Windows 10 May Reserve Another 7GB For Updates.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, 2Buck said:

Nobody ignored that fact. It's clear that my point was that it's entirely possible for Windows to be improved upon, why accept that Windows MUST restart for updates?

I suggest you ask MS that, because I woulds say if that was possible for all updates,  then they would make it like that.  It seems silly to assume the restart necessity is intentional when MS knows how annoying it is and it is the reason people put of updating.

 

Quote

Why argue against perfectly constructive criticism?

who's doing that?

Quote

Why just accept Windows' weaknesses? Now THAT is the mentality that holds back progress. But okay, let's just act like I'm the one who missed the point or didn't read the post.

What are you talking about, there is no one in this thread that is "just" accepting anything.   As many have already pointed out, windows needs to restart due the nature of how it was written and how it has evolved over the last 30 years.  Somethings are easy to do and somethings clearly are not.

 

Quote

 

I also didn't miss where you and others said that "if you need 24/7 uptime, go Linux", but again, that's just a crap way of thinking from my point of view.

If you can't make windows install updates without restarting then it isn't a way of thinking, it's just reality, windows can't update without restarting therefore if you have to have 24/7, then by logical deduction you must use something other than windows home.  

Quote

Why shouldn't Windows improve? Me, I like Windows. It's stupid easy to use and just works in most cases, which is why I use it. But just because I'm a WIndows users, doesn't mean I have to say "Oh, you don't like that about Windows? Well, just go to Linux and stop whining about it". I want the OS I use to improve, and I know that it can improve. I don't ACTUALLY want to use Linux, it's just a pain in comparison (mainly due to lack of software), I just feel like Microsoft is pushing me there.

Why are you even saying any of that?  what does that  have to do with this thread?  I would like you to show me one post where someone is arguing windows shouldn't improve or is fine the way it is.

Quote

Oh, and don't even try to act like people haven't said the ridiculous stuff I mocked in my post on these forums regarding this topic. This thread? Mostly no, but this mentality is what I'm mocking, and don't even try to tell me it doesn't exist.

 

The last line of my previous post.

They haven't.  I don't know if you missed it but explaining why it happens and the necessity for that decision is not the same as wanting it that way or or not wanting to be different.

 

You carried on like everyone was shitting on Linux and pontificating virtues of windows, no some of us are just not stupid enough to let our displeasure with the update system cloud or understanding of why it is that way.   

 

 

[jagdtigger]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Laxy in both ways, that's the problem, but it seems you're hell bent on ignoring the root cause of the problem.

Root cause of the problem: updates are both slow and a resource hog, top it off they take up a lot of space and usually have negative side effects nowadays....

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Cmdr Scolan said:

Just to move away from Windows vs Linux flame-wars for a minute, I'm trying to find a solution to these space-related issues on my daughter's Dell Inspiron 11 which only has a 32GB eMMC drive.  It also has a 64GB microSD card semi-permanently installed (I've put a sticker over it to stop it being easily removed).  While most of her apps are installed on the microSD there are still issues when Windows Update wants more space than is available.  Up-thread a couple of people have mentioned possible solutions.

Sadly I don't think there is a good solution. One solution, like GoodBytes suggested, is to create a RAID0 or JBOD setup. The problem with this is that if your external storage dies or gets corrupted, you may lose everything. Losing everything on C just because your sd card got corrupted is not a situation I would recommend to anyone.

 

The other solution I can think of would be to move the folder where Windows downloads updates or allocates these new 7GBs. This is VERY not supported by Microsoft, but it is possible. What you want to do is move the entire updates folder to external storage, and then create a junction link from the C system directory to the external storage. I am not sure which folder will be used to reserv these 7GB, but if we assume it is the SoftwareDistribution folder (where temporary files for Windows update are currently stored) then the commands would look like this:

 

!!!!!!!!DO THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!!!!

