Every time I see that hed I chuckle. The author of a story frequently doesn’t write the headline, so I’m not blaming Mehedi Hassan. I just find the wh
[See the full post at: Hassan: Windows 10 Won’t Waste Your Time With Unexpected Updates Anymore]
|
There are isolated problems with current patches, but they are well-known and documented on this site. |
-
Hassan: Windows 10 Won’t Waste Your Time With Unexpected Updates Anymore
- This topic has 107 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago.
AuthorViewing 41 reply threadsAuthor-
Yes, more telemetry please! 😉 I’m very keen to see if Microsoft can figure out when I go to the toilet to install updates when I p**p…
Antec P7 Silent * Corsair RM550x * ASUS TUF GAMING B560M-PLUS * Intel Core i5-11400F * 4 x 8 GB G.Skill Aegis DDR4 3200 MHz CL16 * Sapphire Radeon 6700 10GB * XPG GAMMIX S70 BLADE 1TB * SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB * DVD RW Lite-ON iHAS 124 * Windows 10 Pro 22H2 64-bit5 users thanked author for this post.
-
is implementing a new cloud-based logic for the Windows Update system, in order to avoid unexpected updates when you really need to get work done on your computer. The update utilizes a predictive model that will improve over time in order to better understand when you are going to use your device. This way, Windows can make sure it’s not disrupting your work and install the update when you are actually expecting it to. It will consider contextual things like if you were currently using your device before restarting or try to predict when you move from your device to grab a coffee, etc.
In other words, Big Brother will be watching you and learning your habits and ways, so that He can work within your way of doing things.
I’ll be sure to let all of my friends, relatives, and customers know about this.
Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM3 users thanked author for this post.
-
Mehedi Hassan works for Thurrott, but hopefully he’s not a blind Redmond follower. As for “cloud-based logic” to “predict” when to update… not necessary if MS gives us control back or does what they promise in setting up controls for US to use.
Bought a refurbished Windows 10 64-bit, currently updated to 22H2. Have broke the AC adapter cord going to the 8.1 machine, but before that, coaxed it into charging. Need to buy new adapter if wish to continue using it.
Wild Bill Rides Again...
New and improved updating? Please, no more Microsoft assistance.
On permanent hiatus {with backup and coffee}
offline▸ Win10Pro 2004.19041.572 x64 i3-3220 RAM8GB HDD Firefox83.0b3 WindowsDefender
offline▸ Acer TravelMate P215-52 RAM8GB Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1265 x64 i5-10210U SSD Firefox106.0 MicrosoftDefender
online▸ Win11Pro 22H2.22621.1992 x64 i5-9400 RAM16GB HDD Firefox116.0b3 MicrosoftDefenderThis is not the Wizard Of Oz and windows don’t need a brain to think with. After all, what kind of AI are you gonna have if you take into the account who programmed it. The apple don’t fall far from the tree. The only new feature Windows needs is a WU OFF – ON switch. I already installed one in mine and it works great, just like it should.
1 user thanked author for this post.
How do they come with all this ideas?
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
https://xkcd.com/323/ – sadly they’ve been in the “Win ME” phase for a couple of years.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
A.I.?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
A.I.?
Listen, farmers and ranchers have been using A.I. way before Microsoft or Google, or anyone else thought of it…
You know, artificial insemination…
oh… not that kind of A.I.?
Artificial Intelligence?
I’d settle for emotional intelligence… and ethics that respect personal boundaries and personal choice…
Microsoft- We need an off button for telemetry. We need to decide when and what and how we update. We need control over our computers. And if we don’t find that in a Microsoft product, we’ll go somewhere else…
Non-techy Win 10 Pro and Linux Mint experimenter
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Dear MS, see this comment – nothing more to say!!!
3 users thanked author for this post.
They’re coming to take us away
HeHe, HaHa, HoHo
To the Funny Farm
HeHe, HaHa, HoHo
Where life is beautiful every day
And the flowers bloom
HeHe, HaHa, HoHoAnd no control anymore
13 users thanked author for this post.
-
Oh dear!
Sounds like PKCano finally snapped! 😀
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
I think this is maybe what PK meant.
Fortran, C++, R, Python, Java, Matlab, HTML, CSS, etc.... coding is fun!
A weatherman that can code2 users thanked author for this post.
So in other words, they have a plan to fix an issue:
1) that was never an issue in the past
2) but is now an issue because of a decision they madeGun, meet foot. (Who am I kidding, they have no limbs left at this point, after all the shooting they’ve done to themselves.)
You just can’t make this stuff up.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
You just can’t make this stuff up.
A certain 1984 film already has..’skynet’, need I say more..
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created IT- AE1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I’ll see your 1984 movie and raise you a 1949 book. 😉
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
is implementing a new cloud-based logic for the Windows Update system, in order to avoid unexpected updates when you really need to get work done on your computer. The update utilizes a predictive model that will improve over time in order to better understand when you are going to use your device. This way, Windows can make sure it’s not disrupting your work and install the update when you are actually expecting it to. It will consider contextual things like if you were currently using your device before restarting or try to predict when you move from your device to grab a coffee, etc.
In other words, Big Brother will be watching you and learning your habits and ways, so that He can work within your way of doing things. I’ll be sure to let all of my friends, relatives, and customers know about this.
I don’t know what sorts of lengthy coffee breaks the person writing this gets, but this statement seems to fly directly in the face of the point of the entire article.
“..when you move from your device to grab a coffee..” is probably one of the worst conceivable times to have updates pushed upon you, because, for me it generally coincides with one of two things:
– The start of the workday
– The end of the day where I need that burst of caffeine to get something finished before going homeThink of all the money they could save if they stopped spending all this time on developing AI, and relied on real intelligence (i.e. the user) to make decisions.
