But I have not had a single unexpected reboot on my win10 install. It's because I always update at the next time of convinience. Updating is required maintenance of any software system and you can't afford to ignore it. I also see some consequences of questionable behavior blamed on windows. You should never have hours worth of unsaved work open. NEVER. Don't blame windows or whatever, just dont ever do that or at least bear your shame quietly.
Also, please for the love of god, stop lobbying for OSes to faithfully restore your open apps on reboot. The only way to solve a lot of problems is to be able to really reset the state of everything which is not worth trading for your ability to better compulisvely hoard chrome tabs. That shit is not healthy btw.
Finally, reboots are necessary on all major operating systems, even linux. Remember Windows user used to be free to apply updates when they wanted but you, yes you, MS hater of yesteryear kept blaming MS for the large number of unpatched and therefore insecure Windows systems. So they don't give users the freedom to postpone indefinitely and of course it's also not right. So what can they do?
WTF problems is the system creating that require it to blindly reset the state of everything?
I get “we have detected a problem that may be resolved by us forgetting your Chrome tabs”, but doing it by default, just in case? Not acceptable in 2019. This is the sort of behaviour that makes people hate their computers.
But the truth is, these days, updates are rolling the dice with your computer. Major features are removed, and new bugs introduced. Not just with Windows 10, but with other software like Chrome.
Why not allow updates to be rolled back? Surely, if updates were so desirable, then nobody would want to undo them. It is because it would be admitting that some people might not want updates, among other reasons.
And so we live in a world where we can no longer rely on our computers. A setup that worked perfectly for you yesterday might be completely different when you wake up. Some bugs get fixed, new ones are introduced, except that I don't know what they are. It creates a kind of learned helplessness with computers.
"I'm not sure most programmers even know what makes things slow anymore" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De0Am_QcZiQ&t=629s
Warning: this hard locked my MBP.
It was a pain in the ass to recover: my only option seemed to be to power down and power back up again, at which point OSX helpfully remembered the state my machine was in and dropped me back into the blacked-out display and maxed fan. Some combination of NVRAM reset, SPC reset and safe mode was required to get back in.
> MS hater of yesteryear kept blaming MS for the large number of unpatched and therefore insecure Windows systems
This logic means that when W7 is up, I'm a bad person for not just upgrading to W10 despite it offering a completely different experience and despite the fact that I owe MS no brand loyalty.
that's pretty short sighted.
That "Have you tried rebooting it?" is a thing at all is pretty bad but it's going to be so much worse when apps and OSes interact in a way that prevents clean reboot.
It also has no effect on whether FF's tabs come up next time. And if FF closes suddenly, you have a chance to discard your open tabs on start.
Explain to me how my statement is shortsighted again?
The OS handles its own state. That should be invisible to applications. Applications handle their own state. That should be invisible to the OS.
As I said, Firefox offers a choice to restore or discard tabs after a bad start or shutdown of the program.
If Chrome doesn't have good fail-safe mechanisms, I'm confused about what that has to do with Microsoft and what it has to do with me being shortsighted.
/I am/ a bit confused how it's so hard for you to understand the larger issue, especially since you know about two examples that already illustrated the point.
I'm a bit confused about why you don't perceive the above scenario as a software bug that needs to be fixed, specifically a programmer error dealing with compartmentalization.
Compounded further by another error when entering safe mode, as safe mode by design doesn't load any non-essential programs on start. Neither would Linux single-user mode without X. You should always be able to enter safe mode if a particular non-system program is messing things up. That's the point. Anything else is a bug and deviates from spec. If a programmer tried to argue with me that the spec was wrong in this case, they would be fired on the spot.
Firefox also doesn't auto restore tabs if it was shutdown improperly, so what you describe shouldn't happen. Has it ever happened to you? Or are you just arguing against a strawman?
For those cases, like in the examples, we need to keep the real hard reset that's been there the entire history of personal computing.
> Firefox also doesn't auto restore tabs if it was shutdown improperly
Okay how do you think that is implemented? There is no magic fairy dust that settles in the hard drive, it's code. Code with bugs, code with limitations. Safe mode is code, code with bugs and limitations. With your restore-reboot you now rely on two components to not fail in every single program that could cause something like the examples mentioned. Amazing design, let's make airplanes like that.
> they would be fired on the spot
spare me the power tripping garbage, instead try to show some comprehension
You don't seem to know what a strawman is.
You don't design software on the premise that nothing works as intended and spec is thrown out of the window. If your software is full of bugs then you've failed on multiple levels and that's just one of them.
And in this case, the spec required by me and other consumers is that application and OS state remain completely independent.