Copy everything from the SoftwareDistribution (let's assume this is the folder where the space is allocated, I am not sure) to the external storage (let's assume it is D : )

 

This is done with this command:

Quote

 

robocopy C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download D:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download /MOVE /e

 

 

then create the NTFS junction between the directories using this command:

Quote

mklink /J C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download D:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Windows defender, like most security software, can't protect you from an exploitable flaw, it can only protect you from a known malware or virus, that is why patching the security holes with updates is more important than relying on antivirus.

Windows defender uses heuristic techniques to find previously unknown malware too. Of course it's much better at detecting known malware, but the statement that "it can only protect you from a known malware or virus" is straight of false. 

That's not to say you don't need to install security updates. You still do need to do that, even if you got Windows Defender.

 

 

5 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I get the auto updates are necessary since most will turn it off otherwise but its annoying that you either have to manually block it or pay extra for enterprise win10.

I still don't believe this claim, and have not seen any evidence to support it.

And no, linking to Google saying "look, there are a lot of guides for it" does not actually mean a significant portion of people are turning off updates. Hell, if that was the case then there would be no reason to keep trying to force updates because people are finding (and writing guides) about how to disable updates.

[ZacoAttaco]

9 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

IMHO 

 

Linux in a VM hosted by Windows (Or vice versa) creates an ideal os that can do anything. 

Well, that's definitely reassuring. Thanks.

[mr moose]

56 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Root cause of the problem: updates are both slow and a resource hog, top it off they take up a lot of space and usually have negative side effects nowadays....

yes, that was the problem, MS wanted make all the updates as bad and unnecessary as possible and that's the only treason people avoided them.

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Windows defender uses heuristic techniques to find previously unknown malware too. Of course it's much better at detecting known malware, but the statement that "it can only protect you from a known malware or virus" is straight of false. 

That's not to say you don't need to install security updates. You still do need to do that, even if you got Windows Defender.

 

 

We are talking about software written specifically to take advantage of unpatched exploits,  heuristics are pretty much useless in those cases.

 

Here are some examples of exploits that have been breach that heuristics would not or did not stop.

https://qz.com/1073221/the-hackers-who-broke-into-equifax-exploited-a-nine-year-old-security-flaw/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/adultfriendfinder-network-hack-exposes-secrets-of-412-million-users/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davelewis/2015/05/31/heartland-payment-systems-suffers-data-breach/#7d450e20744a

 

 

The heartland one was a basic SQL injection that was well known about and should have been patched but wasn't. 

 

There is no substitute for patching vulnerabilities as soon as they are known. And for home users the best way to do that is updates.

 

EDIT: and besides all the obviousness of it, my statement regarding defender et al to detect malware was with the intent to hammer home the importance of patching security exploits rather than relying on sometimes useless scanning techniques.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

That was my response to people telling me they can't shut down their PC once a week.  

You're welcome to try and use windows home for a 24/7 computer, but you know it has forced updates that will cause a restart, therefore you are using the wrong tool for the job.  It's not brainwashing, it's just how things work.

Windows defender, like most security software, can't protect you from an exploitable flaw, it can only protect you from a known malware or virus, that is why patching the security holes with updates is more important than relying on antivirus.

 

I'm not too sure I follow what you are trying to say here,  for one it is lack of responsibility of the end users that is the problem, forced updates seems to be the only solution.  Also as I just said defender is not going to prevent malware or viruses unless it has a definition of that.  Know a security hole exists is not enough for antivirus software to know what is a threat and what is legitimate.  That's why patching the hole with updates is more important.

 

Yes, it could and has easily damaged their reputation, As I already tried to point out, no one likes updates and now they are forced people are pissed,  why would any company piss off their consumer base intentionally?  Simple, people are fucking stupid and don't know how important updates are, they have to force them to prevent things getting worse. 