And if you believe that I’ve got bridges for sale in London and Brooklyn. Now accepting best offer.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Think of all the money they could save if they stopped spending all this time on developing AI, and relied on real intelligence (i.e. the user) to make decisions.
Think of all the goodwill they would engender if they would allow the user to make the decisions.
I don’t mind Microsoft using AI to deal with security threats. But I most certainly do not want them using AI to manage my computer.
There seems to be a trend these days, and it is to do ever more for you, so that you have to do less and less for yourself. The problem is, you lose control of whatever it is they are doing for you; and you lose the ability to do for yourself.
Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM5 users thanked author for this post.
…aaand Microsoft just created an excuse for the telemetry that they can really “sell” to the update-weary Windows users. If the telemetry isn’t on and functioning, how will they grok out the right time to force updates on your PC without getting in your way?
They’ve been selling the “make Windows better” angle of why they have to have the telemetry, but that’s too vague and abstract. Updates that start installing at a really bad time, or a PC that won’t let you shut it down without doing updates (what if I am about to drop the laptop in a case and run out to the cab waiting to take me to the airport? Am I supposed to let it run inside the case and overheat because the air vents are blocked, or am I supposed to force it off and hope nothing gets corrupted?) are things that are a lot more real to the user. “Make Windows better” could be anything, but the promise of not updating when I need my PC is something that affects me personally.
Of course, the easiest way for Microsoft not to run into that problem is to stop forcing updates. Look at the convoluted mess they’ve created trying to make “we will install updates whenever we feel like it” work– metered connection settings, active hours settings, deferral settings, and now AI that’s supposed to guess when it would be a good time to take command of someone else’s PC without their permission.
If anyone thought removing the user from the process was going to make things simpler, well, guess again. It’s already more complex and confusing, but now AI is being thrown in? And we thought the random high CPU use (with one or more cores at max) was bad with the old system, and that wasn’t even anything traditionally CPU intensive. Linux somehow manages updates (figuring out which ones are needed, I mean) without me even noticing any uptick in CPU utilization, and my Linux laptops have little CPU usage meters in the panel (taskbar, in Redmondian), so I’d definitely have the chance to notice it.
Having that meter on Linux just highlights the stark contrast with Windows, where a process I didn’t start grabs lots of CPU time, is very common. The preinstalled Windows 10 on my new Acer Swift laptop was doing that without me having even installed any software in it (just the update to 1803). Some Intel process related to the TPM using half my CPU for no known reason (and with Defender using most of the remainder, but at least that finishes eventually)… and I’m not even using the TPM! This was with the out of the box configuration other than the MS updates (which, of course, happened by themselves as soon as I connected the PC to the internet).
If I were just a regular user who would never have much reason to open the Task Manager, I’d just use the laptop, and I’d have to wonder why I am not getting the battery life Acer promised from the thing (10 hours). It would be slower than normal too, but since the problem was there from the start, or close to it, they wouldn’t have formed an idea of how fast it should be. This laptop doesn’t have a fan, so there wouldn’t even be that to alert the user that something was amiss.
This is a big concern for me… I wonder what will happen to the users who are not aware of what’s going on with these “wastes of time,” and who don’t know enough about computers to be able to handle these things without calling someone. I’ve had a lot of friends and family members that I can imagine being bitten by this kind of thing.
And now MS wants to add AI to the Update mix. I can just see the complaints about unresponsive systems with fans screaming like banshees now.
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon (and Win 11 for maintenance)6 users thanked author for this post.
-
Hasn’t it been proven often enough that we can’t depend on users to get critical updates installed? (If we let them wait forever.)
“We” don’t need to worry about that. There is no “we” in that sense. There’s you, there’s me, and there are lots of others who each have their own idea of how they want their own computers to be. When you own something, you get to decide those kinds of things, and that’s that.
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon (and Win 11 for maintenance) -
“We trained a predictive model that can accurately predict when the right time to restart the device is.” sounds like an admirable improvement to me. You’d prefer the wrong time?
Don’t be silly.
But “accurately predict” the right time to restart my computer?? Don’t even try to…
-
Hasn’t it been proven often enough that we can’t depend on users to get critical updates installed? (If we let them wait forever.)
I see your point.
The only workaround I can think of — to put a short time limit on “really critical” updates, and a longer time limit on “we say they’re critical” updates — would be hard to implement.
Looking at this month’s .NET patches, and the original Win10 patches (all of which were absolute dogs), what would’ve worked? Not sure I have a good answer.
Other than Microsoft releasing much better patches, of course. Which would solve all the problems quite conclusively.
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
Hasn’t it been proven often enough that we can’t depend on users to get critical updates installed? (If we let them wait forever.)
@b, you’re right; there are a lot of users who will never install the critical updates. So how about if the user is presented with a choice, when they are doing the initial setup on their computer, to let Microsoft fully manage updates, let the user fully manage updates, or some options in between those two extremes? In fact, I would even agree to having Windows default to letting Microsoft fully manage updates, so long as the user can change that setting if he wants to. Defaulting to letting Microsoft fully manage updates would make sure that those who aren’t paying attention will get all the critical updates.You could even have an option whereby a button would pop-up on the screen: “Time to do updates! Click here to start the process.” And the user could decline if he wanted to. This button would pop up if the user wanted Microsoft to mostly (not fully) manage updates.
I work on a lot of computers; and quite frankly, I would set most of my friends, relatives, and customers on the first option (let Microsoft fully manage updates). But I wouldn’t set everyone that way. All of the computers in my house would be set to let me fully manage updates. And I would advise people like my sister, who is a power user and well aware of these issues, to mostly or fully manage updates herself.