Sure, but there's the question of regularity. For the most part, I can do live updates of every part of my linux system (including the kernel if livepatch is enabled). I only have to reboot if there's something like a major change to the init system. This leaves my server with the latest bits and no downtime in the past 5 months. On the other hand, my Windows machine tries to reboot at least monthly - and that's less often than I'm sure Microsoft would like.
1) Automatically install and schedule a reboot.
2) Download but let me choose to install.
3) Tell me there's updates but let me choose to download and install.
4) Don't check for updates.
My point is that Windows Desktop is not Windows Server so if you're going to compare a Linux Server to Windows, then you should compare it to the equivalent Server variant.
Lorkki's point was that this was not a thing that happened in the comment you replied to. Linux servers and desktops operate in the same way. The laptop I'm typing this on has 3 months uptime.
I simply said that wasn't a fair comparison because Windows Server doesn't require you to reboot.
You guys are arguing that Linux is Linux and I'm not disagreeing with you. Linux loads executable into memory before running them, Windows doesn't. So files on Linux can be updated/overwritten without reboot. That's a technical hurdle that can't easily be overcome.
The downside of that feature is that it's a hell of a lot easier to have a Linux system not come back up when it reboots because of drive failures or corruption. I've had that bite me in the ass a handful of times.
Regardless, my point was that if you need a system to have ridiculous uptime there is a version of Windows for that. I would argue that you absolutely do not need your laptop to be up for 3 months at a time.
* Trying to open a KDE app halfway through a KDE upgrade - crash.
* Trying to open a new tab in firefox after an update - crash.
* Updating an arch system - sound broke when rebooted, that was a frustrating holiday.
I usually reboot after an update if I see anything big like KDE/firefox/gnome/system being updated just in case.
Just when you need it the most and it has the lowest battery this crap will pop.
Minewhile some computers are stuck in update loop of failing to update, reverting, and retrying every god damn day again like anything will change. If you're too bad at ensuring updates work, dont force them down my throat the 100th time expecting something will change. I already accepted the fact your trash update will never work so can you please stop wasting my time?
Btw it's not hard to see that MS is working on making windows better even if it's hit and miss at the moment. Forcing reboots /is/ exactly that progress when it comes to windows security and I think it's quite unfair to not acknowledge the history that led to this.
Some people do critical work that can't be delayed.
This OS behavior wouldn't be acceptable in a computer running in a surgery office or a nuclear control room.
The problem is the OS is limiting its acceptable use cases to where the work isn't terribly important and can be interrupted without warning.
This is a technology problem with a technological solution.
These users would be wise to choose an OS that won't fail this way.
It’s like complaining that your game console can’t run hard-real-time factory control software. Nobody ever claimed it did, and you’d be personally irresponsible to even try. There are certifications hardware and software need to achieve to be used for such purposes. Use the certified software. (Windows Embedded Core, for example.)
It's what the "pro" version should be, but isn't.
How about running long compilations, video decoding, etc
Seems to me that Windows is unsuitable for real work.
That has to run (and postpone updates) more than a week to force reboot it.
And you’d normally do those things, these days, on a LTSB (i.e. workstation) or Server machine, which doesn’t have those problems.
Windows 10 “Pro” is Windows for “professionals” in non-computer-related professions, that need Microsoft to be their IT admin. If you are your own sysadmin, then you should be running LTSB and, well, sysadminning it.
I shouldn’t have to buy 5 enterprise copies for ltsb to turn that shit back off.
Not a current Windows user but I used to work in a huge distributed system of Windows machines bringing in some hundreds of millions of revenue. Was that fake work? Seems condescending to both not know about automatically manage update settings and to bash 33.5% of the server market share.
I think this might be the result of laypeople bringing phone OS expectations over to a desktop OS.
For many phone apps you never have to worry about saving or closing them and there is little difference between opening an app that wasn't open before and resuming one that's not been on your screen for a while.
However, there are forms of work that are a mess when they are interrupted. Long rendering jobs for example.
I'm not lobbying for that, but I am lobbying for a proper hibernate feature (like Windows 7 had). Windows 10 has it, but it's hidden for some reason. Ubuntu had some version of it at some point, but it's disabled now and very hard to reenable and very unreliable. Unfortunately restoring everything takes up a huge chunk of my work time.
Reboot should still be a separate option.
If they need to update every other day then so be it, but do it without offloading the work of what should be modern OS functionality onto end users who now have to clean up your mess.
Never before have I been so directly prevented from running networked services on my personal computer as Windows 10 has done. Gaming? Media? <name your normal service hosting anyone would want to do>? Nope. Rebooted.
MS tried it, users didnt do it, they got blamed so now it's mandatory. Natural progression.
I know what you're saying, and I hear you on the Windows getting blamed front, but if they can't do security patches without changing UI and restarting constantly, against user will, then it's no deal.
The need for rebooting is a design flaw, as is the need to manually save work.