I was speaking in general since my first post there 
And if things are working like that, this isn't probably a decent solution as I'm not even the only trying to point this, and even out of there there are people with this opinion in mind

But you said that was just for the "lazy users", which aren't going to download a malware which that specific unpatched vulnerability for your un-updated OS often, which in this case having an updated browser could be more important 
The layer of security couldn't be always close to 99% as they could even postpone them

Preventing things getting worse is just listening to their users, not doing this nonsense sort of crap which no one likes, this is imo far more important for their reputation instead
Come on, no one listens to those kind of drama news, instead they will for something like this

[LAwLz]

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

We are talking about software written specifically to take advantage of unpatched exploits,  heuristics are pretty much useless in those cases.

No it isn't. In fact, a lot of zero day attacks are found by heuristic anti-virus software and techniques.

Of course it won't find everything, but to say that it can't find any previously undiscovered exploit is just flat out wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. It can.  Again, just because some exploits (maybe even most) slip through the cracks does not mean it doesn't stop anything.

You could give me 1000 examples of exploits slipping by Windows Defender but that's not the point. You said Windows Defender only provide protection against exploits that are already known, and that is false.

 

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The heartland one was a basic SQL injection that was well known about and should have been patched but wasn't. 

Has nothing to do with heuristics. The attacks on Heartland were not malware. 

 

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is no substitute for patching vulnerabilities as soon as they are known. And for home users the best way to do that is updates.

I explicitly said that heuristic anti-viruses were not a reason to not update in my post.

 

51 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: and besides all the obviousness of it, my statement regarding defender et al to detect malware was with the intent to hammer home the importance of patching security exploits rather than relying on sometimes useless scanning techniques.

Sounds to me like you are deliberately lying to push some point.

The fact of the matter is that what you said is objectively wrong. Windows Defender can detect previously unknown threats, so stop saying it can't. Lying and spreading misinformation to people is bad, even if you think you're doing to trick people into doing something good.

Or if you yourself didn't know about heuristics then maybe you shouldn't make claims based on assumptions.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

I was speaking in general since my first post there 
And if things are working like that, this isn't probably a decent solution as I'm not even the only trying to point this, and even out of there there are people with this opinion in mind

 

It's not happy solution, we know this, but so far it's the only solution that addresses the many people who where not updating.

 

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

But you said that was just for the "lazy users", which aren't going to download a malware which that specific unpatched vulnerability for your un-updated OS often, which in this case having an updated browser could be more important 
The layer of security couldn't be always close to 99% as they could even postpone them

 

You don't have to download malware, in fact many forms of malware you can get without even knowing it.  Wannacry exploited a hole in SMB shares (don't ask me for details I don't fully understand it), so it spread from network to network without user interaction (except to computers that were updated). Botnets also use the same methods, where computers are infected using an upatched exploit without the users knowledge. 

 

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Preventing things getting worse is just listening to their users, not doing this nonsense sort of crap which no one likes, this is imo far more important for their reputation instead
Come on, no one listens to those kind of drama news, instead they will for something like this

what are you talking about?  this is more important than perceived PR good or bad.

[Guest]

Just now, mr moose said:

It's not happy solution, we know this, but so far it's the only solution that addresses the many people who where not updating.

 

You don't have to download malware, in fact many forms of malware you can get without even knowing it.  Wannacry exploited a hole in SMB shares (don't ask me for details I don't fully understand it), so it spread from network to network without user interaction (except to computers that were updated). Botnets also use the same methods, where computers are infected using an upatched exploit without the users knowledge. 

 

what are you talking about?  this is more important than perceived PR good or bad.

Instead, OS security patches are more important in enterprise company
So the statistics could also attack this, they should force those updates even in there then? 
Anyway, Windows Update doesn't change it's method for regular updates instead of the security ones, the only way to stop for ever it is setting a metered network connection which shouldn't be the only viable option, and "lazy users" could just use this and getting malware again 
Now you understand that this decision they made is still unreasonable

Regular users are not using SMB anyway, a stock Windows "user" install are going to open holes with their hands by installing unsecure programs instead which neither Windows Defender or Updates could help them

Whatever... You spoke about the bad reputation for viruses, this is clearly not going to help anyway 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it isn't. In fact, a lot of zero day attacks are found by heuristic anti-virus software and techniques.

