
Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update - Kipters
https://www.troyhunt.com/dont-tell-people-to-turn-off-windows-update-just-dont/
======
CydeWeys
I love the way he's compared the people who tell you to turn off auto-updates
with anti-vaxxers; it's quite an apt analogy.

Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user
clearly _doesn 't_ want through updates (especially to the major OS version).
Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of the
advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microsoft's own
bone-headed moves in recent years to install bullshit that the user doesn't
want.

I still sort of regret installing Windows 10 to this day because of the
obnoxious Cortana bar it foisted upon my start menu that I can't get rid of.
And yet not installing Windows 10 would've left me less secure with an OS
hitting EOL for security updates much sooner.

Microsoft definitely shares some of the blame for this precisely because they
have automatically "opted in" their users to stuff they don't want during past
updates. Stop the bullshit, Microsoft.

~~~
sangnoir
> Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user
> clearly doesn't want through updates (especially to the major OS version).
> Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of
> the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microsoft's
> own bone-headed moves in recent years to install bullshit that the user
> doesn't want.

Vaccinations are awesome, but Microsoft's heavy-handed bundling is similar to
how the CIA was using vaccinations as cover to collect DNA[1] samples in
Pakistan. This inadvertently led to a distrust of vaccinations[2] which harmed
the efforts to eradicate Polio (or biological WCry, if you will).

Additionally, Microsoft abused the update system to download an entire, multi-
GB OS (Windows 10) on systems running on Windows 8, "just in case they will
want to upgrade". This was _very_ expensive for people on metered bandwidth.
Microsoft should separate critical updates from the less critical ones and
give users the ability to opt-in for critical updates only.

1\. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-
vacci...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-
osama-bin-ladens-dna)

2\. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-
in...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-
may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
novaleaf
I don't think this is the reason why most people (non tech savvy) look to
turning off Windows Update.

Most people don't know/care about Windows Update pushing features.

However most people DO care when their computers spontaneously reboot
themselves with no warning (sometimes even in the middle of "active hours"!)
which is what msft has set by default (and indeed has/had no UI to modify in
some versions of Win10)

~~~
supernovae
This is now fixed..

But inversely, i'm annoyed that this "upgrade phenomena" seems squarely
targeted at Microsoft when people who run Linux or OSX upgrade the second new
shiny comes out. I'm not ranting here other than expressing a curiosity of
culture that leads to cultural problems lingering much longer than they
should.

Windows 10 is awesome.. the experiment with "ads" sucks but its all
tweakable.. just jump to Rs2 and provide feedback if there is something you
do/don't like. MS listens.

~~~
CydeWeys
> Windows 10 is awesome.. the experiment with "ads" sucks but its all
> tweakable.

I don't want to have to tweak my fucking _operating system_ to remove ads!!
Also, I think we're asking too much of the average user. It's not obvious how
to do most of the tweaks, so your random older/casual user won't do them, or
maybe even realize that such a thing might be possible and go off to look up
how to do it. They're more likely to just turn off updates.

~~~
supernovae
THe "ads" are recommended apps. You can disable that.

~~~
CydeWeys
Disabling it is tweaking. The default install of Windows 10 comes with ads and
all sorts of other bullshit that doesn't benefit the user (in an operating
system that you _paid hundreds of dollars for_ , mind you). You have to go out
of your way to opt out of it, and most users will not ever realize that such
opting out is even possible.

~~~
supernovae
Even the ads will ask you if you want to disable them.. "click here to disable
future notifications" or if you open notification center you can "click here
to disable future notifications".

I am slightly bemused we're making excuses for people not trying anything..
especially when computers these days are all about "Expressing yourself" and
"identity"..

~~~
supernovae
Google does those "Ads" when you open anything google-y without google..

if we're playing this game, we should play it fairly.

~~~
CydeWeys
Google shouldn't do it either, but I think we're diverging into a non
sequitur. Whataboutism isn't a valid defense.

~~~
supernovae
its not whataboutism.. its making a fair comparison. I'm not excusing
Microsoft's behavior based on others actions especially since I know this
behavior is simple to disable in its latest OS release which is free to
upgrade to.

~~~
vetinari
Speaking of fair comparisons - which Google products, that shows these ads,
did you pay hundreds dollars for?

~~~
supernovae
if you want to compare, i don't see ads when i use free office online or when
i use google office.

What i do see is that when i use outlook.com it doesn't pop down telling me to
switch to Edge, but when i use Gmail its always telling me to switch to edge.

Have you actually used MS products in comparison to google? didn't think so..

~~~
vetinari
So you were never bugged to use Edge, after you launched Chrome or Firefox?
(Like this: [https://superuser.com/questions/1146123/disable-microsoft-
ed...](https://superuser.com/questions/1146123/disable-microsoft-edge-pop-up-
notifications-in-taskbar-and-system-tray)). Or your preferences for the
default browser were never reset to Edge after some update ("accidentally")?

Windows is the paid one here.

~~~
supernovae
I am only bugged once I install what I want to use as default browser. Not
everyday.

YouTube, Gmail, Google et all have a dropdown advertisement asking me to
switch to chrome no matter which browser I user that isn't chrome..

Lets also not forget that MS apps show up on google store, apple store and are
fully cross platform whereas google is selective in what it supports. We're at
a day and age where Microsoft has Cortana, One Drive, Office, Bing, Skype,
Photos and so much more on iOS, Windows, Android and people are telling me
that MS is bad when google is good (and is far from as cross platform as ms
is) I just say use whatever, but if people want to nit pick about "Ads" that
everyone does without knowing how everyone does it, that's lame. MS has a TON
of "Free stuff" that isn't always dropping toasts to switch browsers, switch
to chrome so on and so forth..

If people have so much energy to hate on something, that should be directed at
sloppy companies like Yahoo that actually are detrimental to security/safety..

~~~
vetinari
After each login into Microsoft partner page, it welcomes me with a page
telling me, that I will get the best experience with Internet Explorer. It
doesn't even bother to check, whether Internet Explorer exists for the
platform advertised in the User agent string.

With the Microsoft services, the crucial difference is, that "Cortana, One
Drive, Bing, Skype, Photos" is stuff that Microsoft is pushing on people, not
stuff that people asking for from Microsoft. It is _me too_ solution, it is
Microsoft's version of Google+, except that Microsoft didn't learn their
lesson yet.

Out of this, Office is an exception. iOS and Android users would not give up
their platform, but they were willing to use another lite office suite. On a
platform, where there is not a such threat, such as desktop Linux, there is no
Office port. Even the macOS port hasn't got feature parity with the Windows
version. Google is treating Windows Phone exactly the same way Microsoft is
treating other platforms with Office.