Not leaving the house is a good survival tactic against the threat of being hit by bus. That's your argument?
Giving me option to perform updates whenever the hell I want, is a reasonable option we once had, it's been taken away... the hand of God reaches down and rips it out of your hands.
Please stop advocating that our choices be removed. Even something like a browser status bar was ripped out, first in Chrome, then FF. Not even an advanced choice to have it back. I prefer choice and control, I don't want a new mummy or daddy in form of tech giant or publishing and advertising giant or software vendor telling me how it is, or what I need.
Funny enough, someone just posted in the GPU.js thread about how it hard locked his machine, and because the OS restored chrome and chrome restored his tabs after rebooting, he was forced to take extra measures to recover: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=19265107&goto=item%3Fi...
1. The easy stuff.
Show a bright red warning that covers 10%, 20%, and progressively 50% of the primary display asking user to reboot at the next opportunity. However, don't reboot automatically unless the user opts into such behavior.
2. The hard stuff
Take a hard look into what update requires reboot. Strip everything and hide almost all (I'm assuming we will need a kernel) those things from Windows home but keep them available using Windows features for a few years. Enterprise users might need backward compatibility but I think there is a lot of room to simplify Windows for the home.
According to the process flow diagram in the article, that won't happen unless you were working outside of your Active Hours and left your computer unattended for more than 15 minutes.
The Active Hours window can be an 18 hour window.
You don't work 24h and if you do, you shouldn't. If you still do well then make sure to check updates before your "shift"
Yeah,no. Even windows 10 dosen't require you to reboot it often - the machine i am writing from wasn't rebooted in two months(i update it when it is convenient for me, and when i am sure that update is 'safe' to install - updates that delete your files would be better left to another discussion) - it is usually running few spatial analyses nightly.
>You should never have hours worth of unsaved work open. NEVER. Don't blame windows or whatever, just dont ever do that or at least bear your shame quietly.
It isn't about having the work open, it is about system dictating WHEN you need to stop working and bloody update it.
We had a business presentation and our presentation laptop was running windows10 home - guess what happened?
Obviously you can delay update, or even prevent them for a while - but the prompt(which allows delaying by up to 15minutes, blocking updates takes place in control panel if i recall right) didn't show while presentation was in fullscreen - and the update took 1.5 hours.
Updating at reboot is fine, but users must have an option to NOT update at the next reboot(even if it is annoying as hell for user) - sometimes it is necessary - and remember that software serves the users, not the other way around.
I agree that restoring open apps on reboot is a horrible practice in general, but when updating the OS without any user interaction - it is a must if you cannot update without rebooting the OS.
What people are angry about isn't the idea that windows closes everything, or updates itself, but that they aren't in control of their computers.
Bad PR is more damaging to market share than the 1% bitching about being treated like Cattle.
If they give users the ability to disable security and update functionality then users will disable them OR bad actors will trick them into disabling them.
You're behavior is not unlike an Anti-Vaxxer's.
Why is it unreasonable that for this one time thing, the OS gets out of the way, and allows me to make a single exception?
When my cousin was attending Ringling back in the early 2000s everyone needed Workstation or 2000 to run Renderman and they had setup the Renderman nodes on all of their personal workstations so that when anyone of them had a big job to render they could have the whole farm do it.
Linux has a handy app called "needrestart". After you've updated it checks what needs restarting and offers to do it. If the kernel is updated then it will tell you to reboot. Some distros have live kernel patching which is as nutty as it sounds but seems to work. You only really have to reboot if the kernel is upgraded but to be honest, its a good idea to put in a reboot on a regular basis anyway and design your systems with some sort of redundancy to cope.
In my experience, only Gentoo (and derivatives and the like) can take longer than Windows for updating. Bear in mind they compile packages from source code. Getting a LibreOffice and Firefox and a Window Manager (say Gnome or KDE) update at the same time is a recipe for a very hot lap.
IMO, user should always have a choice to make final decision. Don't you want to restart or event download updates? You maybe like viruses or whatever reason, made you do so. Fine I don't care, it was your decision, and I (system) will respect that. I can only warn you, that your system might be at a risk.
> You should never have hours worth of unsaved work open. NEVER.
This is stupid either. I can have unsaved work. It's risky, but again it was my choice. Previous Windows, which didn't restart willy nilly, didn't suffer with this problem as much as W10. So this is definitely regression in UX.
I turn nearly everything off. ... Check again and find various apps are allowed. (especially after a Windows Update, but seeming at random as well) WTF.
This is bad security.
In the past week the following apps became re-enabled in Windows Defender Firewall: "Xbox Game bar", "Windows Maps", "Windows Calculator", "Movies & TV", "MSN Weather", "Microsoft People", "Groove Music".
I didn't even know it had a currency converter.
