android 11 Google forcing Seamless Update in Android 11

[Arika]

29 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What if you didn't get to choose when it was?

But you do. I shutdown my computer every night both my personal one and my work one and never had windows forced a restart on my during the day. It applies the update when it shuts down and finalises when I wake up. Which I don't even see because I turn my PC on and then go make breakfast, or have a shower. If I'm at work, i go fill up my water bottle. 

 

30 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You have to remember that not everyone uses their computer exactly like you do

I would actually say a majority of people are doing what I do. None of my computer illerate family members or co workers have ever said anything about how bad Windows update is. 

 

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why are you trying to argue that we should not make Windows better?

That's not what I'm saying at all. If it can be done, awesome, but until it's implemented, there is a very easy way to make sure that it's not an issue. And that is to shut down one night when you go to bed. If people can't even do that because you're too lazy or it's "an annoyance" then, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for them.

 

By this point people know about Windows update, they complain about it enough, and yet they keep tempting fate by not doing the thing that would mitigate the issue. 

 

49 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's fine if you only have a desktop PC at home for example,

Which is the case for a lot of the comments on this forum that complain about it. That's primarily what I'm referring to. Going back to my original post "I'll never understand this forums obbession for never shutting down their computer" 

 

Trust me windows deserves a lot of the shit it gets, but when people get all bent out of shape on the shear idea that turning their computer off every now and again (not targeting you with this statement) then all I think is that they just want to be angry and are waiting for something to go wrong so they can complain about it.

 

Not on this forum, but I've had people threaten to doxx me and expose me as being a MS shill because I said "just restart your computer every now and then and you'll cut down drastically on the number of issues you'll have". 

 

I'm not saying windows update is perfect. I'm not saying Microsoft is perfect. 

But just restart your pc every now and again, no one is impressed by your hours of uptime

[WereCatf]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There is a very large difference between the number of times they do require a restart though, and it is possible to make it so that you never have to reboot GNU/Linux.

For example out of the box HREL requires a reboot for kernel updates. But if you configure something like Ksplice it's possible to install the updates without reboots.

Even with Ksplice, you still need to reboot for some updates. There are areas of the kernel you cannot live-update.

 

5 hours ago, huilun02 said:

And they will fail unless it takes little to no effort on the manufacturer's part to implement.

Many Android-manufacturers actually already support the dual-partition update-scheme. Also, there isn't much work on their part that's needed to implement it, since all the code is already there -- they basically just have to update their partitioning-scheme and use up-to-date bootloader.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's amazing how some people will take any opportunity to have a pointless shit on windows.  

 

We get it people you don't like windows and you think Linux is better,  just go use it already and stop complaining

It is rather tiresome, indeed, and I wish people would stop the idiotic bashing one way or the other. Personally, I've used Linux since, like, '98 or '99, if my memory serves -- it was before GNOME 2.0 was released -- and Windows for even longer, and I find both to have a good bunch of issues and both still being perfectly useable for a lot of things.

[Eigenvektor]

13 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

Why can't Windows do this?

You'd need two side by side Windows installations. One that is currently running and one that can be updated. After every update you'd switch the partition that gets booted. The obvious issue with that is, that the amount of space used by the OS is essentially doubled.

 

The less obvious issue: You can't modify anything about the OS installation at all. Or alternatively you need to find a way to mirror these changes into the installation that is currently passive. This works fine for Android because you can't really modify anything (drivers, patches etc.). The same goes for all the minor updates that don't require a reboot. Instead of one Windows installation you now need to maintain two, for the minor benefit of major updates running in the background (for the most part).

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

You'd need two side by side Windows installations. One that is currently running and one that can be updated. After every update you'd switch the partition that gets booted. The obvious issue with that is, that the amount of space used by the OS is essentially doubled.