If you consider this hate, maybe you should also consider whether it is
deserved. There's no reaction without action.

~~~
supernovae
lol, I doubt that.. Microsoft doesn't support internet explorer anymore and
would only recommend edge if you're on windows..

People are asking for these services.. just because you don't run them doesn't
mean no one does. Skype is still the largest voip network, bing is slowly
still growing against goole, onedrive is huge for private and corporations,
Cortana ins on over 600 million devices..

As for office on OSX, it is updated all the time and feature comparable if you
bother to run 2016 with updates enabled..

THe hate is far from deserved, its misguided.

Microsoft is so cross platform Visual studio for OSX is full RTM, Visual
studio code runs great in Linux/windows/OSX, they're writing Linux drivers,
they have the Linux subsystem for windows that runs native windows apps,
they're a core supporter of the Linux foundation. .net is cross platform now
too and they're starting to merge xamarin/XAML/xml forms so apps can be
written once and run everywhere..

doing more for software and systems than google is but people will continue to
have this misguided hate

~~~
vetinari
Well, I about that message loled too ;). Later it became annoying and a nice
example how Microsoft really cares.

If you claim people are asking for these services, then what about not showing
them down the throats of those who didn't ask for them? Seem simple, right? If
they are so popular, why piss off those who don't care about them? Why do I
have look after every Cmd-O at Onedrive file chooser, when I'm never going to
use it and there's no option "do not bother me with this again?". I'm sure
that Cortana might be on 600M devices, but there are not 600M active users...
more likely users what resigned on looking for a new ways to turn it off. See
the difference?

Office for Mac 2016 is updated every month indeed, but it is still missing
features. For example, everything that starts with Power (PowerQuery,
PowerPivot, PowerMap), or Inquire. The Mac version of Office does work with
exactly 3 ODBC drivers. It doesn't work with exactly the same ODBC drivers,
that the Windows has no problem with (PostgreSQL, for example - it crashes).

There was a lot written about Visual Studio for Mac and it being a rebranded
Xamarin. See past discussions here, at HN.

And let's go back to the Office for Linux, shall we? That's the Microsoft
prime lock-in device for many. Drivers for Hyper-V or Linux subsystem for
Windows help Microsoft, not Linux.

~~~
supernovae
Also, shortcomings in the mac version of office may be shortcomings in the Mac
OSX platform.

VIsual studio for mac is a re-write of xamarin, that doesn't change anything -
xamaerin/visual studio/c# are all converging to offer a unified platform.

And i'm so glad you seem to know everything about everyone. THe same "billion
google now" users probably only 1% USE it day in/day out.. but we're just
going to be blindly bashing windows..

please, do us a favor and get over yourself. We get it, you don't run/don't
like windows... so just stop wasting energy hating something you really don't
have any clue about or care about.

------
kefka
And the reason why people were suggesting to turn off Windows Update was
precisely because of malware payloads directly from Microsoft.

"Do you want to upgrade to Windows 10? Press the hidden button to cancel,
otherwise upgrade commences." This is how malware works.... But published and
pushed by MS's own channels. And his jab at people who say that turning off WU
is similar to anti-vaxxers is completely inane and false - we know the damage
Microsoft has done to user's computers.

In reality, I'd rather they upgrade to Linux. Those machines wouldn't get bit
by this, unless you run the executable with WINE. But I blame MS for being
spammy and spyware-y and malware-y, which encouraged users to turn off
harassing and onerous updates.

~~~
jamespo
No, most people turned it off because they didn't want updates interrupting
them. You are vastly overestimating who cares about "MS malware".

~~~
simias
I'm still inclined to blame that on MS really. Poor ergonomics. I can
understand the OS telling me to reboot if I haven't restarted the computer in
a few days after an update took place but there's no reason to harass me
immediately after an update got installed (unless it's a critical 0-day patch
I suppose).

But really, it's getting worse. I remember seeing a bunch of articles last
month about how to preemptively defend against the "creator's update" because
it came bundled with a bunch of software people didn't want. They use windows
update as a trojan horse to install new applications, that sets a very bad
precedent.

I've even stopped urging my friends and colleagues to enable auto-updates
because I'm worried that they'll end up having windows auto-update to a new
version and break something and then I'll have to help them through it. I just
can't be bothered anymore.

~~~
viraptor
Your last paragraph is confusing. It seems those people rely on your support.
Are you really saying you'd rather deal with potential results of them not
upgrading than with the upgrade failures? I'm assuming that if they come to
you with one, the also do with the other.

~~~
simias
Well it's just that one position is more comfortable than the other. If they
don't update and have an issue then it's on them. If I insist they turn on
Windows update and then something goes wrong then it's on me. It's a bit
cowardly but as a Linux/BSD guy I just can't stand doing Windows support
anymore. Every version is worse than the last, everything is dumbed down to
the max and when something goes wrong you're screwed unless you're a
PowerShell wizard.

The other day I helped a friend set up a new computer, we installed a brand
new (paid for) Windows 10 on it, straight from the Microsoft-provided DVD.

It worked just fine for a few hours, then it would get stuck in a reboot loop
continuously. You'd log in and 10 seconds later it'd hard reboots.

Given the brutality of the crash I assumed a driver issue or something like
that. Turns out it's just Windows failing to install an update and crashing
the OS for some reason. So I thought "well, let's just boot up and quickly
disable auto-updates". You can't do that. "Well let's boot up in safe mode".
Nothing works in safe mode, you can't access Windows update (the page remains
blank). We ended up downloading an updated version of windows and reinstalling
it.

I have a Windows 10 PC that I use for gaming, the creator's update installed
itself the other day. Amongst other niceties it added a MS edge link in my
taskbar and changed my desktop wallpaper. I also noticed that it tries to
argue with you when you try to change the default browser from Edge to
something else ("We're good now, we promise!!"). Minor details, nothing major
but it adds up to a general distrust for the OS and the feeling that I'm not
in charge of my own computer.

I just can't put up with that nonsense anymore. If my friends want support
they'll run Linux, otherwise I'll let them deal with Microsoft's support or
whatever.

~~~
Declanomous
The best part about not using Windows outside of work is that I can now
legitimately tell 99% of the people I know that I don't know how to use their
system (Windows or OS X).

You don't get free service from lawyers, accountants, doctors, or mechanics, I
don't see why people expect free help from me. I used to help people, but I've
realized how limited my free time is, and I prefer not to spend time doing
work-like activities outside of work.

I will direct people to the appropriate resource if they ask for advice
though.

~~~
CydeWeys
The only people who get free tech support from me indefinitely are my mother,
my father, and my sister. Realistically it's mostly my mother, as the other
two are good enough with computers to not need help most of the time.

------
chrisacky
I was on a internal Slack call with team the other day, I ended up having to
restart to Windows to do a screenshare and switch to Skype.

I ended up having to delay my working day by about 45 minutes while Windows
decided to do a mandatory update without any granularity of choice on when is
convenient for me. That's what is frustrating. I ended up being unproductive
for a whole hour because Windows forced an update on me.

Windows definitely have to make it better as Troy suggests. The frequency is
also costly.