These days I just do "200 GBP in hungarian forint" and google does it for me.
Though in fairness I'm a linux user who does some software dev on windows (in a VM) and that's about it.
What you have to do is use group policy to manage your firewall (secpol.msc) and tell it to ignore local firewall rules.
You can use symlinks to blue green deploy the software, swap the symlink over, and restart the software to have the new version take effect with little downtime. You can do this with dlls and having the software manually unload and reload the dll for the same.
locks on symlinks apply to the target, not the symlink, this is piss easy to implement, and heres the kicker! Windows already uses symlinks for all of its dlls and exes as part of the winsxs store, so they could already use this to update without restarting, and even when a restart is needed, they could just stage it in the background, and do a normal reboot without the need for a pre shutdown and post startup stage.
This exists, right now, as something you can do in windows, windows 10, windows 7, windows xp. It works for all of them.
Microsoft has no excuse.
FTR, macOS has also become increasingly annoying with how it applies updates, and my iOS devices never seem to auto update at night like they're supposed to. As in industry, we suck at this. Is Linux the only OS making an effort at patching without rebooting? And does it actually work?
Do they have alarms set? For whatever weird reason there's no way to get it to auto-update overnight if there's an alarm.
The other nice thing is only limited things require reboots. You can find that out by
If you're being tricky, you can parse that and insert a "shutdown -h $TIME" if you parse needs-restarting as yes.
I get that Microsoft no longer makes most of their money from Windows, but that doesn't mean it needs to become terrible!
Is that even true? I thought it’s still the cash cow.
Windows revenue is well below Office and Cloud revenue, and even below Xbox revenue. This makes sense; a typical user is probably only paying an average of $100 on Windows, and infrequently at that. The last time I bought Windows was many years ago, when 7 came out. I took advantage of the free upgrade to 8 and then 10 since then.
Windows 10 is a sponsorship OS. Just like most laptops and tablets.
I don't see the problem here. If you don't want it, don't buy Windows. This stuff isn't a secret. What's important is Microsoft's profitability, and from what I've seen, these moves have been very good for MS's bottom line, so therefore they're good choices for the company to make.
>but that doesn't mean it needs to become terrible!
Why not? Are you going to stop using it as it becomes more terrible? Of course not. So why should Microsoft care about your opinion that Windows "has gone downhill"? It's in their best interest to extract as much money out of you as possible (thanks to spyware, adware, shovelware), and to not bother wasting money on things like quality control, because the users absolutely will not give up on Windows no matter how bad the experience becomes for them.
Not always possible for various reasons.
> Why not? Are you going to stop using it as it becomes more terrible? Of course not.
That's where you might not be so right. I've got three friends (gamers, but not developers) who moved to Windows a year ago and they're still happily using it. We occasionally go to Windows to play some games, but I wouldn't be surprised if MS are annoying more and more people who only need a weak excuse to move away from Windows.
It might make them short term money, but eventually people will do something about it. A lot of people aren't as stupid as the HN crowd sometimes makes them out to be.
Anti-Windows optimists have been predicting the demise of Windows for a couple of decades now, and it isn't any closer to happening now than it was around 2000. The only thing that'll actually unseat Windows is the rise of mobile devices. If they can ever get things so that your phone can also be your computer, then Windows will be done for. Until that day, the vast majority of users (including businesses) simply will not give it up, no matter how much MS abuses them.
> The only thing that'll actually unseat Windows is the rise of mobile devices. If they can ever get things so that your phone can also be your computer, then Windows will be done for.
This I actually don't agree with, a lot of people don't have a work mobile device and I doubt most people would want to mix their personal and work machines even if they did.
Here we're getting into a big factor: work vs. personal computing devices. I agree, a lot of people (including myself) don't have a work phone and don't want one.
So let's look at the two cases separately: home and work.
For home, I simply don't see people moving away from Windows, unless it means giving up a PC altogether, which actually has been happening to some extent with tablets and phones, which is exactly what I said before with the rise of mobile devices. The ones who insist on having PCs just aren't moving to Linux; I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Even my Linux-using (at work) colleagues all use Windows at home, and just keep talking about how Win10 is going to make them switch, but I'll believe it when I see it. If they haven't switched after all these years, I have zero confidence that Win7's EOL is really going make them move. People have been saying for so many years how they're going to switch to Linux because they're tired of Windows, and it never really happens; it's just like having fusion power plants or flying cars.
For work, most businesses seem to be stuck on Windows, and again I don't see that changing any time soon. For some development, there's been a big move to Linux, but it seems like most of that has been within VMs, because everyone is still stuck on using MS Office and Outlook, and only the engineering staff cares about using Linux (and actually needs it in many cases in fact). I just don't see how this will change any time soon; I've been waiting 20 years now for corporations to start moving to Linux, and instead we've seen some European cities do it, and then give up and move back (Munich). Again, I simply see zero evidence that there's any move in this direction, despite how much some of us would like to see it.