Technically, you don't necessarily need to use different partitions for it. If Windows supported better filesystems, the bootloader could just mount a different filesystem-tree into drive:\Windows instead. Btrfs or ZFS, for example, could do this. Also, the different filesystem-trees wouldn't necessarily even have to be full-blown copies and could instead be snapshots -- this way, you'd get space-savings and it'd be faster in addition to the ability to boot to different versions of Windows.

 

Ubuntu supports just such a scheme and they're trying to make it more user-friendly in the upcoming 20.04 Fecal Fossil, if you use ZFS.

[Eigenvektor]

5 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Technically, you don't necessarily need to use different partitions for it. If Windows supported better filesystems, the bootloader could just mount a different filesystem-tree into drive:\Windows instead. Btrfs or ZFS, for example, could do this. Also, the different filesystem-trees wouldn't necessarily even have to be full-blown copies and could instead be snapshots -- this way, you'd get space-savings and it'd be faster in addition to the ability to boot to different versions of Windows.

 

Ubuntu supports just such a scheme and they're trying to make it more user-friendly in the upcoming 20.04 Fecal Fossil, if you use ZFS.

I'm sure you can find ways to make it use less space and also reduce the maintenance overhead. It's probably still more trouble than it's worth. Not to forget that Windows needs to be compatible with 100 year old software because large companies

 

As far as I see the new Ubuntu feature is more about rollbacks and not full system upgrades in the background with a switch to the new version with only a reboot.

 

12 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

20.04 Fecal Fossil

Ok... I had to look that up because I was sure they wouldn't use such a name (It's Focal Fossa in case anyone cares)

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

As far as I see the new Ubuntu feature is more about rollbacks and not full system upgrades in the background with a switch to the new version with only a reboot.

Same thing, just different order: instead of updating a snapshot and keeping the running system as-is, it makes a snapshot and then updates the running system. You can boot into any of these snapshots directly, so, like I said, it's just the same thing in a different order.

 

3 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Ok... I had to look that up because I was sure they wouldn't use such a name (It's Focal Fossa in case anyone cares)

It's a nickname. I find it funnier to call it Fecal Fossil

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I wasn't talking about the one person who merely said they wished windows could do this,  I was talking about all the unnecessary commentary that has nothing to do with the topic and appears in just about every thread even remotely related.  Comments like:

Some of those are "unnecessary", but some of them are valid criticism if you ask me. For example this one:

Quote

I hate having to restart for updates, or even when I uninstall a damn program. One of the many reasons why I disabled Windows Update.

It gives you the reason why that person dislikes Windows update. What's wrong with saying that?

I don't think that comment is unnecessary at all, just like saying "I hate how Android manufacturers doesn't release updates as often and fast as iOS" isn't an "unnecessary" comment. It's just someone saying they dislike aspect of an operating system and how it could be improved to make them like it more. Perfectly valid criticism in my eyes.

 

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

No one is defending windows

I would say belittling people for not wanting to restart their computers as often is "defending Windows". A lot of people here are saying that Windows does not need to improve because what some people think is an inconvenience that should go away isn't actually an inconvenience and people who ask for improvements are just whining!

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

If people feel that way about windows and prefer Linux then that is fine, but we don't need to hear about it in every thread,  especially when it isn't even a desktop OS thread. 

Who are you to decide what people can and can't discuss or bring up, and in which threads?

People should be free to bring up whatever they want as long as it's relevant. In this case it started by someone asking why this Android feature isn't available on Windows. Now the conversation keeps going because of people like you and @Arika S who are trying to argue that Windows doesn't need improvements because apparently this is not a big deal, despite Microsoft spending a huge amount of time and effort to try and fix the issue (which I guess isn't an issue?).

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

But you do. I shutdown my computer every night both my personal one and my work one and never had windows forced a restart on my during the day. It applies the update when it shuts down and finalises when I wake up. Which I don't even see because I turn my PC on and then go make breakfast, or have a shower. If I'm at work, i go fill up my water bottle. 