~~~
kristianc
The article points out that you can set hours when Windows will update.

~~~
vezycash
What if Microsoft instead fixed the need to restart for almost every update?

~~~
chrischen
MacOS handles this perfectly. It clearly notifies you when an update will be
installed if you restart.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
It also gives you the option of re-trying the update "tonight" which takes up
WAY too much of my cognitive load. "Tonight" doesn't appear to be
configurable, or even well-defined, although an obscure knowledge-base article
tells me it's between "2:00 and 5:00 a.m", which is nothing like my
expectation of what "tonight" means. Does that run if my laptop is sleeping?
What about if it needs to reboot? I really should know the answers to these
questions ...

~~~
kijin
Windows does sometimes wake up a laptop to apply updates and put it back to
sleep afterwards.

This can be rather dangerous if your laptop is stuck in a backpack with no
airflow on a hot day.

~~~
vezycash
It's not only updates that do that. All the HP laptops I've used wake up from
sleep in my bag while I'm moving.

The laptop would be hot enough to toast bread when I pull it out.

------
xg15
That article would be more believable if Microsoft (as well as other
companies) hadn't slipped all kinds of stuff in earlier updates which are not
on the interest of the consumer at all. (Starting with annoying UX changes and
A/B tests, to telemetry, to advertising, to removal of user software and DRM)

Oftentimes it looks suspiciously as if the (rightful) need for security and
quick responses is used as an excuse for "OS-as-a-service" shift that mostly
benefits the vendors.

What happened to the old practice of clearly distinguishing between "security"
and "feature" updates? What happened to actually educating the users?

~~~
a_imho
MS is 100% responsible for this and they should reap what they sowed. Imo this
blame shifting PR damage control is just insult to injury and will probably
backfire.

~~~
mdpopescu
It's similar to what banks call "identity theft" instead of "we gave someone
else some of your money and now it's your problem".

------
tsukikage
My PC is not a toy, and is owned by me, not by you.

* Don't reboot it without my consent

* Don't install/run advertising without my consent

* Don't install/run spyware without my consent

* Don't keep interrupting my work to nag me for my consent

The tasks I want to accomplish using my PC are more important to me than the
tasks you want to accomplish using my PC. If the latter get in the way of the
former, I will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this from
happening.

One might reasonably claim that allowing Windows Update free reign prevents
malicious software installing itself on my PC and introducing undesirable
behaviour.

However, if the introduction of undesirable behaviour by malicious software is
a risk, but the introduction of undesirable behaviour by Microsoft a
certainty, the incentives do not favour enabling automatic updates.

The best solution, of course, is to switch to a stable Linux distro.

~~~
Arizhel
>My PC is not a toy, and is owned by me, not by you. * Don't reboot it without
my consent * Don't install/run advertising without my consent * Don't
install/run spyware without my consent * Don't keep interrupting my work to
nag me for my consent

Wrong: you are implicitly agreeing to the above 4 behaviors if you willingly
use a Microsoft OS. Any time you select a vendor, you implicitly agree to
their business practices and the way their product/service works. For MS, that
means you consent to it rebooting whenever it wants, advertising to you,
spying on you, and interrupting your work to nag you for consent. If you don't
agree with these things, then you need to find another vendor.

>The best solution, of course, is to switch to a stable Linux distro.

Exactly!

~~~
zanny
I don't know why you are getting downvoted. If people want to reclaim
sovereignty over their computers while also using proprietary operating
systems, they will need to get laws passed. Right now, your only right is to
buy the hardware you want. From there, that hardware can deny you the right to
install another OS, deny you the right to change the hardware, or deny you the
right of knowing how the hardware works.

Without those, you aren't much of an owner of anything.

~~~
Arizhel
I'm getting downvoted because this site is full of Microsoft sycophants. It
happens every time I say anything about Microsoft here. I'll get a few upvotes
from people like yourself who agree with me on issues like the one here, but
then I'll get swamped with downvotes from the MS lovers.

------
bitL
Microsoft is to be fully blamed here. They brought it on themselves, pissing
off anyone with a bit of a brain by turning their OSes into suspected spyware,
forcing W7/W8.x users to turn off updates, allowing funny leaked tools
wreaking havoc everywhere.

Author here blames people that took prudent actions to preserve their
autonomy, while MS was holding them hostage by bundling security updates with
unwanted monitoring. Many of them switched to Linux/BSD and are using Windows
minimally as a consequence.

------
gens
I wish I _could_ disable updates. Dumb ass win10 thinks it's ok to download 2
GIGABYTES of data. How is it reasonable to have gigabytes of updates ? For
security ? I have gigabytes of binaries here ? And then 15 days later, 1.5GB
of updates. (note: my win10 laptop is usually used with mobile internet)

Win10 is a shame.

They could have at least separated security updates from random crap updates.
A button would be nice as well.

If anyone knows how to disable updates on non-professional win10, please let
me know.

edit: I do know about security and the importance of updates. You few
downvoting me can go shove it up your arse. It's crap behavior from win10,
period.

~~~
vocatus_gate
Unlike all these Stockholm-syndrome affected users here, I will tell you.

Start --> 'services.msc' \--> find "Windows Updates" service --> right-click
--> properties --> switch it to Disabled and reboot.

Turn it on once a month or whenever YOU want to update. Done.

~~~
gens
Wow i feel stupid. Didn't even think to try the standard things.

Thx.

Time to msconfig this laptop to "usable" state.

edit:

Parent comment flagged ? Are we on "Anti-hacker Non-news" ?

Anyway; Start-> type "services" (or "msiconfig" for more options, basically
the same as winXP) and you can turn off "windows Update" there. Don't forget
to turn it on every once in a while, especially if you use public networks.

update: There's also a thing called "Background Intelligent Something", that
is the thing doing the actual downloads. Seems it continued downloading even
without the update service running. Said service looks mildly important, but
still it had to die.

------
madiathomas
I would like to keep my Windows Update on, but I just can't afford it. Data
bundles are too expensive where I live. I can buy a week's worth of groceries
with the amount I spend buying just 2GB data bundle. Not everyone lives in a
country with cheap data bundles.

~~~
vezycash
This is exactly my situation. Worse, ever used a wifi network slowed to a
crawl by different laptops updating windows?