Finding the new media pack that's compatible is another exercise in insanity. They ALL install without error, but only one actually works. People who think Windows is simpler or easier than Linux are wrong.
Or they don't do anything crazy.
It’s like those people running custom Linux kernels complaining about IO latency on their standard laptop running Firefox. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
My wife's grandparents bought a nice Dell all-in-one desktop, running Windows 7, despite 8 being out. Then Win 10 came out just a few years later (less than 3), and Microsoft force updated them. Well, Dell didn't have drivers to support Win 10 (and still don't), so I had to do all sorts of crazy gymnastics to get their monitor back. Content updates regularly break these fixes, of course.
Installed Linux, he used that laptop without much issue for the following 3 years.
Windows 7 (and IMO, even vista) was solid. Windows 8 was dumb, but still worked mostly the same as 7. Windows 10 is an affront to decency and I won't tolerate it.
So.. Ive seen it used against a number of individual hackers. Why not companies?
1. Where it was signed (show me the document)
2. The wording of the agreed EULA
3. Who agreed to it
4. If theyre even able to make it.
It may not be fair. It may not we right but that is the world we live in today.
What about in the EU where an EULA is unenforceable and forced arbitration doesn't exist?
I can't understand how Microsoft thinks it is okay to force updates on me and then not even bother to make sure those updates work.
After having couple of high-cost delays due to my laptop deciding reboot while doing important analysis or deciding not to boot at all due to Windows update failures I was forced to drop Windows and a dozen Windows-only tools I have used along with it.
Macbooks are non-starters. The laptops are barely usable. I am heavy keyboard user and touch-typist and I can't envision using a laptop without physical function keys. A laptop that can die due to dust speck? Apple, please make a laptop for people that actually work and need reliability and usability more than shedding another half millimeter of thickness.
I don't want to say Linux is perfect. It is extremely irritating to spend hours trying to get basically anything working.
I just want a machine that works and that I can rely to work next day when I open it to start my work day.
Why is it so hard in 2019?
To be honest: mass-market software developers realized that they can abuse their users with few repercussions, so they've changed their practices to suit themselves rather than their users. The attitude started with web apps, and now it's completed its dominance by spreading to operating systems.
Stability takes a lot of work. Users love it, but developers hate back-porting patches.
If this is a machine for work, why are you not buying one with linux preinstalled? For instance the dell precision models:
A little over a year ago the automatic update failed, I've tried all sorts of ways to get an updated version of Windows, but they have all failed. My research seems to point me to a full reinstall of Windows.
But my computer hasn't restarted arbitrarily in over a year!
Decided to upgrade to SSD at the same time since prices have dropped so drastically.
It wasn't required for previous versions of visual studio.
Because windows update is non-functional for so many windows users (mostly due to piracy) we we basically forced to change to static linking to avoid the need for the redist.
Of course, after we changed to static linking we started to run into a bunch of virus scanners giving false positives with their heuristics because all viruses are statically linked.
Plus, usually I can just schedule the reboot to happen at night when I sleep. All I have to do is click an "restart tonight" button in a notification and then not shut it down that evening. TBH I don't understand why this is considered bad design, especially by the HN crowd.
I suspect that the people who complain about this on HN are mostly people on mac/linux who run windows in a VM 3 to 4 times a year and therefore think that it needs to update-reboot all the time. I felt the same about Firefox (which has relatively noisy updates) before I switched to it as my daily driver.
1. Windows Updates were a known quantity for years. Patch Tuesday and so on. Now there are various short-lived concepts like CB, CBB, LTSB, SAC, LTSC, Active Hours - it's almost as if some middle manager MBA who recently graduated said to themselves "how much technical jargon can we throw at 'em?" To what end? I'm not sure. The tin foil hat crowd (which I've been somewhat forced to join) would say that 1. dovetails into 2.
2. Increasing disrespect for the users, which many of we on HN see and hate (see rest of this paragraph), and the vast majority don't see. Privacy invasions which cannot be stopped (minus 'hacks') a la quartering of the kings solders, settings reverting themselves in willful violation of the user's express wishes, and the biggest insult of all, denial of user-control over updates, a feature that has been with Windows for decades. Update control being yanked away from the users, in addition to the telemetry and setting reverting themselves are viewed by many as Microsoft machinations aimed at turning the users into the used.
Also, add the fact that nearly all of these install their updates in the background, and that their restart is actually just a standard restart that will take no longer than a usual cold boot helps a lot, when compared to Microsofts "applying updates screen" where you never know if you're going to be there 5 minutes or over an hour. It's just a terrible situation every time it occurs when others have shown that it really doesn't need to be.