Good for you I guess? It's nice of for you that you can start your computer and then leave it to finalize the updates instead of just getting to work right away. I guess everyone in the world should just adopt your way of working, right?

And even if everyone could do it, wouldn't it be better if Windows just didn't have to? Wouldn't it be better if Windows would just update silently in the background and you would never encounter a "installing updates, please wait" prompt again?

 

 

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

I would actually say a majority of people are doing what I do. None of my computer illerate family members or co workers have ever said anything about how bad Windows update is. 

I guess you should tell Microsoft that they are wasting their time trying to improve the update system then. Clearly it is not needed, right? No point in improving it.

Again, just because it isn't a major hassle does not mean there isn't room for improvements.

 

 

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. If it can be done, awesome, but until it's implemented, there is a very easy way to make sure that it's not an issue. And that is to shut down one night when you go to bed. If people can't even do that because you're too lazy or it's "an annoyance" then, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for them.

You should not have to adapt to shortcomings of your tools. You're a customer for Microsoft. You have a right to demand that they improve things. If they don't improve things, voice your concern. That's the only way change happens.

Imagine what would have happened if we had the same mentality you're using right now for something else, like graphics APIs. Imagine if, before we had low level APIs like DX12 and Vulcan, that people had told developers:

"No, stop saying you want low-level APIs! Until Microsoft gives it to us we shouldn't even mention what we want! Until Microsoft happens to one day think that they should make it with no input from us, we should just work around the limitations by making the graphics worse and demand our customers buy more expensive and powerful hardware!"

 

See how stupid it sounds? If you want something then you should ask for it, not silently try and work around it.

 

 

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

By this point people know about Windows update, they complain about it enough, and yet they keep tempting fate by not doing the thing that would mitigate the issue. 

What you're suggesting isn't actually a solution though. The proper solution which solves the real shortcomings of Windows would be to rework the update architecture. Until Microsoft does that I think people should keep complaining about it. If people don't do it, what motivation does Microsoft have to actually fix it?

You can't just complain about something a few times and then go completely silent and expect change. That's not how companies operate.

 

 

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

Which is the case for a lot of the comments on this forum that complain about it. That's primarily what I'm referring to. Going back to my original post "I'll never understand this forums obbession for never shutting down their computer" 

I would be very surprised if the average user on this forum only has a desktop and nothing else. I would be even more surprised if the average user on this forum have never had to sit and wait for Windows updates to install.

What about all the Windows servers that people on this forum directly or indirectly uses? Even if it's not your own computer, you might still be affected by the bad Windows update architecture because it results in hosts having to choose between uptime or updates. I am absolutely confident that it's not an uncommon occurrence for Windows servers to miss security updates because they require restarts, and the server has to be up and running to serve clients. So the sysadmin has to choose between running the server unpatched, or temporarily take it down (which might result in several other risks).

 

The update system in Windows is a serious problem. Don't downplay it.

That's why Microsoft have been trying to improve it for over a decade (and have made big improvements over the years).

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Even with Ksplice, you still need to reboot for some updates. There are areas of the kernel you cannot live-update.

Yes but the scopes are completely different. To keep a Ksplice enabled GNU/Linux machine up to date you might need to reboot it 3-4 times every year

 (depends on third party drivers). With a Windows machine you might end up needing to restart it 20-30 times a year to keep it as up-to-date.

GNU/Linux and Windows are clearly not in the same league when it comes to not needing restarts, so let's not pretend like they are.

[Arika]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

And even if everyone could do it, wouldn't it be better if Windows just didn't have to? Wouldn't it be better if Windows would just update silently in the background and you would never encounter a "installing updates, please wait" prompt again?

Yes it would

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Clearly it is not needed, right? No point in improving it.

Again, just because it isn't a major hassle does not mean there isn't room for improvements.