Of course it won't find everything, but to say that it can't find any previously undiscovered exploit is just flat out wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. It can.  Again, just because some exploits (maybe even most) slip through the cracks does not mean it doesn't stop anything.

You could give me 1000 examples of exploits slipping by Windows Defender but that's not the point. You said Windows Defender only provide protection against exploits that are already known, and that is false.

 

Has nothing to do with heuristics. The attacks on Heartland were not malware. 

 

I explicitly said that heuristic anti-viruses were not a reason to not update in my post.

 

Sounds to me like you are deliberately lying to push some point.

The fact of the matter is that what you said is objectively wrong. Windows Defender can detect previously unknown threats, so stop saying it can't. Lying and spreading misinformation to people is bad, even if you think you're doing to trick people into doing something good.

Or if you yourself didn't know about heuristics then maybe you shouldn't make claims based on assumptions.

Lying?  please.  it's really simple, unpatched computers have exploits that result in bad things (i used the word malware too much maybe).  relying on anti virus is stupid. There is nothing more complex than that going on here.   You can argue I am objectively wrong because I didn't use the exact phrasing I need to to articulate a semantically correct  idea, but that just means your clutching at straws rather than accepting the reality.

 

It really sounds like you are trying to argue that we don't need updates but you know full well how important they are. You are even ignoring the examples I gave you of what happens when you have unpatched holes.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I still don't believe this claim, and have not seen any evidence to support it.

And no, linking to Google saying "look, there are a lot of guides for it" does not actually mean a significant portion of people are turning off updates. Hell, if that was the case then there would be no reason to keep trying to force updates because people are finding (and writing guides) about how to disable updates.

Well if you don't want linking to articles, I'm not sure what you want then lol.

All those guides do mean there are a lot of people asking how to turn off updates out of convenience, and If it wasn't the case Microsoft wouldn't be forcing updates.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Instead, OS security patches are more important in enterprise company
So the statistics could also attack this, they should force those updates even in there then? 

What statistics? 

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Anyway, Windows Update doesn't change it's method for regular updates instead of the security ones, the only way to stop for ever it is setting a metered network connection which shouldn't be the only viable option, and "lazy users" could just use this and getting malware again 
Now you understand that this decision they made is still unreasonable

Lazy users don't meter there connections, or try to setup special routers to block MS updates etc.  The people that needed the updates the most are suffering those updates now and getting less malware as a result.

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Regular users are not using SMB anyway, a stock Windows "user" install are going to open holes with their hands by installing unsecure programs instead which neither Windows Defender or Updates could help them

You don't have to be using SMB to be effected by it.  You don't have to install programs to be at risk.  Why aren't you getting this? Wannacry victims did not install infected software, they were just victims of a program that exploited an unpatched SMB system. 

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

Whatever... You spoke about the bad reputation for viruses, this is clearly not going to help anyway 

But it is helping and has already, 

https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2015/05/19/latest-data-shows-newer-versions-of-windows-have-lower-malware-infection-rates-than-older-versions/

 

Honestly you have to stop underestimating the information MS has and their motive on this.  They know fair deal from telemetry data how many OS's get infected by what.

[Murasaki]

Bring it on uncle Billy. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What statistics? 

Lazy users don't meter there connections, or try to setup special routers to block MS updates etc.  The people that needed the updates the most are suffering those updates now and getting less malware as a result.

You don't have to be using SMB to be effected by it.  You don't have to install programs to be at risk.  Why aren't you getting this? Wannacry victims did not install infected software, they were just victims of a program that exploited an unpatched SMB system. 

But it is helping and has already, 

https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2015/05/19/latest-data-shows-newer-versions-of-windows-have-lower-malware-infection-rates-than-older-versions/

 

Honestly you have to stop underestimating the information MS has and their motive on this.  They know fair deal from telemetry data how many OS's get infected by what.