This was true for me until recently on my work machine I went to open a new tab and Firefox forbade it until I restarted for updates. Can do whatever I want with the other tabs, but can't make a new tab. Multiprocess blah blah, it didn't used to be this way. Every tech organization successfully wages war on its own users from time to time and will disappoint you sooner or later.
But yeah, respect for users. Many kinds of malware treat your machine with more respect than Microsoft does.
Patch Tuesday is still Patch Tuesday. New patches come out on the same Tuesday every month that it has just about always been that Microsoft implores everyone to install ASAP. (It's always been posted as "ASAP". That's not a recent change in all this.)
The big change is that Microsoft doesn't want to any longer accept "We'll get to it when we get to it" as an answer to "ASAP", and most of the alphabet soup is just variations on what and when "ASAP" is allowed to mean. (But again, the change here isn't that Patch Tuesday means "install these things ASAP", that's always been the messaging on Patch Tuesday. A lot of people just felt entitled to ignore that for as much as years in some cases.)
Yeah, those damned users and their feeling of entitlement towards being able to control a thing they bought. Idiots.
Controls how often/whether you get feature updates. They're not applicable to home users as they only have access to CB.
Controls when your computer will auto-reboot
what's so confusing about this again?
>what's so hard about this?
It's not hard. It's that I am out of control of when my PC gets to reboot. It is a small inconvenience, but it should be something I don't have to put up with at all. I've had file updates cut short over "inactive" reboots. 10+ GB downloads that I was hoping to use the following day that never finished due to a restart.
Hard for us, who are familiar with this jargon? Not a chance, to your point. To the dad who opens IE, types Google.com into the bing bar, clicks the google.com link, then types his internet search - those words might as well be Elian script.
My Windows 10 machine installs updates that require reboots more than 2 or 3 times a year, but it is configured (and I believed this is the default) to install them and reboot at night, when no-one is using the computer.
So when all goes well, I hardly ever see the computer install an update or reboot because of it: normally this happens when I'm not using it. But last year it got stuck in a cycle of trying to install an update, failing, uninstalling and trying again later. Each attempt took about 15 minutes and required, if I remember correctly, two reboots: one after the attempted installation and one after uninstalling the update. It tried so many times! It seemed to want to try more when I actually needed the computer for something work-related. :)
After trying a bunch of things I found in forums (it seems like it is a very common problem), none of which solved the problem, I reinstalled Windows 10. It's back to normal, updating at night, but I know at any moment Microsoft can screw up another update.
To me, this is one of the biggest issues with Windows Update: it's unreliability. When an update doesn't install, there's no reliable way to get it to work without shutting down services and deleting the updates folder; all technical tasks that most users don't know how to do.
I'm on insider updates and this happens occasionally on builds, but most of the time the updates apply just fine.
I have the same experience, and i always took this for granted... but after i bought a Macbook i learned there are actually operating systems where updating is flawless.
Windows updates are such a huge mess.
I was visiting my home town and was doing some genealogy work with my mom. When my niece and nephew came over I closed my laptop, not thinking about saving my work. The next day, when I opened up my laptop I found that it had decided to install an update overnight while asleep not connected to power. I lost 2 hours of work due to said update, because the update forced close the app I was using. I hadn't agreed to any update at that time, and back on other versions of windows I have it set inform me of updates before it does it.
For a long while, windows 10 updates would fail on another windows only computer. Any update that needed a reboot would cause a loop where windows would fail to start after update, windows would reboot, uninstall the failed update, and try to reinstall the update the next day. Even a full wipe of the system did fix the issue.
Updates went from a snooze button you could put off indefinitely for 15 min or 4 hours at a time (windows 7) to a one time 15 minute delay after which your computer automatically restarts (windows 10 on release). When you're in an hour-long skype business meeting or raiding a boss with 20+ other people, suddenly being shucked offline is terrible design. And it's not even just the restart, even the download (p2p in W10) can randomly render the pc unusable. And of course the restart is delayed for the installation which takes between zero and infinity minutes because the update wasn't tested properly before it was forcefed to a quarter billion machines. Then there's the actual content where windows update trumps the users decision to delete or limit microsoft apps and installs a bunch of telemetry bullshit you don't want.
Want to get in front of these problems? Good luck because there's no way to easily disable windows update. You can stop the service but it will randomly restart whenever it wants. You can use registry hacks to make it not restart and it will still randomly restart (did so a couple days ago). You can tell windows you have a metered connection but it will randomly ignore this.
Great startup idea: a utility that constantly turns windows update off, allows me to enable it for a few hours and redisables it afterwards. I would pay $20 for that right now.
On my Home edition machines, it's easily more than 3 times a year.