I’ll bet just about everyone here at AskWoody would agree with giving a user the choice of letting Microsoft fully manage updates or letting the user fully manage updates.
Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM -
I’ll bet just about everyone here at AskWoody would agree with giving a user the choice of letting Microsoft fully manage updates or letting the user fully manage updates.
Wasn’t that option already present in Windows XP and 7?
César
-
b wrote; … Hasn’t it been proven often enough that we can’t depend on users to get critical updates installed? (If we let them wait forever.)
“we” = IT Admins.?
.
The main point is that M$ has been forcing auto-updates, restarts and Telemetry&Data collection from the computers of Win 10 users, in order to use them as unpaid Beta-testers for her updates = saved Testing-costs for M$ but likely added costs and/or time/data loss for the unpaid Beta-testers/users, eg costs of repairing computers borked by M$’s buggy updates, increased usage of Internet bandwidth, etc.2 users thanked author for this post.
“We trained a predictive model that can accurately predict when the right time to restart the device is.” sounds like an admirable improvement to me. You’d prefer the wrong time?
What would be admirable is Microsoft would stop disrespecting end-users, and remember that we bought our computers, and bought their software, and want to do what we want to do on our machines. Any telemetry needs to be OPT-IN ONLY. It would be nice, that if people do opt-in, that the telemetry would provide useful results, such as accurately predicting when to restart the device… but my computer should never restart unless I was given the choice to approve or disapprove… and it should never disrespect if I have disapproved… and it should ask respectfully, without nagging or the asking being disruptive in and of its-self. The idea of empowering A.I. to just go do things its way, without respecting that kind of choice, made by a human, is just plain abusive. Are you telling me that Microsoft couldn’t allow the A.I. to guess, but then require the guess to be confirmed yes, or no, by the end user, until it is 99.9% accurate? Even then, it needs a stop button that the end user can deploy, if it is wrong. Maybe, if no one has used a stop button, in 10 years, it could be retired… That way, the wrong time would never be an issue.
Hasn’t it been proven often enough that we can’t depend on users to get critical updates installed? (If we let them wait forever.)
Now, if you are in a business environment, you have a responsibility to install those critical updates at a time that doesn’t interfere with productivity… I recognize that. But I wouldn’t expect Microsoft to dictate what those hours of productivity should be. You, as the IT manager, and the business, should decide that.
But, believe it or not, it isn’t any of your business if I, or any end user, installs any critical update, ever. We can eat too much sugar, drink alcohol, indulge in mind altering substances, and walk across a busy street, staring at our cell phone, and join Group W and live update free forever after…
Mind you, people consult nutritionists and eat healthily, exercise regularly, wash their hands after using the facilities, stay sober, check for updates, and use cell phone’s safely, every single day. They get to choose where to live, work, play… and even what and when they do things on their own personal computers!
If Microsoft has a problem with end users’ being co-opted into bot nets, then they need to focus on structuring the software so it isn’t vulnerable, rather than forcing people into being monitored and forced to cooperate. What about developing computing where the programs and what they do and the data they store, happens locally? How about more ways for end users to view, get practical information about, and control communications in and out of, a device? How about a strong certification program, that lets end users know that something is telemetry and malware free, rather than deciding for them? How about giving end users control over what is installed in the first place? How about more sand-boxing, so there is no chance of a program mixing it up where it shouldn’t? How about increasing power and speed without building in malware and back doors?
What is so hard about Microsoft having basic respect for privacy and end user choice? They could experiment and refine A.I. and their OS and their Cloud services without violating their customers.
They are making a choice here, and it is abusive, and they need to be called on it.
Non-techy Win 10 Pro and Linux Mint experimenter
8 users thanked author for this post.
Hang on a minute… brb…
There! Done! Better get my regular snarky-fee send to Woody! 😀
With that license in the bag, here goes…
*breathing deep in*
With Windows 10 Redstone 5, Microsoft is making changes to the update system. The company is implementing a new cloud-based logic for the Windows Update system
Uuuhhh! Cloud-based!
Must be good then, though I for one would prefer to use my own strange kind of logic…
… in order to avoid unexpected updates when you really need to get work done on your computer.
You’re developing a cloud-based logic to… help me to avoid unexpected updates?!??
Why not save the money developing a guess based system and simply implement the end-user system already used in Windows 7? “Never check for updates” setting and a “Check for updates” button… has worked extremely well over the years and I feel, I have the control.
Hmmm… perhaps that’s the problem. Location of control point…
And btw. I only have a computer and it’s really for really, really need to get work done. And as you say “your computer”… it’s important you, Microsoft,keeps this in mind…
The update utilizes a predictive model that will improve over time in order to better understand when you are going to use your device.
For the love of God… how hard is it to predict that I’ll use my device, when I turn it on?
Drop the nonsense and the model, as it’s guesses will fail again and again.
You don’t have to psychoanalyze me to guess what’ll make me happy. Stay away and I’ll contact you… that is the scenario, that makes me happy!
This way, Windows can make sure it’s not disrupting your work and install the update when you are actually expecting it to.
Clicking “Check for updates” is even better! It let me have a look at what’s available and if I select anything (verified by the AskWoody gang!) and click the “Install now” button, it… it… it installs! 100% non-disruptive and 100% expectable!
We won’t talk about the one time, you changed the “Check for updates” button to mean “Hit me with whatever”…
It will consider contextual things like if you were currently using your device before restarting or try to predict when you move from your device to grab a coffee, etc.
I turn away and you’ll grab my system?
If I turn my camera on, can you tell me which facial expression will keep your fingers to yourself?
Stay the (ban-able words deleted) out of my life!