I meant the malware ones we are talking in the last posts, that in your opinion is the reason they are forcing this

I'm speaking generally as the effectiveness of this approach would break on the shortest chain, the kind of user 
And If there is the metered connection option this news could spread around them, don't you think?
Like is the same thing as someone would specifically go into the Windows Update settings to disable them because "they are lazy"
Also it would took me one hour to make an unsecure program which has access to the user FS you could access by remote, so this couldn't be something uncommon 

A program if just present on the filesystem and is not loaded doesn't represent a security concern

Some people like my parents knew nothing about Windows 7 and they didn't disable the option for automatic updates while whining about "oh why it's this PC updating right now?" 

I'm trying to point that the user has responsibility for it's own computer like an IT management has for their devices, the OS isn't something that has something to do with that other than doing recommendations

An unexperienced user is going to make damage to a company even with all of this on Windows, even on Mac OS or Linux by just using a web browser 

EDIT: And anyway in 2015 a very small quantity of people was using Windows 8, or 10... So that doesn't make sense at all

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

I meant the malware ones we are talking in the last posts, that in your opinion is the reason they are forcing this

I'm speaking generally as the effectiveness of this approach would break on the shortest chain, the kind of user 
And If there is the metered connection option this news could spread around them, don't you think?
Like is the same thing as someone would specifically go into the Windows Update settings to disable them because "they are lazy"
Also it would took me one hour to make an unsecure program which has access to the user FS you could access by remote, so this couldn't be something uncommon 

A program if just present on the filesystem and is not loaded doesn't represent a security concern

Some people like my parents knew nothing about Windows 7 and they didn't disable the option for automatic updates while whining about "oh why it's this PC updating right now?" 

I'm trying to point that the user has responsibility for it's own computer like an IT management has for their devices, the OS isn't something that has something to do with that other than doing recommendations

An unexperienced user is going to make damage to a company even with all of this on Windows, even on Mac OS or Linux by just using a web browser 

I'm sorry, but I have addressed all of that already.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm sorry, but I have addressed all of that already.

I'm sorry too

[mr moose]

27 minutes ago, JustAnotherTechGuy99 said:

• Too lazy to not delete old data that is no longer used, or needed
• Too cheap to get more storage (even an HDD)

 

 

That's me, 2 out of three ain't bad

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Lying?  please.  it's really simple, unpatched computers have exploits that result in bad things (i used the word malware too much maybe).  relying on anti virus is stupid. There is nothing more complex than that going on here.   You can argue I am objectively wrong because I didn't use the exact phrasing I need to to articulate a semantically correct  idea, but that just means your clutching at straws rather than accepting the reality.

 

It really sounds like you are trying to argue that we don't need updates but you know full well how important they are. You are even ignoring the examples I gave you of what happens when you have unpatched holes.

I think it's amazing that you can interpret this sentence as "trying to argue we don't need updates":

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

That's not to say you don't need to install security updates. You still do need to do that, even if you got Windows Defender.

 

I'm going to quote the part of your post that is wrong.

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Windows defender, like most security software, can't protect you from an exploitable flaw, it can only protect you from a known malware or virus

This is wrong. Simple as that.

This does not sound like "oops I wasn't clear enough in my language and someone might have interpreted it wrongly". It sounds like a statement made by someone who doesn't know that heuristic anti-virus techniques are a thing, or pretends like they are not a thing.

 

 

And no, I was not ignoring the part where you linked to some articles. I did not respond to it directly because I never, ever in any of my posts came even close to saying that you do not need to install security patches. Stop with the strawman arguments for crying out loud.

I also did address it in my post here:

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, just because some exploits (maybe even most) slip through the cracks does not mean it doesn't stop anything.

and here:

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Has nothing to do with heuristics. The attacks on Heartland were not malware. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well if you don't want linking to articles, I'm not sure what you want then lol.

All those guides do mean there are a lot of people asking how to turn off updates out of convenience, and If it wasn't the case Microsoft wouldn't be forcing updates.

You can link me to articles and I will read them. The problem is that I want articles with actual statistics, not just your interpretation or jumping to conclusions like "it must be this way because otherwise there wouldn't be guides about it". There are guides on how to find ghost too. Does that mean people are actually finding ghosts? No. It just means that people are writing and reading about it. Another problem with that logic is that it does not take into account how many people use Windows vs how many look up and turn updates off.