Windows is my daily driver too, and while I generally like Windows, the two things I hate the most are the updates and how bad the search is for launching apps (I know some people are going to chime in and say search is fine, but if you have a lot of apps installed, it can be laughably bad).
The search is absolutely terrible. And it's inconsistent. Sometimes I can type "no" and it'll come up with Notepad++ immediately. Other times I have to get all the way to the first + before it finds it. And still other times, it can't find it at all. That goes for all programs too, not just Notepad++.
I've somewhat tried using tools like Everything  but never given them more than a few tries before uninstalling. Maybe I should do it again.
I started using it in the WinXP days, stopped during Win7, (never used win8), and Win10 regressed in this department so badly I've returned to using this ancient software...
I've tried a bunch of stuff too, and even bought one (Listary), but from a muscle memory perspective, nothing beats hitting the Windows key with my pinky. I guess I could remap the Windows key, but I think that would have too many negative side effects.
I was on Mac as my daily driver for about a decade (but have no desire to go back), and Spotlight worked great as a launcher.
I think the variation in experiences is the variation of people with Cortana on. With Cortana on, I've never had a bad experience with app search in Windows 10. Using machines (such as work laptop) with Cortana off there are some very weird moments where search just stalls out that it shouldn't.
I think there are two trends that should help:
1) In Insider builds for the upcoming 19H1 release (round about March) they split app/local-machine search from Cortana UX again, and it's getting a lot more standalone testing because of that. (Pushing Cortana back more to the core voice search / assistant focus.)
2) Microsoft is in the early stages of the process of a big Bing "Enterprise" / "Cortana for Business" push. That may also help reduce some of the search differences between consumer uses of Windows and enterprise uses of Windows.
My problems have been less with stalling out, than horribly bad guesses at what I'm looking for.
Sometimes it correctly figures out a misspelling, but most of the time it doesn't. Sometimes it won't find a multiword application name unless you type in the first few characters of the first word of the application name. Sometimes you can type in the correct name, and it just pretends the app doesn't exist at all.
Considering that MS makes a search engine and Apple does not, it's suprising how much better Spotlight is at launching apps (I used to get 95+% accurate guess rate) than the Windows Start Search thingamabob is.
Indeed my main laptop is on Pro.
Btw I agree that the start menu search is unimaginably bad. Insane how so many gigahertzes can be wasted so much.
I'd upgrade my Home edition PC's to Pro, but for the features that I would benefit from (better update behaviour, remote desktop), it's not worth the expense to me. To upgrade an existing license from Home to Pro costs almost the same as buying a new Pro license.
Windows always peak at some new version and then goes downhill when changes are introduced for no good reason. 95/98, then 98+IE6 all over the place (even the desktop wallpaper!). XP, then vista. 8.1, then 10...
Now, after windows 10, the downgrades are incremental!
For example, surface tablet without a keyboard. When you wake the device the touchpad keyboard was always there. After some update, you have to touch the PIN input box to get a keyboard. And sometimes it doesn't show up. You have to lock and unlock the screen and then touch the pin input again. And that is just a very minimal example. Another example is that the first updates completely removed the windows 8.1 window theme, which was perfect for touch based systems. Another one i recall, an update removed the landscape/portrait toggle button and replaced it with a "lock screen rotation" one, that doesn't work in all orientations!
Honestly, I've been watching Windows users complain about Windows for many years now (decades?), and it's somehow both tiring and amusing. I guess humans just never learn.
That's got to be it!
Oh, and I've been gaming numerous times (when the toast notification is hidden so I don't see it and click it) and then bam, my PC decides to reboot itself.
Erm, if Windows 10 has only made you your machine reboot 3 times in a year, you're probably running an old and insecure patch version.
Almost everyone I know does do that.
Even if they do update, if you're putting your machine in sleep mode, I assume you'd have some state you didn't want to lose. Why would want a surprise in the morning?
Windows insists on making users stare at an endless blue screen while admonishing them "don't turn off your computer."
Meanwhile, MacOS completes the upgrades during boot up, and then has the courtesy to restore your apps - a trick that still makes me smile every time it happens. It probably takes about the same amount of time to apply the update, but feels much faster.
Update on shutdown is a bad policy. It's disruptive every time. Getting off the plane? Don't turn off your computer! Running late for an appointment? Don't turn off your computer! Going to sleep? Don't turn off your computer! Just lost power in a windstorm? Don't turn off your computer!
I'm sitting at my Mac right now and see an update notification popup in the upper right corner - it has been nagging me for days and every time it returns I wish it would remind me on shutdown when I don't intend to use my computer for a while. I click on on "try again tomorrow" although I know that there's no way I'll interrupt my work when the notification returns the next day. This continues until I actually remember to start the update instead of shutting down my Mac.
Otherwise I pretty much agree.