Microsoft says the company found the new model to produce “promising results” internally.
So even Microsoft employers moan? Ha!
I’m sure they’ll be thrilled by the new monitoring, guessing system…
…
This new system at first sounded a bit as something I’ve wished for before, but it fails and will bring nothing but new kinds of problems.
After request I got my “Windows 10 Workstation”, so here’s a new request… if i ever (ever!) should install it and actually use it, it needs to be free for this kind of big-brother-c**p-in-the-clouds-ai s*** and simply give me a switch. Like Windows 7…
Carry on! 😀
*breathes out*
10 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Watch the MS-DEFCON rating. Still too early to tell if the July patches will pass some sort of low bar muster.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Here’s a novel Idea “Microsnooze”, cast your mind back to Win’s Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, XP? we once had the ability to accept, ignore or defer updates through a little known utility called “Windows Update” and it worked well, so well you decided to change it. Now your dabbling with Cloud Based AI or whatever new fangled notion you came up with. Pray do tell how much did your foray in to the “Brave New World” cost? When all along not only have Millions of satisfied customers out there using it, its already been developed and paid for, but does actually allow the User to use their own naturally occurring AI (Brain) and make that decision for you.
Now you see how cheap was that? That should put another “Buck” on your grossly enlarged share price. Occasionally “Everything old can become new again” and we wont say a word out here. Promise!
Heck we may even be grateful, OBTW just a mere insignificant suggestion. If you did go back to the Old/New Model of updating could you please have the links actually go to a Web page of the relevant KB pending and not off to some Marketing Propaganda page, it helps our very own “onboard AI” make the right decision.Thx Long time M$ Sufferer
3 users thanked author for this post.
“Windows can make sure it’s not disrupting your work and install the update when you are actually expecting it to. It will consider contextual things like if you were currently using your device before restarting or try to predict when you move from your device to grab a coffee, etc.” This sounds more like more telemetry and more big brother of MS watching your activity.
“not disrupting your work and install the update when you are actually expecting it to.” When are people actually expecting MS updates?? If the user clicks “check for updates” that seems rather pointed that the person is looking, correct? How does MS know “I am ready for my updates”?
The only time people want an update is when they look for one. For the average user that does not care, they *never* go looking for updates. The updates just happen to them. There is already a time frame to not disturb the user “do not disturb” so why can not that be used? Why is it there? A message box could pop up and ask if it is a good time and if the person says no, this can be checked in a log file on the PC of every time they say no not now when is that? It is when they are working.This is too easy to solve. If MS just has the OS look and see when the PC is run and the keyboard and mouse are used constantly, one can see the hours of use by the mere activity of the PC! The “Personal Computer” or PC can learn when it is used and when it is sitting idle.
This idea of another new cloud-based idea is not needed and can easily be seen as more snooping into user activity.
I can not see how a company with internal corporate secrets could possibly use this OS for fear of loosing some confidential data. Private users also have confidential data like medical, taxes or family matters.
This is as good a Samsung telling people to not discuss private matters in front of the TV set because of the voice command system listening and sending data off to 3rd party reviewers.
-
“not disrupting your work and install the update when you are actually expecting it to.” When are people actually expecting MS updates?? If the user clicks “check for updates” that seems rather pointed that the person is looking, correct? How does MS know “I am ready for my updates”? The only time people want an update is when they look for one.
I agree with just about everything you said in your post, but on the quoted part I would go you one further: if I click on “check for updates” it doesn’t necessarily mean that I want to download and install updates right then and there. In fact, most of the time when I click on “check for updates” I simply want to know what updates have become available since the last time I checked. I’ll see what’s on offer and then decide if and (maybe) when to install them.
I don’t need Microsoft deciding when to install updates for me, any more than I need the government to decide for me when I should go to the doctor or eat my peas. Someone using @b’s line of thinking might point out that many people are remiss in these categories, but my answer is that’s their own business and none of mine. And certainly not of the busybodies out there, including Microsoft. Bug off!!!
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
The only time people want an update is when they look for one. For the average user that does not care, they *never* go looking for updates. The updates just happen to them.
In recent months, I agree – updates are just happening *to* us. Well put.
Group "L": Linux Mint
1 user thanked author for this post.
So, the way I see it, why is M$ even the least little bit concerned about updates anyway ? Make them available and let the customer choose if he or she wants to update or not. People make bad choices sometimes. If you image a system you can recover or if not, you can reinstall Windows. Why does this choice seem to bother them so much? Microsoft needs to key on turning out quality updates and not be so concerned about what you and I are doing. If I mess it up, I do it over. If they were as concerned about quality as much as they are about spying and sticking their noses into everyone business, it would be a lot better experience for everyone.
2 users thanked author for this post.
This is like a post I saw on another site the other day where the user was so excited that Windows 10 now has the ability to change inactive window color. You know, like every Windows version since at least Windows 95 had until it was unceremoniously removed from Windows 8. Now, praise be to the benevolent Microsoft for giving us this wonderful feature that we always had before!
If Microsoft REALLY wants to keep PC’s up to date, I’d recommend a strategy where the first orders of business are to
1) create patches that usually work without wreaking havoc. It seems obvious now that this means the end of the monolithic “cumulative update” approach.
2) create some sort of regular release cadence
The keen observer will note that, like the “inactive window color” “feature,” these were standard operating procedures before this colossal mess that is Windows 10.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Who is going to manage this new way of cloud A.I Microsoft Windows Updates? Clippy?
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
“I see that you’ve been able to accomplish an entire 2 hours of productive work of your own. Would you like me to help you ease back into the role of Microsoft beta tester by applying even more updates?”
