingly.

[jagdtigger]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Or turn on auto updates and set your system work hours accordingly.

And let it conveniently ignore it when that junk feels like it.... BTW i (and many other user) rarely restart my PC(i just put it into sleep mode) so it isnt an option...

[samcool55]

I still just don't understand why Windows 10 updates are still a big mess. Even after all those years it just keeps getting a worse and worse experience.

 

Linux is a perfect example that it can be done differently. Doesn't take much time, doesn't require much power, doesn't need a restart every 5 minutes and doesn't need much space too.

 

Like, why can't windows 10 be at least somewhat similar?

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

And let it conveniently ignore it when that junk feels like it.... BTW i (and many other user) rarely restart my PC(i just put it into sleep mode) so it isnt an option...

 

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

 

[porina]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Or turn on auto updates and set your system work hours accordingly.

My system work hours are 24/7. Where's the setting for that?

[WelshDdraig]

4 hours ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

Please, for the love of god, please be the end of 32GB EMMC windows 10 "laptops"

 

Being the resident "techie" in my family - I can say this with a passion. Those laptops can go burn in a fire for all I care.
Yes - they are cheap and relatively small and lightweight, but the sacrifice way too much: 

Storage - emmc, way too low a capacity in current models, especially with updates getting larger and larger.
Lack of I/O (my mothers "laptop" has a single USB 2 type A and an HDMI out.
Some have no expandable storage - so the 32gb of emmc is all you get (minus cloud services).
Typically they have pretty bad CPU's (like low power Celeron and Pentiums)
Low RAM - Most ship with just 2GB of RAM, and that being extremely slow RAM that can't be upgraded.
The trackpad and keyboard are typically terrible.

If this feature from the upcoming Windows update kills of these types of laptops - I will gladly welcome this update with open arms.

[mr moose]

Just now, porina said:

My system work hours are 24/7. Where's the setting for that?

If you require your system on 24/7 then you can't do updates that require a restart,  get linux.

 

Or perhaps you do have time to update but its not always regular,  in which case you should be using enterprise.

 

99% of home users are just that, home users, they can turn off every night.  The point of forced updates on home is because home users are predominately the ones that don't update and are also the ones with a regular power cycle.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, WelshDdraig said:

 

Being the resident "techie" in my family - I can say this with a passion. Those laptops can go burn in a fire for all I care.
Yes - they are cheap and relatively small and lightweight, but the sacrifice way too much: 

Storage - emmc, way too low a capacity in current models, especially with updates getting larger and larger.
Lack of I/O (my mothers "laptop" has a single USB 2 type A and an HDMI out.
Some have no expandable storage - so the 32gb of emmc is all you get (minus cloud services).
Typically they have pretty bad CPU's (like low power Celeron and Pentiums)
Low RAM - Most ship with just 2GB of RAM, and that being extremely slow RAM that can't be upgraded.
The trackpad and keyboard are typically terrible.

If this feature from the upcoming Windows update kills of these types of laptops - I will gladly welcome this update with open arms.

 

I'm not too sure exactly who they are aimed at because I have yet to find a use case that actually makes them a legitimate option.  Also emmc is slow AF.  You may as well have an HDD in many of those units.