Again, not what i'm saying. everything can always be improved, but until that gets implemented, there are ways for the user to mitigate it. you said yourself, you disabled windows updated completely because you dont like to restart/wait for updates. for me? i restart my computer when i can because i can let my PC do what it needs to while i do something else. i dont need to wake up and immediately be on my computer to play games/browse forums/shitpost memes/watch weeb shit (as much as i sometimes want to)

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Imagine what would have happened if we had the same mentality you're using right now for something else, like graphics APIs. Imagine if, before we had low level APIs like DX12 and Vulcan, that people had told developers:

"No, stop saying you want low-level APIs! Until Microsoft gives it to us we shouldn't even mention what we want! Until Microsoft happens to one day think that they should make it with no input from us, we should just work around the limitations by making the graphics worse and demand our customers buy more expensive and powerful hardware!"

This all legitimately went over my head, i'm dumb when it comes to this stuff.

 

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The update system in Windows is a serious problem. Don't downplay it.

Oh i agree, and i'm not. I have no doubt in my mind that the people that are experiencing issues are really experiencing them, but the issues they experience dont affect me because of how i use my computer, that's all i'm getting at. i'm not saying people are wrong for not doing what i'm doing

 

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

-the rest-

Look, i agree with most of what you're saying, but i feel like you've maybe misinterpreted what i'm saying (in which case, my bad). Essentially my argument is this

 

<windows has a problem>

me: Hey, i can get around this problem by doing this, if you can, you can try this too, it may help. because until Microsoft actually implement a fix for said problem, work arounds are the best we can manage.

 

It's much like a troubleshooting thread. People have a problem with a piece of software, i'm offering a potential solution, one that works for me, it may not work for everyone, but it's better to mention it than to just say "well it's up to the software company to fix"

[TechyBen]

14 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

And every now and then it requires a restart after updates too.

 

Of course, it doesn't just go ahead and do it on its own, but still a restart is required after some updates, same as Windows.

Yep. But I never said it never needs a reboot. It does some nice things.

 

As others have mentioned, the inclusion of ZFS options means it would be real nice to have a Linux system (even if running Win 10 in a VM?) to have snapshotting and dedupe plus possible differential branches of file tree (for different Linux boots or versioning etc) all seamlessly and smoothly in an OS. I drools at the idea. (Oh, wait, is that called MacOS?) XD

[WereCatf]

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

GNU/Linux and Windows are clearly not in the same league when it comes to not needing restarts, so let's not pretend like they are.

I'm not pretending anything like that, no. My point was just that Linux isn't entirely immune to needing restarts, either.

[StDragon]

It's called Live Patching where you can patch a running kernel without rebooting. Windows doesn't have this capability. There too much legacy code that I dare say it's near impossible without a good chunk of the OS being re-written. Highly unlikely anytime soon. Perhaps in Windows "11"??

[paddy-stone]

14 hours ago, Arika S said:

I will never understand this forums obsession for never shutting down their computer ever, like it's some cardinal sin for the screen to not receive a signal 25/8 and their processor to not have power running through it at all times. 

Completely agree, I used to do this back in like 2004-2007 or something, when I was usually downloading something overnight, or when at work, and then using it pretty much all the time when home, I used to probably turn it off once a month or something or when updating, but otherwise 24/7 operation.

Nowadays, I only turn the PC on when needed, everything else gets done on server... but I attribute most of the change to the fact that internet speed has increased dramatically since those days, so don't need to wait around for stuff so often.

[Doobeedoo]

Well I mean nice. The more improvement on update process for OS the better. On Windows it's been really quick for a while now, but would be neat if one day they restructured it so restarts could be no more. Yeah I know a bit of wishful thinking.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, StDragon said:

It's called Live Patching where you can patch a running kernel without rebooting. Windows doesn't have this capability. There too much legacy code that I dare say it's near impossible without a good chunk of the OS being re-written. Highly unlikely anytime soon. Perhaps in Windows "11"??

This isn't like patching though. What android does is install a completely separate copy of the OS and then boots from that on the next restart. 