Group "L": Linux Mint
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
No joke, I would transition all of my computers to Win10 if they made the AI Clippy. I’d still dual-boot something useful to do actual work, but for day-to-day that sounds hilarious.
1 user thanked author for this post.
So everything will be fine with this new A.I. until the day I’m working out of my usual patterns i.e. finishing something in the very last minute like some thesis, paper or dealing with a serious deadline, or buying an airplane ticket, and this A.I. will fail to reconize the exception and just reboots, s***ing my last minutes of valuable producting time and s***ing everything down.
Hey Micro$oft, how much A.I. on Automatic Updates do you need to understand this simple word made out of just two letters: NO!
3 users thanked author for this post.
Do I want Microsoft to know more about me?
This sounds like “Ok, guys, let’s brainstorm on how we could use the buzzword of the day to create something that looks like it adds value and is cool so we become more and more a lifestyle brand”. This is pathetic.
Ok, it’s simple. We have an issue with users not updating for maybe often bad reasons in the past, maybe not bad reasons at all today with the ongoing patches issues.
What can you do to help fix that? I will speak at home and SMB, not managed environments.
Feature updates is something that should be initiated by a user. I think they should have feature updates every 3 years with 3 years delay to install, but at the very least, not more than once a year and with 1 year delay. Not many people enjoy their OS changing when they don’t see enough value for it. Always show time remaining in days to install the updates. Tell me how great it is if you want when I look at details, but don’t interrupt my work and force me too quickly to install.
Security is a different thing, but if they stopped changing the OS constantly, there would be less disruptive patches and it wouldn’t be such a big deal to patch.
So, how do you do that? When a security patch is ready, produce a discreet warning in the taskbar that doesn’t interrupt any current activity. Stay there for a while. You can click for details. After a reasonable number of days, configurable, maybe do a more in your face warning. Maybe distinguish critical security issues patched from less important ones. But in all cases, let power users have a way to control the kind of warning they want. Just a taskbar icon that doesn’t interrupt you in the middle of a presentation is not that big of a deal. You can play the Askwoody game and delay patches, having a small reminder you are not fully up to date. But if someone really wants nothing to do with patches, why forcing it? Too bad for you, it’s your choice and we have warned you about security issues. Why is it Microsoft responsibility to coerce people into updating their computer?
The problem of mixing features, security and telemetry creates fear and distrust toward the patching process. Strongly suggested patching should not create issues like this if done properly. Was there that many people turning off updates in the past? If so, why? And why did Microsoft had to support them? Were they helpless users or power users who knew what they wanted?
Patches should be patches to ensure continued reliability of what you bought as a OS, not a bag of possibly unpleasant surprises.
As for feature updates, if they were left to the discretion of the user the way I described, I bet sometimes, someone would go and try it when they feel like it, take the time to review their settings and the new features after installation, that kind of time-consuming activity you might not want to do when you have work to do after you grabbed your coffee. And for those who would delay them to the maximum amount permitted, probably it is better for those users anyway to have waited for more stability and reduced the likelihood of issues because they probably prefer not to be bothered with the changes anyway, above everything else.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I see your point. The only workaround I can think of — to put a short time limit on “really critical” updates, and a longer time limit on “we say they’re critical” updates — would be hard to implement. Looking at this month’s .NET patches, and the original Win10 patches (all of which were absolute dogs), what would’ve worked? Not sure I have a good answer. Other than Microsoft releasing much better patches, of course. Which would solve all the problems quite conclusively.
I think I’d be satisfied with automatic “critical” updates if there was a more logical division between things like virus and security updates, and what flavor of mad tea partying they’re applying to the UI this week.
A lot of that does fall under simply releasing better patches, but the impression I’m getting is that each new build is changing bits of the fundamental architecture of the OS. Separating out critical security updates from interface and user experience features may not even be possible without a stable OS platform to build on, and with the WaaS methodology, the platform may never reach that kind of stability at all.
If every new major build acts like a brand new OS from the ground up, how do you standardize updates across that many versions simultaneously?
3 users thanked author for this post.
This means Win 10 1809 will have even more/deeper “spyware” or … Telemetry & Data collection by MS.
Micro-Borg says, “You will be assimilated, resistance is futile”.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I hope Microsoft does a better job with this AI than they did with chatbot Tay.
-
Nah, it’ll go to pot also 🙂
Ref: Kush tweets made by Tay
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created IT- AE1 user thanked author for this post.
Let’s be serious and break this down for a minute…
I think that all of this wouldn’t be a problem (and neither would the lack of control over picking and choosing updates in 10) IF the updates were like they were in the old days (XP? Vista? Early 7?) where the updates did not **** up your computer.Back then, I didn’t really bother reading the updates; I just installed them the day they came out. I think most people were like that. But we haven’t been that way in several years, if not longer.
Updates now routinely break more than they fix – back then, nothing was broken. (Or at least the likelihood was incredibly slim.)
The best thing they could have (and should have) done is give people the choice – fully automated or not, and the ability to switch post-OOBE setup. If you were automated, you got alerts that a reboot was needed, with a specific amount of time to delay (30-60 minutes per alert, max of, say 3 alerts).
The parallels with the lack of choices with Win10 to the lack of choices in Win8 with Metro being forced on non-touch device users is clear as day.
Furthermore, you’ve got Ubuntu offering LivePatching to even desktop users where updates are installed, even at the kernel level (IIRC), WITHOUT requiring a reboot. Come on guys. It’s plain to see that MS just does not care anymore in regards of what their users want. But surely, more Candy Crush Saga installs are on that list somewhere.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Strange that Thurrott article does not mention whether this will be implemented across the whole version or only on specific editions (Home, Pro etc..) Wonder what editions are going to be the guinea pigs?