I once had to turn off updates on all laptops in my workplace so we could use
the internet. (They thought the network was under a virus attack)

~~~
vocatus_gate
I'm Army Reserve and we frequently have this problem in field exercises. Fire
up some Win10 laptops on our very limited Verizon MiFi access point, they
promptly download gig's of updates without consent and immediately push the
bandwidth past the limit and the AP gets throttled to oblivion.

Yeah yeah you can turn of Windows updates or whatever, but you shouldn't have
to do that just to force Microsoft to respect your wishes to update when you
want to. And no, I'm not talking about some stupid restricted 8-hour window
with no other option outside completely shutting down the service. TBH I'm
still surprised they haven't tried to block users from doing that too at this
point.

~~~
sumanthvepa
Windows 10 has the option of specifying that a specific network is a metered
connection. It won't update the OS when connected to those networks. Found
this out the hard way after getting a big bill while traveling and tethering
to my phone's 4G connection.

~~~
vocatus_gate
Good idea thanks. We'll check it out. But of course again, that's not
something the user should have to do (and not something we want to have to do
on every single system that connects). Wifi != "unlimited bandwidth."

------
bigbugbag
Does this guy work for microsoft ? It reads like a partisant piece for
microsoft.

Totally overlooked the suspicious timeline of Microsoft releasing patched for
vulnerabilities that were exploited for a long time by the NSA right after it
was made apparent those had been stolen and were about to be released in the
wild. No question asked about NSA having known and exploited those
vulnerabilities for a while, no question about Microsoft possibly willingly
playing along or being legally forced to do so.

No mention that disabling Microsoft update trend is a logical answer to
Microsoft using the system to silently installing spying software, breaking
the system altogether, disabling pirated versions among others.

No mention that the solution to things like the wannycry outbreak is not
turning on windows update but less windows and more other OS and backups. With
a sane backup policy ransomware is merely a joke.

~~~
ZoFreX
> No mention that disabling Microsoft update trend is a logical answer

No, it isn't. Disabling update isn't a logical answer to _anything_ except
"what's the best way to get malware". If you don't want Microsoft's "spyware"
don't install their OS. There is no coherent logic to simultaneously not
trusting Microsoft, and running their code - any version of it.

~~~
vocatus_gate
No. In THEORY you're more vulnerable to exploits in the wild by disabling
Windows Update. In REALITY you're statistically FAR more likely to be harassed
and have your software/apps/OS break due to Microsoft's "very similar to
malware-style" forced updates.

I disabled Win10 updates over 1.5 years ago with zero issue. Security people
love to claim the sky is falling, but it's all about risk/reward. Risk of
issue due to actual exploit is pretty low for most people, so even though the
potential IMPACT is very high, because the probability is so low compared to
the constant irritation of Microsoft arbitrarily forcing whatever they want
down your throat once a month, they just deal with it and shut off updates.

edit: downvote if you want, I'm not wrong.

~~~
emodendroket
Yeah, who can forget that Microsoft update that locked all your files unless
you paid a ransom in Bitcoin.

~~~
kuschku
Well, there were Microsoft updates that did make all your files inaccessible.

Try doing the Windows 10 anniversary upgrade if you run bitlocker and have
customized your UEFI.

Windows will screw up, bluescreen, and destroy the bitlocker keys.

I’ve fought with that before.

~~~
ryanoshea
Out of curiosity, what customizations did you make to your UEFI setup? I run
BitLocker and did the Anniversary and Creators updates without issue.

~~~
kuschku
I don’t actually ever invoke any bootloader directly, but instead use an EFI
app which in turn loads the bootloaders.

Windows’ Anniversary Update works by adding an additional, hidden EFI
bootloader, and loading that for the upgrade.

If you instead load the normal Windows EFI bootloader while the upgrade has
half-way finished, then it fucks stuff up.

I’ve been through it multiple times, last time, Windows even destroyed all its
own EFI entries.

------
4ad
Well, this would be so much easier if:

1) Windows update installed just security updates instead of potentially
disruptive _crap_ "features". The epitome of that, is of course forced update
to Windows 10. Ads in Explorer is a close second. This would reduce the
frequency of updates significantly as well, which would also help.

2) Windows update would use a sane default of _not rebooting you while you are
in the middle of something_.

There's a setting that you can do where windows installs update in the
background, with no user intervention, but IFF it doesn't require a reboot,
and asks otherwise. But this setting requires Group Policy (or being part of a
domain), so it's not available to non-Pro Windows customers (and it's a very
esoteric option users won't know about anyway).

You can also reduce the frequency of updates with "install updates for windows
only", but you can't really restrict yourself to only security updates (unless
you run Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB edition, which you don't).

Actually the best thing for Windows, both usability and security wise would be
to make Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB edition _the_ version of Windows people
use.

~~~
nu5500
I am not sure that it's really feasible to decouple feature and security
updates though. With Microsoft releasing two major feature updates a year, how
many variations of this can they support if anyone along the way decides to
freeze their current set of features and only get security updates for them?
Regardless, as a heavy Win10 user across several machines I've found the whole
"disruptive" / "spyware" / "crapware" FUD being pushed by some HN posters to
be way overblown. Yea, there have been a few annoyances such as the OneDrive
ad that showed up a month or two ago, but these are all extremely minor
compared to the mountains of advertising and tracking crap we get hit with
every day from web sites, apps, and search engines.

~~~
4ad
> With Microsoft releasing two major feature updates a year, how many
> variations of this can they support if anyone along the way decides to
> freeze their current set of features and only get security updates for them?

As I said, it is totally feasible because Microsoft is already doing it with
LTSB.

------
Jonnax
I've noticed that there is a certain level of competency a person can attain
in a subject where they think they have an advanced knowledge and hand out
advice with a certain authority.

But in reality they are spreading dangerous misinformed information.

Windows's auto updates though can be annoying, ensures that the average
computer is up to date. Like in the example of this article:

"If you had any version of Windows since Vista running the default Windows
Update, you would have had the critical Microsoft Security Bulletin known as
"MS17-010" pushed down to your PC and automatically installed. Without doing a
thing, when WannaCry came along almost 2 months later"

The average user cares that their holiday photos, documents or credentials
don't get stolen or ransomed.

~~~
beagle3
> Windows's auto updates though can be annoying, ensures that the average
> computer is up to date.

> The average user cares that their holiday photos, documents or credentials
> don't get stolen or ransomed.

Are both true. However, windows updates also occasionally cause restarts in
the least opportune moments (e.g. when you have unsaved work and left for the
day), or make a restart take 40 minutes when you need your computer _right
now_ (in the middle of an important phone call). Both of these have happened
to virtually every Windows user I know, prompting some of them to disable
Windows Updates.

Other issues with windows updates are bandwidth abuse (getting Win10
downloaded automatically on metered mobile connection), breaking some
software/drivers/configuration, or installing unwelcome telemetry spyware.
Each of these only happened to one or two persons I know.

The average user now keeps all their holiday photos on their mobile phone /
cloud, but they do care about documents and credentials.