It might just be 1-2% that turned updates off out of the average Joe consumers. There are over a billion people using Windows, and linking to a couple of hundred articles on how to turn automatic updates off does not really show the big picture.

 

I also don't like the logic that "it must be true because otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have forced the change". They can have other reasons for forcing updates that aren't "because people turned it off before". It's an assumption you're making unless you have actual evidence to support it. I am asking for the evidence, not your guess and assumptions. Same goes for mr moose.

 

If you could like me to for example statistics showing the percentage of Home and Pro users of Windows that turned off automatic updates then that would be great evidence to shut me up. Until you post something along those lines though, you have not provided evidence that actually backs up the claims made.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

But it is helping and has already, 

 https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2015/05/19/latest-data-shows-newer-versions-of-windows-have-lower-malware-infection-rates-than-older-versions/

 

Honestly you have to stop underestimating the information MS has and their motive on this.  They know fair deal from telemetry data how many OS's get infected by what.

I hope you realize that the data you linked, showing how newer versions of Windows have less infections, is not about Windows 10. It's about Windows 8.1, which also had optional updates.

I am not sure if I think it's funny or sad that you are linking evidence that forced updates is not the reason for the drop in malware infection rates. It might play some part in it (I am not sure we have any statistics that prove this) but infection rates has been dropping without forcing updates for many years now.

 

Just to make it clear. The article you are linking shows malware infection rates dropping between Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. All of these operating systems had simple options for disabling automatic updates. 

You're linking to definitive proof that the reduction in malware can not be attributed to forced updates. It seems like it is far more logical to attribute the reduced spread of malware to things such as the bundling of an anti-virus in the core OS, and other security improvements.

[jagdtigger]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

yes, that was the problem, MS wanted make all the updates as bad and unnecessary as possible and that's the only treason people avoided them

I didnt said it was intentional on MS"s part but pointing out facts why some ppl disabled updates.....

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

snip

 

Either you agree that updates are essential or you don't.  What are you trying to achieve here?

 

You and jagdtigger have both reduced the argument to updates are  " both slow and a resource hog " and:

Quote

 

This is wrong. Simple as that.

This does not sound like "oops I wasn't clear enough in my language and someone might have interpreted it wrongly". It sounds like a statement made by someone who doesn't know that heuristic anti-virus techniques are a thing, or pretends like they are not a thing.

 

 

You have latched on to the fact that heartland wasn't malware and that heuristics can detect malware in the face of my argument being about unpatched exploits. I even pointed that out in my posts:

 

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

We are talking about software written specifically to take advantage of unpatched exploits,  heuristics are pretty much useless in those cases.

 

Here are some examples of exploits that have been breach that heuristics would not or did not stop.

https://qz.com/1073221/the-hackers-who-broke-into-equifax-exploited-a-nine-year-old-security-flaw/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/adultfriendfinder-network-hack-exposes-secrets-of-412-million-users/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davelewis/2015/05/31/heartland-payment-systems-suffers-data-breach/#7d450e20744a

 

 

The heartland one was a basic SQL injection that was well known about and should have been patched but wasn't. 

 

There is no substitute for patching vulnerabilities as soon as they are known. And for home users the best way to do that is updates.

 

EDIT: and besides all the obviousness of it, my statement regarding defender et al to detect malware was with the intent to hammer home the importance of patching security exploits rather than relying on sometimes useless scanning techniques.

The reality is I over used the term malware, it's not a cardinal sin and it certainly doesn't change what I am saying.  You are intentionally ignoring my content and what I am saying because you know I am right and have nothing left to argue.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I hope you realize that the data you linked, showing how newer versions of Windows have less infections, is not about Windows 10. It's about Windows 8.1, which also had optional updates.