No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created IT- AEHey Microsoft rather then complicate things even more. How about just letting the user decide when to install them?
1 user thanked author for this post.
The unthinking intrusiveness of this is astounding.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thinking that they can be this intrusive is what is astounding…
They’ve thought about it… and decided to develop and implement it… and have even worked on developing ways to prevent people from blocking it. That is a lot of thought… followed by action.
It is time that people move to other (non-Microsoft) OS and services… because Microsoft is working on developing the best malware that money can buy… not something I’m volunteering to partake in.
Non-techy Win 10 Pro and Linux Mint experimenter
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
@b-
You follow along here at AskWoody, and have more tech skills than I… so I’m sure you are aware that W10 frequently resets settings when doing feature updates… every 6 months, right? Its probably happened to you, unless you keep all default settings.
And then Microsoft has become more persistent, and sophisticated. Woody’s article, “How to block the Windows 10 April 2018 Update, version 1803, from installing”, details the three ‘oopsies’ where Microsoft ‘forgot’ to honor its own update settings, and the evolution of “Update Assistant”. Abbodi86 has more detail at Post #163295
A quote from Abbodi86, that the Update Assistant has evolved to:
“Fix and reset Windows Update-related parts to their “supported” configuration, i.e. restore registry settings, services status, schedule tasks, clear disk space, and launch UpdateAssistant.exe if installed. Mainly it’s meant to pave the way to receive the latest updates, whether quality updates, or feature update to latest Windows 10 version… it evolved from just fixing the Registry to restoring tasks and fixing the drivers DB, and compatibility for UAC management.. the main purpose or function did not change: re-allow blocked or disabled Windows Update”.
Mr.Brian did a great job of testing, and identifying KB 4023814.
Most end users who have had their attempts to block W10 updating, and stay on a preferred version, and had their attempts foiled probably use some words that we can’t print here, at AskWoody, without violating the rules… Once infected by KB 4023814 (contains Update Assistant), you can’t uninstall it. It doesn’t show up in your list of installed updates. It isn’t in the Microsoft Update Catalog either. Woody was emphatic, “Microsoft’s so gung-ho on blasting away your Windows Update blocks that it’s set up a regimen worthy of the finest malware.”
People wouldn’t have to work so hard to control updating, if Microsoft just provided a choice… and clearly Microsoft doesn’t want them to be able to vote with their settings, whether located in Windows Update, the Control Panel, or the Settings app. Behavior says more than their lack of documentation… but even a non-techy like me can see they are making it more difficult… my first hand experiences with W10 have been consistent with the reports of others regarding settings being over-ridden or ignored… its like it doesn’t matter what I want to do with my machine (if its on W10) regarding updates. I only have the Home version, but since Microsoft has degraded Pro features, it isn’t worthwhile to pay the extra money for it.
In the end, it is my user experience that counts… and Microsoft has been so blatantly invasive that the marketing double speak they engage in is worthless. In the end, to answer your question succinctly, I am confident in saying, techy or not, I do…
Non-techy Win 10 Pro and Linux Mint experimenter
5 users thanked author for this post.
-
… and have even worked on developing ways to prevent people from blocking it.
Who says?
@b, do you know something we don’t know? I can tell you from my own experience that Microsoft has tried to prevent people from blocking a forced upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10. I installed GWX Control Panel on my father-in-law’s computer, so that it would not be upgraded to Windows 10. About a month later I was at his house, and he told me that he was upgraded to Windows 10, without his knowledge or permission; and the upgrade bricked his computer. I am certain that Microsoft was well aware of the GWX Control Panel, and that people installed it in order to say NO to the upgrade to Windows 10; if they weren’t trying to prevent people from blocking the upgrade to 10, they would not have pushed the upgrade when GWX Control Panel was trying to block the upgrade.Also, there is the infamous example of the Windows 10 upgrade window popping up on the screen, and Microsoft interpreting clicking on the X as “Yes, I want the upgrade”.
Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
The X didn’t mean Yes, as there was no question. It meant Don’t Care, which it always does.
In the very previous version of GWX, the X in the corner was the only way to cancel the upgrade, since MS deliberately used an idiosyncratic interpretation of “Upgrade later” that no reasonable person would have foreseen, and they had failed to include a “cancel” button, in violation of their own UI standards. Once people got used to clicking the X to say no, MS changed it so that the X no longer meant no, and now clicking that only dismissed the dialog, not the upgrade. That’s “yes” in any reasonable, good-faith interpretation of the English language.
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/16GB & GTX1660ti, KDE Neon
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, KDE Neon (and Win 11 for maintenance)3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The following is from something I posted on Thurrott.com in 2016, when Microsoft was trying to trick people into installing Windows 10 (I’ve added some emphasis this time around):
If you don’t believe Malwaresoft is being deceptive with its latest dialogue boxes, you need to read their own design guidelines:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/desktop/uxguide/win-dialog-box
The Key phrases are:
“Make sure the Close button on the title bar has the same effect as Cancel or Close.”
“The Close button on the title bar should have the same effect as the Cancel or Close button within the dialog box. Never give it the same effect as OK.”
(With thanks to reader Doktornotor at askwoody.com.)
[Note: The link to the 2016 text is apparently no longer available, but it will take you to the most recent update of these design guidelines – May 31, 2018 – where the same wording still applies.]
That sure doesn’t sound like the X (Close button) was intended to mean “Don’t Care”, and it certainly doesn’t mean “I approve this installation.”