The benefit (compared to something like ksplice) is that if something goes wrong you can always boot the old OS. The drawback is that it still requires a reboot and it takes up more space. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

I would say belittling people for not wanting to restart their computers as often is "defending Windows".

Again, as I pointed out before, no one was being belittled just for not wanting to restart windows,  the comments we I was sick of hearing were all quoted and qualified.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This isn't like patching though. What android does is install a completely separate copy of the OS and then boots from that on the next restart. 

The benefit (compared to something like ksplice) is that if something goes wrong you can always boot the old OS. The drawback is that it still requires a reboot and it takes up more space. 

And theoretically do it while space cycles/charging the phone (on the second partition), and not having to wait and do it during a reboot and slow reboot down.

[FezBoy]

On 4/9/2020 at 12:59 PM, LAwLz said:

All that, and on top of that Windows is massive. On Android this feature might eat up like 1GB of memory, probably even less. On Windows it would probably eat up like 15-20GB.

works fine on linux 

[DildorTheDecent]

Hope custom ROM developers can implement this or something like it.

 

Would be much better than having to boot into recovery and flash that way. Seamless thingy is nice and convenient.

 

[eGetin]

Wow, I wonder how this wasn’t already forced on Android. It might be my #1 feature I miss after moving to iOS out of curiosity a few months earlier. It’s weird how Apple still hasn’t figured out how to install updates without having to restart the device and having to wait 15-30 minutes.

[bit]

On 4/10/2020 at 6:01 AM, Arika S said:

But you do. I shutdown my computer every night both my personal one and my work one and never had windows forced a restart on my during the day. It applies the update when it shuts down and finalises when I wake up. Which I don't even see because I turn my PC on and then go make breakfast, or have a shower. If I'm at work, i go fill up my water bottle.

 

I agree too much with you, i don't trust anyone that still says "windows update restart computer suddenly bad". I haven't had that happen in years. Does no one here know how to stop that? Easiest setting to change. Or I just do what you do, shut it down when I go to bed. The whole "what if the government" makes me wish I could oppress tech nerds more lmao

[LAwLz]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again, as I pointed out before, no one was being belittled just for not wanting to restart windows,  the comments we I was sick of hearing were all quoted and qualified.

I'd say this post has a very belittling tone:

On 4/10/2020 at 1:49 AM, Arika S said:

I will never understand this forums obsession for never shutting down their computer ever, like it's some cardinal sin for the screen to not receive a signal 25/8 and their processor to not have power running through it at all times. 

Says it's an obsession.

Calling it a "cardinal sin" if the screen isn't on "25/8".

 

Because apparently if I think there is great room for Microsoft to improve the update system to reduce downtime caused by updates, I am obsessed, and apparently it's also "pointless shit". Oh if I have an issue with Windows then clearly I should not use it at all and use GNU/Linux instead.

I'd say that's very much belittling people who has a problem with Window's awful update system.

 

 

19 hours ago, FezBoy said:

works fine on linux 

Well like I said, this feature isn't actually used in most GNU/Linux distros. Distros like RHEL or Ubuntu, when configured with live patching, uses a system where system components are swapped out during runtime. That does not require a reboot at all. This system from Google requires a reboot.

Also, GNU/Linux is much smaller than Windows so even if it did this dual-partition type of deal, it would still require way more space on Windows.

 

 

3 hours ago, bit said:

makes me wish I could oppress tech nerds more lmao

Heck yeah bro. You're sick dude. F U to all these tech nerds lmao. 

You and I are way cooler than all these tech nerds. What a bunch of lame losers.

[LAwLz]

On 4/10/2020 at 3:44 PM, Arika S said:

Again, not what i'm saying. everything can always be improved, but until that gets implemented, there are ways for the user to mitigate it. you said yourself, you disabled windows updated completely because you dont like to restart/wait for updates. for me? i restart my computer when i can because i can let my PC do what it needs to while i do something else. i dont need to wake up and immediately be on my computer to play games/browse forums/shitpost memes/watch weeb shit (as much as i sometimes want to)

Well if all you do with a computer is play games, shitpost and watch weeb shit then I understand that you don't think this is a big deal.