You are not wrong, but the way Microsoft Update behaves, you have to choose
the lesser of evils (potentially get ransomwared, vs potentially avoid things
listed above). It is not patently clear that Windows Update is universally the
better option.

And it wouldn't be a choice between evils in the first place, if microsoft
didn't try to advance their agenda by stopping the practice of "security
updates" vs "other updates". Microsoft deserves all of the blame for the
disdain to Windows Update, and therefore a big chunk of the sorry state of its
users.

------
gwbas1c
The problem with Microsoft updates is that they are so intrusive that the
purpose of your computer is to run updates. They interrupt you when you're
trying to use your computer, or they cause hour-long startup times.

I've never had such intrusive updates on Mac or Android.

Perhaps Microsoft needs to figure out how to make updates much more seamless.
You shouldn't need a 2-hour reboot in the middle of editing a word file just
to protect against malware.

------
appleflaxen
This article is incomplete without calling out microsoft at the same time. Not
many technophiles would object to a stream of _pure_ security patches; the
problem is that there _isn 't_ one. By doing MS auto-update, you could have
your entire OS upgraded wholesale. If your only alternative is to manually
manage updates... I guess I can see why some people opt out.

~~~
creshal
Oh, there is: Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB. What, you don't want to pay $350 on
top of your Windows 10 Pro license? Too bad! Here's some mobile games for you
to play.

~~~
Qwertious
And people already paid for their Windows 7/8 Pro licenses, and they got
trashed like everyone else.

------
creshal
It would be easier to sell automated Windows updates if Microsoft wouldn't use
them to randomly shove a whole new OS down your throat.

Oh, and if Microsoft actually had a QA department to make sure they don't
brick machines.

------
JumpCrisscross
Visiting home. My parents turned off Windows Update on their home computer.
Apparently my mum lost her high score on some game when Microsoft forced the
Windows 10 upgrade. To the degree there is culpability, it's with Redmond.

------
rrauenza
I have a Windows 10 system that I believe was about 1 year behind in updates.
I'd periodically run what solutions I'd find online .. dism.exe, sfc.exe, etc
to try to fix whatever was failing. Nothing worked. I stumbled across an
awesome forum (sysnative.com) with volunteers that help you track down your
issue. Turns out I had a subtle 1 byte registry corruption:

[https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-
update/22645-win10v...](https://www.sysnative.com/forums/windows-
update/22645-win10v1607build14393-x64-win-upd-0x80070246.html#post181300)

Tracking it down required using sysutils' procmon.exe to log about 4GB of
event data and correlating it with the CBS.log. It was a broken embedded
unicode string registry value with a byte swap from x36 to xFE.

My point -- there are a LOT of posts out there with people with broken windows
10 updates, and I think Microsoft could better address this.

~~~
Magicstatic
Great website, never heard of it before. Will definitely be using it as a
resource in the future!

------
setq
I don't know why people complain about updates and restarting, particularly in
this thread. You fill your car up with fuel regularly because it has been
warning you it's nearly empty for a while much like updates remind you
regularly. People seem to complain and say "it updated right when I was in the
middle of X" but they've been putting it off for ages. Do you break down in
the middle of the motorway when you run out of fuel too?

Windows only updates when you're doing something because you're putting
everyone else at risk by not running the damn things in and you've had plenty
of notice.

~~~
zouhair
I hope your car doesn't stop randomly against your will so it can get a
refill.

~~~
setq
Not yet. Only when you run out of gas. However in a few years, are people
going to get pissed off when their Tesla has enough of their shit and drives
itself to a charging point because the owner is too incompetent to heed the
warnings?

~~~
bigbugbag
As if Tesla had a monopoly on the car market as Microsoft has on the computer
OS.

Then again cars only warns when the fuel tank is getting empty, Microsoft
updates may happens at times and is totally unrelated to the ability of your
computer to continue working.

------
Spooky23
I would have agreed with this until Windows 10.

As implemented, Windows 10 feels like a system to deploy code and update
computers that happens to run user software.

It's obnoxious. Many people I know have solved the problem by moving to Apple.

~~~
emodendroket
I don't know how that would solve the problem; Apple is hardly a great friend
of user choice compared to Microsoft.

~~~
Qwertious
It's not a good solution, but it's the only one that capitalism really
provides - switching to the competitor to pressure the shitty company to stop
being so shitty.

~~~
emodendroket
But this is like deciding apples have too much sugar and buying cake instead.

------
jorams
In recent years, Microsoft has been pushing automatic updates more and more.
At the same time, the updating experience just hasn't gotten any better.

My Linux install never urges me to update. Updates come out many times a day,
and I can ignore them entirely for as long as I want. My Windows install
continually urges me to update. It makes them increasingly hard to ignore, to
make sure I install them. The idea behind this is not bad: many people would
postpone updates indefinitely without understanding the consequences. Browsers
these days install updates without even asking the user, and complaints about
that are rare.

The problem is that updating Windows is a terrible experience. It wants to
install updates when I shut down, which on a laptop is often the moment I'm
leaving, when I'm ready to put it into my bag and go home. This is a terrible
time to install updates. It's even worse because the time the updates take is
incredibly unpredictable. Sometimes they're done in a minute, but I've also
had a single small update take 45 minutes. I ended up putting the laptop into
the bag while it was running the update. When I arrived home it was very close
to overheating, had burnt through much of the battery capacity (the battery in
that thing isn't very good), and it wasn't done yet.

Then I figured the solution would be to avoid updates at shutdown, always
executing them manually when I was going to keep using it for a while. This is
how I handle updates on Linux, and it works perfectly. So I tried that a few
times, and the experience was terrible. It would always require a reboot
immediately after, while I was working. This is a terrible time to reboot.

Meanwhile, every time I update my Linux installations, it's painless. I just
run the update command, it tells me exactly what it's going to update, I
accept, and I can leave it running in the background. The longest one of those
updates ever took was 10-15 minutes, on a machine that hadn't been on for 6
months. Hundreds of packages updated in minutes, without disrupting the work I
was doing. An hour or so later I shut it down and from the next boot on I was
running the newest kernel.

What Microsoft needs to do is to make updates painless. It needs to be clear
what is being updated and how long it is going to take. It needs to stop
requiring reboots all the time, and when that is achieved it needs to stop
updating on shutdown.

Also important: It needs to stop requring multiple reboots for one update
round. Windows, for me, is not the OS that boots by default. Every time it
restarts I need to explicitly tell my computer that "yes, unfortunately there
are still reasons to keep using this."

~~~
bigbugbag
> Browsers these days install updates without even asking the user, and
> complaints about that are rare.

Until the browser decide to break something you used (see firefox and alsa
support on linux, or firefox and australis, or firefox the upcoming drop of
non web extension extensions, ...). Automatic update should be limited to
critical security and not significantly alter or break user experience.