Surely you recall all the press about Microsoft violating their own guidelines to force the installation of Windows 10. Here’s a link to just one of the articles about it, you can certainly find lots more just by searching:
And here’s an excerpt from the above article that again reinforces the widely accepted thought/practice regarding X not meaning “Don’t Care” or “OK” but “Cancel” (again, added emphasis is mine):
In an interview with Windows Weekly, Chris Capossela, Microsoft’s Chief Marketing Officer, called the weeks between Microsoft’s initial patch update and the eventual decision to reverse course on the malware-like installer “very painful.” He continues:
‘We know we want people to be running Windows 10 from a security perspective, but finding the right balance where you’re not stepping over the line of being too aggressive is something we tried and for a lot of the year I think we got it right, but there was one particular moment in particular where, you know, the red X in the dialog box which typically means you cancel didn’t mean cancel.
And within a couple of hours of that hitting the world, with the listening systems we have we knew that we had gone too far…”
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
@mikefrommarkham gave a very thorough reply. I regret my own #post-206793 was incomplete. I’ll try again.
To my way of thinking, which is not the only way as there have been several ways to phrase the old y/n options, when closing out a selectable option you have a choice of Save changes or eXit without saving changes. And since introduced in Windows 95, or pretty much since always, the little grey [X] in the upper=right hand corner of a window frame meant just that. Many times we all were stung by the mental lapse to save our work before closing until we had been properly trained by failure.
Eventually closing was less like breaking as programming in an automated closing process became the norm. Later designers changed the palette and standardized a red [X] button. But I cannot remember a time that corner button ever meant “I don’t care what the result of this action is”. And it certainly never meant “Please initiate a system-wide change at the kernel level with no further approval or permission required. Thank you for taking control of this machine.”
The point is b, that’s creating the myth of “Don’t Care”. Ironic in the original setting of your comment. I do hope this has adequately answered your assertion of “since always.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
You know I was thinking about how I like to keep my PC (or server) running when I’m in the middle of doing things, and I don’t want my session to kill itself, even over a prolonged period of idling. It’d be great if Microsoft could implement their AI to keep track of this kind of stuff so it doesn’t force my PC to reboot during periods I don’t want it to.
Maybe it could ask me if when a good time to install updates would be, or maybe I could send a signal to their AI-in-the-sky that I’m done with my PC and am now ready to install updates. Maybe this can happen just before it shuts down my PC so I can reduce power consumption as well. I think the option can also be clearly labelled something like “Install Updates and Shut Down” to make it clear to both myself and the overlord AI that I’m confirming that I want to do this activity.
Oh well, maybe they’ll eventually reach a point where this is possible.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
@anon #206137
Maybe MS should have a Pop-up window with 2 buttons. One for Restart in 10 seconds to complete updates (for computer non-techies) and another for Restart later to complete updates (for techies) with a follow-up Drop-down menu for:
After I click Shutdown or Restart
After 1 hour
After 2 hours
After 6 hours
After 12 hours
After 1 day
After 2 days
After 1 week1 user thanked author for this post.
-
The newest version of the antivirus suite Avast, when it makes a change needing a reboot, has just that kind of a popup. One of the choices for when to reboot is “Next Century.” 🙂
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I have scheduled jobs 24/7 and I have to make a special effort to patch.
Under these conditions, would a predictive model determine it’s NEVER appropriate to yank the legs out from under my system’s chair? It had better, because that’s what would be necessary in my world.
I just rebooted my workstation today because I had purchased a USB 3.0 card to install to support faster backup, not to mention to open up the chassis and clean out the dust. I updated Skype to version 8 (Skypezilla) and did a number of other planned tool updates as well.
Why? Because the time was right.
I had carefully planned this downtime to be after a (successful) push to get some big product releases out, and I had also reduced my pending customer support to zero, when I had the hardware upgrade in hand.
Why? Because the availability of my computing resources is important to me.
Kind of a shame I had to reboot, actually; I had gone quite a while on that bootup and it had shown no sign of needing a reboot. Ah well, now I have 3x the I/O throughput, which will ease up some of the scheduled job crunch in the middle of the night.
I have an idea… Microsoft, instead of you trying to waste my computer’s time figuring out when it would be a good idea to reboot, just give me back the control to make system administration decisions that only I can make. My computer CANNOT outthink me. Stop trying to make it do so. It is just a tool.
-Noel
6 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
@b, what do you think of my idea to let the user decide if he wants Microsoft to fully manage updates, if he wants Microsoft to not manage updates at all, or if he wants something in between? And just to be on the safe side, Windows could default to the “fully manage” option and could make you have to confirm that you didn’t want that if you chose to manage updates yourself?
Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Can we assume it’s a given, then, that people NEED to be bothered with more advertising, more services to slow down their old hardware, more downtime to get patches that don’t work right, more GWX campaigns, and more new games added to their Start Menus?
I know, you’re implying that without patches, the OS would be a useless piece of security swiss cheese. Microsoft is so, so good to us for trickling out patches that fix the vulnerabilities they left in there in the first place.
Don’t look now, but your argument only holds water with a listener who honestly feels that Microsoft improves his or her computing world by pushing updates into their system. That used to be true, but inertia only goes so far.
Show of hands, who here believes Microsoft is actually helping them with each month’s updates nowadays? Note that I wouldn’t ask this if I didn’t expect folks to propose an opposing viewpoint.
I believe loss of control is a loss of value. Someone please show me how it is not. I’m willing to debate this and even learn from it.
-Noel
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
People who don’t understand updates would just switch them off so that they don’t need to be bothered.
The fact that a person switches off updates means that he doesn’t want them. So you are saying that Microsoft should ignore the clear wishes of the customer and force updates to that person’s computer?
Group "L" (Linux Mint)
with Windows 8.1 running in a VM1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ok my spreadsheet is scrolled to where I need it, my email with today’s workload in the bottom corner, my two web pages I will need and the raw database loaded and moved to where I need to start today. All good, I’ll just go get myself a coffee and then I’ll begin…
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Oops, the AI mistakenly thought you had left for the day and installed a Defender update that caused a reboot.