Just bought a new (well, refurb) XPS 9370, wiped it, and installed Fedora. I have to run Windows at work (corp policy), but they let me install Virtualbox (so I do all of my work in a Xubuntu VM), so, at least there's that.
Unwanted "new features" and the aspect of silently changing behaviour aside, the technology to patch files in memory and on disk without having to restart or otherwise disturb unnecessarily the entire system has been around for a very long time (and amusingly enough, malware is probably the biggest application of those techniques today); and sending only diffs instead of entire files which may be 99% the same as before would probably save a huge amount of bandwidth.
I do not know how true is that, but when I suggested he use MouseJiggler  he thanked me and told me 'it worked'. It is a stand-alone/portable .exe that 'does exactly what it says on the tin'. I use it to keep away screensavers/screenlocks (on machines I don't 100% control).
Edit: I keep away from W10 so I don't know to what extend this would help. I assume it would delay unwanted reboots, but I don't know the W10 update-forcing mechanism, and on the diagram depicted on the article I don't see any 'idling' criteria.
It changes the active hours every hour so that you will never be outside of active hours.
This technique was familiar to me from the Kindle jailbreaking scene, in which creating a directory with a certain path would cause the Kindle's auto-updater to error out when it tried to `rm` what it saw as a preexisting partially-downloaded update file (the Kindle's OS is Linux-based, so the file-delete operation fails on a directory).
 https://www.windowscentral.com/how-prevent-windows-10-reboot... (including the "Additional Steps")
Shift-shutdown didn't prevent this either.
Unexpected updates was a primary reason I am now using Linux full time (rather than part time as previously).
And that's what MS should be focusing on: doing the updates as unobtrusively as possible.
Edit: that’s not mentioning how Microsoft’s aggressive telemetry is probably exfiltraring sensitive corporate info unintentionally.
> they care about using their computer without forced interruptions
> MS should be focusing on: doing the updates as unobtrusively as possible
How exactly did your problem happen? There are ways to manage this so it doesn't cause this kind of loss. It's not ideal that you have to use them but if you work with valuable data you should take all precautions out of principle.
I now know there are (hacky, unsupported) ways around it. But on principle, I should not have to fight my OS for control of the computer.
(Which is too bad, because I would love to be able to stop dual booting just to be able to play some games.)
As to why someone would want to run this; there is a case where dual-boot is the only alternative : the practical difficulty, if you're a developer who runs Docker -- it doesn't play well with VirtualBox. https://forums.docker.com/t/running-docker-and-virtualbox-on...
In this case, a dual-boot is a superior solution.
Not quite. That only applies to "Docker for Windows/Mac", while a developer primarily running Linux would presumably run native Docker.
More generally, the actual problem here is that there can generally only be one hypervisor running at a time, since it grabs exclusive control of some system resources. Docker itself isn't a hypervisor, but DfW/M use the native hypervisor of their respective OS (Hyper-V and Hypervisor.Framework, respectively) to run the Linux distro boot2docker (where the actual Docker Engine is ran), and neither of those like to coexist with Virtualbox.
There is also the older Docker Toolbox (for both Windows and macOS) that used Virtualbox as its backing hypervisor, and so will happily coexist with other Vbox VMs.
But all of this is about coexisting hypervisors at the same "level". Some hypervisors (such as KVM) support nested virtualization, in which case you could run any (one) other hypervisor inside a VM managed by that hypervisor. For testing purposes I have ran DfW inside KVM, and it worked fine (if a bit slow).
However, even then the GPU's PCIe slot will need to be in a separate IOMMU group (generally only the case if it is connected directly to the CPU, bypassing the chipset, usually the case for 1-2 slots per mobo at most), which I strongly doubt Thunderbolt slots would be prioritized for.
I can do dual boot, but then I lose my dev environment, it's valuable to be able to apply a patch, compile a new version and try it on the Windows machine.
I finally gave in and ordered a Windows desktop box for testing yesterday.
For updates, I made it mutable, applied only the updates and made it immutable again.
The only other machine I have with Windows is a desktop I never turn off, so it updates itself when I'm not around.
Performance is basically native, I use it for PhotoShop and for video editing in Premiere. I was even playing with Propellorhead Reason the other day dabbling in making some music.
Modern x86's have instruction set extensions to make VMs almost free of any overhead. The only performance hit you have is for the memory you don't allocate to the VM.
Also disk I/O. Increased disk latency can kill the VM performance, and it will increase, if the virtual disk is inside a (sparse) file, inside a filesystem.
I'd love to do all development in Linux again but dual booting was too annoying. The way you do it sounds interesting.
And its not worth the upgrade treadmill of minor version bumps for essential features. Look no further than Linux/PowerShell that requires security turned down, and has almost no features. Its a hook to get you to use Windows.