> Meanwhile, every time I update my Linux installations, it's painless.

You're lucky you did not have to deal with upgrading ubuntu, or linux mint
update packs, or used a distro like sidux, or have been hit by a systemd bug
preventing the system from booting making evident that systemd also broke the
emergency shell used to fix things. Updating a linux system is usually less
painful than a windows one, but it is not as flawless as your experience
paints it. With the advent of systemd it is now more windows like requiring
reboot and tightly coupled versions.

~~~
digi_owl
Thankfully Firefox still offer a LTS variant.

I jumped on that train when they moved to GTK3, but said train seems to be
running out of track.

As of late, Mozilla have done a whole lot to alienate long time _nix users in
their attempt at catching Chrome's tail.

And you bring up a good point about tightly coupled versions.

_nix was in part adopted because things were loosely coupled. But in the
pursuit of attention the DEs and various other big projects have steadily
pushed for more tight coupling so that they can deliver a certain "commercial"
UX.

------
tinus_hn
Don't behave so sleazily that people want to turn off Windows Update, just
don't

------
mcguire
Having read the article and (most of) the comments here, there seems to be two
basic responses:

1\. For home users, turn on auto updates. Yes, MS's policies for updates suck,
but the alternative is probably getting infected by something worse. For
professional use, IT is probably going to turn it off, but then it is their
responsibility to make sure critical updates get installed.

2\. MS's policies suck, so everyone should disable auto updates. Then, make
sure the machines have critical updates installed manually.

Unfortunately, history has clearly demonstrated that the second step of #2
doesn't happen. Heck, the NHS probably has a dedicated IT staff and that
particular update hadn't bubbled to the top yet. That produces option 3:

3\. Turn off updates to be moar bettar, then be surprised when the machine
starts acting funny.

------
hendersoon
The problem isn't the automatic updates-- Windows always automatically
updated. Where Windows 10 changed for the worse is in FORCED reboots.

Once you update, Windows 10 is gonna reboot sooner or later. You can schedule
it, but there's nothing you can do to stop it. It's unavoidable. It doesn't
care if you're running a long compile, or uploading a large file. If you
aren't sitting in front of the computer, it's gonna reboot, period.

I find this to be unacceptable.

The previous behavior, where it essentially nagged you mercilessly until you
acquiesced, was far superior. I didn't go out of my way to find a 3rd party
program to disable that nag-- I found it useful, to remind me I had to reboot
at some point, when I found it convenient to do so.

------
moonshinefe
Scumbags will be scumbags and take advantage of these exploits--it's been
proven over decades of internet malware history.

The NSA should be focused on protecting US interests by helping these things
get patched ASAP, not sitting on a treasure trove of 0-days and then they get
leaked and everyone has them whilst chaos ensues.

Microsoft should be focusing on providing less controversial updates, clearly
categorizing essential security updates apart from new, often controversial
features. What a mess Windows 10 roll out was.

They have billions of dollars and can throw legions of software engineers at
this problem fairly easily with their resources, this isn't some minor company
that can't handle this issue.

~~~
bigbugbag
If the NSA and Microsoft or similar business/agencies were doing what they
should there would be a lot less problems on this planet.

But it does not work that way and wishful thinking and shoulds have no impact.

~~~
Qwertious
"Wishful thinking" leads to people trying to figure out what _will_ have an
impact - for example, perhaps calling your senator and telling them you're
pissed at the NSA for hoarding their zero-days instead of actually securing
them, or donating to various cross-platform Microsoft-alternatives such as
Libre Office.

Telling people they're powerless and that they shouldn't bother is a great way
of _making_ them powerless.

------
roesel
The reason for turning off updates is (I believe) rarely that one doesn't want
important security updates. Just as Ubuntu servers have an option to
automatically install critical security updates and for the rest you run `apt-
get` when you want, the same should be available on windows.

Blaming the users is nice and easy, but Microsoft definitely deserves half of
the blame (if not more).

~~~
evand
That option to automatically install security updates is on by default in
Ubuntu 16.04, by the way: [http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow-
livepatched...](http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/10/dirty-cow-livepatched-
in-ubuntu.html)

Snaps were designed from the beginning to push automatic updates, even of non-
security updates:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxqdf89hRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxqdf89hRo)

------
phire
I spent the weekend doing a clean reinstall of windows 10, because windows
update had stopped working about a year ago (due to a broken windows insider
build). I must admit it was really nice to be able to leave my computer on for
months at a time without it restarting for updates.

Few people really mind updates. What Microsoft really needs to do is minimize
the number of forced restarts required, like Linux which only really needs a
reboot if you update the kernel itself (and even then, there are ways around
that).

~~~
Asooka
To be fair, if you have a vulnerability in a .so used by e.g. Firefox, you'll
also have to restart Firefox after updating to have it pick up the updated
library. But you're right I would prefer the Linux update model, where I run a
command once a week when I like to pick up the latest versions of software.

------
Grue3
I'm currently on Windows 7 and don't want to accidentally install Windows 10.
Turning off updates seems to be the only reliable way to do this.

~~~
moonshinefe
The window for the free 7 -> 10 update is long gone, turn your updates back on
and install security updates until they run out in 2020.

~~~
cesarb
It's a question of trust. That user no longer trusts WU to not silently
install Windows 10. The window might have closed, but who says it won't open
again suddenly, or a WU bug won't make it think it's still inside the window?

~~~
moonshinefe
Silently installing Win10 from Win7 at this point after the window has long
closed would be a massive controversy and utterly unprecedented in the
industry. Updates introducing bugs is always a possibility on any platform
Windows or otherwise, so the suggestion is just to stop installing security
updates? Please.

~~~
Silhouette
_Silently installing Win10 from Win7 at this point after the window has long
closed would be a massive controversy and utterly unprecedented in the
industry._

So was pushing the original Windows 10 update from Windows 7. That didn't stop
them.

Once bitten, twice shy.

------
whyagaindavid
Sadly we have medical instruments (worth 40k)that work only with win7. The
vendors do not update drivers for win10. We have to stop updates as they do
not guarantee working of these even for win7 updates. Sad but true.

~~~
mrweasel
It may be a little to much to hope for, but I really hope that things like
that will stop in the future with Windows on a rolling release schedule.

It's mind boggling how much bad software is available for Windows. Microsoft
is doing a rather impressive job maintaining backward compatibility and yet
some vendors manage to lock their software to specific version or even "patch-
level". How do that even happen? Actually I know how that happens, developers
that don't give a shit about the platform they're developing for.