But if I drive to a factory where the entire network is down and I got over 100 people waiting for me to get it working again, I don't want to have to wait 15 minutes for some updates to install just because Microsoft decided that now was the time my computer should update. It is MY computer so I should be the one in charge of exactly what it does and when. Microsoft should not have any say in that at all. It's not their computer, it's mine.

 

Luckily Microsoft has backed off a lot from their moronic decisions they made in the beginning. I'd say the situation has gone from "this is borderline unusable. I might switch OS for the sole reason that the update system is fucking atrocious" to "it works pretty damn well and my only complains right now are 'nice to have' things rather than deal-breaking issues".

 

 

On 4/10/2020 at 3:44 PM, Arika S said:

This all legitimately went over my head, i'm dumb when it comes to this stuff.

Nah you're not dumb. It was just a terrible explanation.

The point I was trying to make was this: If we aren't allowed to complain about things we want improved, there is no pressure on companies to actually make improvements. If nobody asked for low-level graphics APIs, we would probably not have DirectX 12 or Vulcan today. Work-arounds are not real solutions to problems either. If you have a problem with something, complain about it! It is good to do for several reasons.

1) It puts pressure on companies to improve things. No complains = companies ignore problems (because why spend money on something if nobody cares?)

2) It gives insight into how widely spread the opinion is. If 10 people complain and 10 people are silent, it will seem like it's a less widely spread issue than it is. More people complaining = higher likelihood than a company takes the complains seriously.

 

 

On 4/10/2020 at 3:44 PM, Arika S said:

Oh i agree, and i'm not. I have no doubt in my mind that the people that are experiencing issues are really experiencing them, but the issues they experience dont affect me because of how i use my computer, that's all i'm getting at. i'm not saying people are wrong for not doing what i'm doing

But you didn't just describe how you used your computer and said the issue doesn't affect you because of it.

You said people who have an issue with Windows' current update system are obsessive. You said it isn't an issue unless you never seem. You said they act as if it's a cardinal sin to ever shut their computers off. You said people who have a problem are just too lazy to shut their computers off every night and you therefore have no sympathy for them. You said people want things to go wrong just so that they can complain.

 

You have downplayed the issue all throughout the thread and you have multiple times made sweeping insults to people who don't agree with you.

 

  

On 4/10/2020 at 3:44 PM, Arika S said:

me: Hey, i can get around this problem by doing this, if you can, you can try this too, it may help. because until Microsoft actually implement a fix for said problem, work arounds are the best we can manage.

Yeah... If that was your intention then I think you expressed it in a very poor way.

 

  

On 4/10/2020 at 3:44 PM, Arika S said:

It's much like a troubleshooting thread. People have a problem with a piece of software, i'm offering a potential solution, one that works for me, it may not work for everyone, but it's better to mention it than to just say "well it's up to the software company to fix"

Again, that's not how I have read any of your posts in this thread. For an analogy, I think your posts has been more like this:

Person: On my computer it takes ages to encode a video in Adobe Premier but it goes really fast in Final Cut. Can someone help me speed things up in Adobe Premier?
You: Just let the movie encode during the night when you don't use it for anything else. You do go to sleep right? Don't tell me you use your computer 24/7 so therefore you don't have time to wait a bit longer. I don't get why people on this forum are so obsessed with rendering times. Just do what I do and let it render during the night. Problem solved!

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I'd say this post has a very belittling tone:

Says it's an obsession.

Calling it a "cardinal sin" if the screen isn't on "25/8".

 

 

Given many off the arguments and some of rhetoric we face in most posts regarding windows and upgrades, I'd say it's spot on the money.  It does not belittle any of the normal users or people who don't pretend they are everything.