-Noel
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Defender updates don’t cause reboots.
Windows 11 Pro version 22H2 build 22621.2361 + Microsoft 365 + Edge
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Thanks for the correction to my joke. I simply didn’t know since I don’t use that POS. I have actual good security here along with a need for all the computer performance.
Substitute “.NET” for “Defender” in my comment above.
By the way, it’s RIDICULOUS that Windows should need any reboots. THAT’s my point here. Any OS maker who starts to embrace the concepts of “regularly needs reboot” or “regularly needs reinstallation” (another “feature” of recent development) isn’t serious about good design.
-Noel
4 users thanked author for this post.
-
-
Windows Defender is currently rated in the top tier for protection and usability, and only the second tier for performance
…as are 4 other products of the 18 (home) Windows products tested, but 3 of the others also rate top in performance (the 4th is the same rating as WD).
Their history shows WD is improving.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
@b, what do you think of my idea to let the user decide if he wants Microsoft to fully manage updates, if he wants Microsoft to not manage updates at all, or if he wants something in between? And just to be on the safe side, Windows could default to the “fully manage” option and could make you have to confirm that you didn’t want that if you chose to manage updates yourself?
That’s pretty much the way it works with Vista and Windows 7 and 8.x. The default value is to allow updates to download and install automatically. Non-techie Windows users may not even know that such a setting exists, so they get updated as a matter of course (Heaven protect them).
Which is why IMO the argument that some users won’t ever update their machines is well-nigh irrelevant. Such users will (almost by definition) be more tech-savvy and know what they are doing when they decline to install Windows patches.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
In fact, one could argue that the ones who aren’t up to date on patches nowadays most likely have to be tech savvy or have computers managed by someone that is, and that the current state of Windows patches is the reason why. After all, you would have to be knowledgeable to be able to block patches on Win 10 Home or defer them on other versions of Win 10, as well as know how to research the patches – and therefore are also the most likely candidate to also lose faith in MS and not blindly patch like they want you to do.
4 users thanked author for this post.
Hm, it’s only that MS tries to ‘estimate’ when you should not get the updates installed. I fear the scenario will change from ‘update in the middle of an important presentation’ to ‘darn, wanted to call it a day and switch off my system, but hey look whatks happening: an unexpected update. Byebye dinner and free evening’.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Kind of seems like they don’t really want you to RELY on their system, doesn’t it?
I’m imagining someone in Microsoft Management looked at their support costs and thought idly, “Why are these customers all acting so serious?”
-Noel
2 users thanked author for this post.
Viewing 41 reply threads
Plus Membership
Donations from Plus members keep this site going. You can identify the people who support AskWoody by the Plus badge on their avatars.
AskWoody Plus members not only get access to all of the contents of this site -- including Susan Bradley's frequently updated Patch Watch listing -- they also receive weekly AskWoody Plus Newsletters (formerly Windows Secrets Newsletter) and AskWoody Plus Alerts, emails when there are important breaking developments.
Get Plus!
Recent Topics
-
USA only – alert to be sent to all devices
by 31 minutes ago
-
Humane shows off its futuristic ‘Ai Pin’ wearable
by 4 hours, 1 minute ago
-
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon (Edge)
by 7 hours, 58 minutes ago
-
What happened to Web Select?
by 53 minutes ago
-
StatCounter : Windows 11’s market share is unchanged and not going anywhere.
by 11 hours, 9 minutes ago
-
How to view 1990’s files with graphics content. Lotus 123 .wk1/.FMT Harvard.DWG
by 7 hours, 12 minutes ago
-
macOS Sonoma can be installed on 83 unsupported Macs
by 19 hours, 28 minutes ago
-
Unable to create home network connection between Win 7 and Win 10 machines
by 3 hours, 34 minutes ago
-
Entering pin to start windows 11 22h2
by 21 hours, 53 minutes ago
-
Version 1809/Server 2019 kb5030214 problem question?
by 20 hours, 47 minutes ago
-
Ghacks Author Filter
by 20 hours, 8 minutes ago
-
ZenRAT Malware Targets Windows Users Via Fake Bitwarden Password Manager
by 1 day, 4 hours ago
-
Waterfox G just gets better and better
by 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
-
Microsoft Backup triggers help-desk calls and confusion
by 5 hours, 50 minutes ago
-
How Amazon ejected AI-written e-books from its bestseller lists
by 15 hours, 56 minutes ago
-
Ten stunning features in Microsoft Word
by 6 hours, 47 minutes ago
-
Thunderbolt
by 21 hours, 41 minutes ago
-
VeraCrypt updates
by 21 hours, 32 minutes ago
-
A.I. and AskWoody
by 1 day, 9 hours ago
-
Where is Windows Update?
by 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
-
mailwasher
by 1 day, 11 hours ago
-
Windows Photos
by 1 day, 12 hours ago
-
OT QuickBooks payroll module not letting you efile 941
by 1 day, 13 hours ago
-
MSA logins have been retired from DPC May 1st
by 1 day, 13 hours ago
-
Administrator Lock
by 1 day, 17 hours ago
-
Skype cancels loopback audio
by 1 day, 21 hours ago
-
Python re-installation
by 1 day, 4 hours ago
-
Finally updated to Thunderbird 115
by 6 hours, 50 minutes ago
-
Hard drive boot up problem in Windows AND Linux
by 7 hours, 36 minutes ago
-
WSUS fails to download monthly Cumulative Update for Windows 11 Version 22H2
by 1 day, 12 hours ago