------
runholm
Microsoft has been pushing adware through Windows Update. It is natural that
this will cause users to disable the feature, and Microsoft knew this. They
chose ad revenue over robust security on their platform.

~~~
bigbugbag
adware, malware and spyware.

------
vanilla
If you are in remote africa, with a sattelite uplink, windows updates/traffic
should be configurable.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_i...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4mcdon/i_live_in_the_central_african_bush_we_pay_for/)

------
jondubois
I disagree with the article. I think it's better to get hacked once every 2
years than to suffer through 2 years of Windows updates. The updates that
Microsoft considers urgent are actually not urgent at all; most security
issues typically affect a limited subset of users.

------
skc
Every time a topic like this comes up I always wonder what bizarro version of
Windows I'm running because I've never experienced my personal machine
rebooting at an inopportune moment, never seen ads, never seen it install
software without my consent, never had an update cause my machine to become
unstable.

I'm going all the way back to Windows 7 here.

The only machines that are terrible to use are those I use at work because
they are laden with all sorts of corporate security crap that you can't escape
and bring otherwise decent hardware to it's knees.

Of course, the evidence that Windows Updates are problematic seems
overwhelming but I do wonder if this is a case where the complainant numbers
seem large simply because the install base is so massive.

------
bargl
Why are so many comments about how much people hate Microsoft?

This article isn't advocating for Microsoft, it's advocating AGAINST turning
off automatic updates whether that is from a Linux distro, Apple, Microsoft,
Google, etc.

Just update your device/computer, if you don't like the OS switch, if you want
a specific patch etc, maybe that should be run in a VM which is gated. But for
99% of users, do not recommend they turn off auto updates.

Also, remember that if you are reading this you are probably a power user. You
are not my grandmother reading an article by a power user with simple enough
to follow instructions to f- her computer up. There are multiple user bases,
and your advice to non-tech people can be disastrous for them.

~~~
Qwertious
The comments are because Microsoft caused this problem in the first place -
people want to turn off Windows Update, because Windows Update installs
_antifeatures_ too, and the only way to opt out of the antifeatures is to
disable Windows Update.

In fact, there's a "run security updates only" option, which Microsoft
provides, but which they deliberately and blatantly violated, by pushing their
non-security updates through.

If Microsoft wants to stop this happening, then they need to provide a
"security updates only" option, THAT ACTUALLY ONLY PROVIDES SECURITY UPDATES.
This is not a hard concept.

"Turn off Windows Update" is indeed a suboptimal choice, like you say - what
you should ACTUALLY be recommending to users, is to ditch Windows entirely if
at all possible, and switch to an OS that is both secure and doesn't ship
antifeatures.

------
ChefDenominator
I have a friend who knows next to nothing about different OSs and other
various technology thingaroos. He just uses whatever is in front of him. It's
not that he can't learn more, he just doesn't care to.

He hates Windows 10.

I rate Microsoft a strong sell.

------
egg_head
article should be rewritten as: don´t tell people to use windows, just don´t

~~~
bigbugbag
That's what I thought too reading the title, but the windows tax makes sure it
comes pre-installed with computers and for most people it means having to deal
with windows.

It should be "tell people to use a non-windows OS" instead.

------
ourcat
I wish they didn't push updates as I'm trying to shut the PC down. That has to
be the most irritating time to do that.

~~~
bigbugbag
Aren't you bothered that they push updates as you try to turn the PC on ? Or
have you not experienced this part of windows update ?

~~~
ourcat
Oh yes indeed. ;) I suppose I'm happy to boot up a machine and go and make a
coffee while it goes about its business. But when shutting down a PC, people
are usually trying to leave it. (OK. Or reboot it) ;)

[Ex daily Windows user for 10 years+ now]

------
AdeptusAquinas
This whole comment thread proves the point of the article.

Ye gods, people, if MS updates or win 10 defaults offend you so much, switch
OS.

If you consider it a crime that the most widely used consumer desktop
operating system in the world's latest iteration dares to not be tailored on
install to your specific philosophy or preferences, switch! The alternative is
free!

------
Yizahi
Everyone know why updates really are disabled - pirated Windows. Specifically
- pirated Windows with badly written hack that fails after certain updates are
installed. Given that how enormous is user base of pirated Windows it is
expected really to to see lots of guidelines how to disable Windows Update.

Win10 takes it to the other extreme, where it is impossible to disable it. You
can only disable it for Wi-Fi and for each network separately. It is insane
really and creates all sorts of problems in some use cases.

PS: another problem - some of the Win10 updates caused dozens of
incomprehensible errors in Event Viewer on my PC, now I turned on "defer
updates" and hope that delay will help MS figure out problematic patches
before they will arrive.

~~~
joonoro
Came here to say this. Many of my friends run pirated copies of Windows
because they cannot afford a license, and they cannot use Linux either because
they are dependent on Windows software.

Usually I'd say it's their own fault but fuck it, it's Microsoft's fault.
Everyone knows Windows licenses are overpriced and that if Microsoft actually
cared about collective security they'd bring the price down. Stop pretending
you're not a part of infrastructure.

------
atemerev
Is it really hard to develop a ksplice / kexec analog for Windows kernel?
(Yes, it is. But with Microsoft's dedicated research and resources, it should
be possible.)

Interruptive updates are _the_ reason many people choose Mac OS X over
Windows. Updates are, obviously, important. Restarts (and notifications) are
bad and will be postponed and ignored, no matter how hard we try to educated
users. Solution: throw all resources to minimize restarts during updates, make
everything as automated as possible. I realize that it is harder to do for
Windows, due to their idea of putting everything to the kernel, but this only
exaggerates the urgent need for something like ksplice to be integrated.

------
overgard
I don't understand why they dont just do what macOS does -- you can keep
peoples computer up to date without force restarting at insane times and
downloading a ton of junk. "Security" does not excuse microsofts customer
abuse.

------
ziikutv
I have Windows 10 Education version, completely legal. But I have been
"restarting to apply the patch" for the past four days and it always reverts
itself. I am stuck in a loop.. This is why I turned off updates.

~~~
digi_owl
Ugh, that. Had it on a Home install some time back.

Best i could tell was that MS was trying to update some drivers, this failed
badly, had to be reverted, but that still left the relevant patch in the
queue, and so Windows would try again on next reboot.

Finally had to resort to some kind of downloaded wizard from Microsoft to
blacklist the patch. Not sure if that will be possible on the education
version (or am i confusing it with the more recent S edition?).

~~~
ziikutv
possibly, but I am just contempt on updating. I don't do anything illegal on
this computer. I use it for browsing and playing games on steam, I think I am
pretty safe.

You can really avoid like 90% of the shit by...