I am not sure if I think it's funny or sad that you are linking evidence that forced updates is not the reason for the drop in malware infection rates. It might play some part in it (I am not sure we have any statistics that prove this) but infection rates has been dropping without forcing updates for many years now.

 

Just to make it clear. The article you are linking shows malware infection rates dropping between Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows 8.1. All of these operating systems had simple options for disabling automatic updates. 

You're linking to definitive proof that the reduction in malware can not be attributed to forced updates. It seems like it is far more logical to attribute the reduced spread of malware to things such as the bundling of an anti-virus in the core OS, and other security improvements.

I'm sorry, here's a newer one where webroot claims windows 10 home is twice as seafee as 7

https://news.softpedia.com/news/windows-10-is-twice-as-safe-as-windows-7-for-home-users-520374.shtml

 

 

Quote

 

On the other hand, when it comes to home users the difference is even bigger, Webroot says, and Windows 10 is “twice as safe as Windows 7.”

“The occurrence of malware per non-business device at the end of 2017 was .07 for Windows 10, versus .16 for Windows 7 and .17 on Windows XP. The volume of malware per device remained constant throughout 2017, at an average of .55 files per device,” the company says.

 

 

 

I wonder why the home version of 10 has less instances of malware compared to business users?

 

 

 

why are you even arguing? Do you just not like the fact that maybe humans are useless and currently the only solution means you lose options?

[LAwLz]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

nder why the home version of 10 has less instances of malware compared to business users?

You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension. The article says the exact opposite of what you think. 

The article you linked states that businesses (which do not have mandatory updates) has almost half the amount of malware than home users. 

0.04 files per enterprise computer vs 0.07 for home users. 

 

I'll write a response to your other posts tomorrow. But the short of it is that you're aruging absolutes for no reason, and you're making strawman arguments. I just pointed out that you were wrong in one statement in one of your posts, and instead of admitting to that you go on and argue about a different point I never mentioned or responded to. 

All I said was that you were wrong when you said antivirus software could only detect known threats and were useless in other scenarios. That's all I said. I never argued against anything else in that post. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension. The article says the exact opposite of what you think. 

The article you linked states that businesses (which do not have mandatory updates) has almost half the amount of malware than home users. 

0.04 files per enterprise computer vs 0.07 for home users. 

 

That meant to read windows 7 not business.   Someone asked me to show that windows 10 home had less malware than windows 7 and I did.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I'll write a response to your other posts tomorrow. But the short of it is that you're aruging absolutes for no reason, and you're making strawman arguments. I just pointed out that you were wrong in one statement in one of your posts, and instead of admitting to that you go on and argue about a different point I never mentioned or responded to. 

All I said was that you were wrong when you said antivirus software could only detect known threats and were useless in other scenarios. That's all I said. I never argued against anything else in that post. 

 

No, that's not "All" you did, you are arguing for the sake of it now.  

 

Really, what is your point?  we have established that updates are essential for security and we have established that people prior to forced updates didn't bother updating.  Windows made it harder to disable updates in 7 8 and 8.1 and we have less malware in those versions. It's like you want to argue these aren't true but you know they are.  Therefore you look for semantic equivalent of a spelling mistake and wave it around like it proves something. 

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension. The article says the exact opposite of what you think. 

The article you linked states that businesses (which do not have mandatory updates) has almost half the amount of malware than home users. 

0.04 files per enterprise computer vs 0.07 for home users. 

Thats because enterprise uses are less likely to be downloading lots of porn. Enterprise users do not have mandatory updates but they are more likely to have extra security software and blocking of virus-containing sites via tools such as OpenDNS. 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

All I said was that you were wrong when you said antivirus software could only detect known threats and were useless in other scenarios. That's all I said. I never argued against anything else in that post. 

He said the approach by Windows Defender to detect known threats, and try to apply broader rules to contain unknown threats was flawed in the real-world detection of unknown threats via a known exploit. Which is true. Updates are needed to keep Defender's list of known threats and patch exploits used by unknown threats. In a more updated system, it would assist defender greatly. If a threat uses a known exploit that is not patched, Defender is useless.