* Not going on shady sites

* Not getting scammed via Phishing

* Not pirating (you know, its really funny how most illegal 'patches' say, oh yeah patch is detected as trojan and its a false positive)

~~~
digi_owl
> * Not pirating (you know, its really funny how most illegal 'patches' say,
> oh yeah patch is detected as trojan and its a false positive)

Sadly i have seen various legit tools trigger the same warnings, because the
developer used similar low level techniques that malware use to hide their
true nature.

Basic thing is that at the CPU level all instructions are legit. And then we
pile code upon code on top to try to extract the context and intent of the
programmer from the behavior of the code.

In a sense that can quickly devolve into computer "racism".

------
camgunz
Yeah I'd be completely onboard with Troy if MS didn't force me to update my OS
to one that overtly spies on me via Windows Update. "Should I enable/disable
Windows Update" isn't the question, it's "Should I buy MS software ever".

This is yet another episode in "hey, software isn't just to make you rich". It
turns out it runs shit like hospitals. Maybe don't pervert the security tool
for marketing purposes.

------
jacquesm
Microsoft is squarely to blame here. People would leave Windows update on if:

\- it would not potentially brick their computer

\- it would not install all kinds of spyware

\- it would be a net benefit to the user

\- it would not be used to further MS's business goals at the expense of the
users

Telling people not to turn of Windows Update is putting the horse behind the
cart: Tell Microsoft to start respecting their users, _then_ tell people to
turn _on_ Windows update.

Fat chance of that happening though.

------
willvarfar
The most annoying thing is that a restart is required.

KSplice shows that you can update a running system without restart.

Real shame that MS, Chrome etc don't all manage this.

------
OscarTheGrinch
How many WannaCry victims are too shame faced to come forward? I have heard
that several warships belonging to a NATO nation run on WinXP.

------
coding123
I'm totally clueless at this point in history. How are people still getting
infected with shit when you give them these two rules:

1\. Don't use a public IP on your laptop on the internet.

2\. Don't run shit or use IE.

Bypass 2 if you're a developer and you are experienced in this stuff.

Seriously, I genuinely want to know, because the people that just got this,
are going to continue to get shit in the future.

~~~
erk__
Don't use an outdated system with smb1 activated.

------
newman314
I think a lot of this is because people do not want to lose saved work. If
Windows was to offer the ability to restore file state, that would be
something that would help people keep Windows updates on.

MacOS has been doing this for some time and while it's not perfect, it's
definitely led me to be less concerned about rebooting my Macs.

------
retube
So I have blocked my mother's PC updating from Windows 8 to 10 because it
broke everything for her - so I rolled it back. Have prevented the upgrade
auto-occurring again by specifying we are on a "metered" connection, which
seems to be the standard trick to prevent the upgrade to 10.

Any idea if this also prevents security updates?

~~~
bigbugbag
I thought the standard trick to prevent the upgrade to 10 was to use never10
to disable the upgrade.

[https://www.grc.com/never10.htm](https://www.grc.com/never10.htm)

------
ksk
It seems like the idea is if you want to disable it for yourself, go ahead.
Don't disable them for someone who isn't a technical person. IMO They should
introduce a way to auto-approve only security updates, like its possible with
WSUS. Maybe a cloud based WSUS for consumers?

------
_pmf_
My system partition is full. This alone prevents Windows 10 from updating
(without giving any reason; you have to really dig into it to find the actual
problem).

But hey, I can ask Cortana for some random stuff and have it fail 95 per cent
of the time; nice priorities, Nadella!

------
rochak
I still wonder how a company can go from Windows 7 to Windows 10 in such a
short while. It was all so good, everything seemed to work in a cohesive
manner. Now everything, especially the UX seems to have forgotten how to do
it's job.

~~~
bigbugbag
Not having a clue for having been irrelevant for too long and scrambling to
not miss the next big thing before becoming obsolete. Seems they thought
computers were about to turn into tablets and touch devices overnight (others
went the same way such as ubuntu), then they tried to catch on this user
tracking to display ads thing while becoming a rolling release. voila! you
have now windows 10.

------
blacksmythe
I switched my family from Windows to Linux at home because of the work
involved in keeping a working Windows machine (with minimal user supervision)
connected to the internet.

------
dandare
Why can't Microsoft or NSA or whatever good samaritan use the same
vulnerability and attack vector to force-spread the update or at least a patch
of some kind?

~~~
kbart
Because accessing and modifying computer systems without owner's prior
agreement is a crime in most parts of the world. Why would MS, NSA or any
other entity would risk potential trials?

~~~
dandare
Did MS not force upgrade users to Win10 against their will - which caused many
of them to switch off autoupdate in the first place?

~~~
kbart
I'm sure automated updates were covered in EULA. Not that I agree with this MS
step though (see my other comment in this thread).

~~~
dandare
You are probably right.

In that case could not the president issue an executive order asking NSA to
use the hack to protect everyone?

~~~
kbart
NSA doesn't have legal power outside USA. That still would be illegal hacking
with potential political and/or legal backlash. I understand what you mean,
but that's grey area at best.

~~~
a2decrow
They don't have any legal authority to spy on everyone either. Didn't stop
them and after it went public, did anything meaningful happen about it?

Our German chancellor, Angela Merkel, went from "this is unacceptable and
can't happen under any circumstances and there will be repercussions" to
"please don't do it" after the Snowden leaks went public.

There is little political backslash and no legal one. The spy agencies (NSA,
CIA, GSHQ, BND, #insertanotherhere) do whatever they want with little to no
oversight. And if the public finds out about it, the first move is to legalize
it by law and continue as before.

------
imhelpingu
Alternatively "Tell Microsoft not to market to people by forcing them to
download gigabytes worth of extraneous shit through Windows Update."

------
known
Why doesn't MS segregate its Windows Uupdate into Security Updates, New
Features, Performance Updates and give control to the user?

~~~
bigbugbag
Why would they do that ? It's not in their interest.

------
pawelkomarnicki
I have a great experience with Windows 10 update, it feels Mac-alike to be
honest, and that's a very good feeling ;-)

------
uranian
Turning off Windows update is not enough I'm afraid. Better remove this
misery-ware completely from your pc and move to Linux. Linux is better, safer,
cheaper, and more fun overall!

For apps that don't run on Linux for now, like Adobe, I'd rather move to OSX.
Only reason for me to install Windows would be some obscure game that only
runs on that platform. I honestly cannot think of any other reason to install
Windows.

------
lois
Maybe this will inspire Microsoft to come up with an update system that
doesn't mandate a system restart.

------
hackbinary
I turned off Windows Update the correct way. I installed Linux.

------
lolc
If Windows Update is vaccine administration, what is NSA?

~~~
matt4077
I fear the answer is "the NSA".

~~~
lolc
You don't say "the HIV" either...

------
yuhong
As a side note, the delay to release PDB symbols on MS's symbol server after a
Patch Tuesday has been at least days and sometimes more than a week for the
last two months (at least for the Win10 symbols I tried). I use them a lot
with WinDbg.

