Who uses Auto update?

Do you let Microsoft update your system for you?

  • Yes, I let Microsoft do all the updating it wants, Microsoft has control.

    Votes: 54 51.9%

  • No, I have control over my system and updates.

    Votes: 50 48.1%
  • Total voters
    104
Nickbaldwin86

Nickbaldwin86

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,135
So do you use Auto update? Does Microsoft tell you when to update your system?

As a IT Tech I turn off just about ever possible thing that says "auto".

So of course my vote here is no.

I know some people even go as far as installing beta updates.

Just wandering why people play into it, or maybe I just don't like being controlled.

I find that most updates do more breaking then they do fixing if they are not tested first and then implemented correctly.

:cool:
 
i have mine set to auto-update.

i have had zero issues with anything. if i was that paranoid about being controlled i would run linux
 
Personally, I like to have the latest security updates ASAP. Windows has more than enough to wait on my lazy procrastinating ass to get around to manually updating. I see no reason not to. I came to my computer just this morning noticing that it had rebooted in the night on it's own due to pulling down 8-10 updates and rebooting after installing them. It's extremely rare for a Microsoft update to have negative effects on the OS, and none that I have effected me personally.

Peace of mind and I have more important things to do with my time than micro-manage Windows updates, or any other updates for that matter. If only more were as seamless as it.

These days, I rarely venture far outside of my RSS feed and a few forums, and it's been years since I had virus type issues. Even mainstream sites sometimes get infected via their advertising engines, or otherwise compromised.
 
I set it to auto-download & notify me. I tend to leave a lot of things running on my machine & I really hate walking up to my computer in the morning to find that it has rebooted.
 
I set it to auto-download but not auto-install.

so I guess my answer would be "no"?
but I don't disable all automatic stuff.


and I've had very very very very few updates ever harm a system, including the hundreds of computers that I support at work.


edit: oh wait... I do. I just have it set to not auto-restart. So then yes, I let it download and install.
 
Ah yes that is the other thing I was going to touch on...

auto restarting

and all the ANNOYING "you need to restart your computer" messages that pop up when you are in the middle of something way more important then restarting your computer
 
Monkey God said:
Auto download, I install.
Click to expand...

I can't knock that option... it at least gets the download there so you don't have to wait once you do want to install the update.

But again it still gives you the ANNOYING messages that you need to install the updates.

maybe those can be turned off?
 
I auto-install updates as well, I guess if at work it's not always wise to update before testing. Personally I would just auto-update and uninstall updates if they break things. I mean there's a small risk, but how much will you lose if a virus gets on your computers through an unpatched flaw and steals all your private IP/customer information/etc etc. Seems much worse, imo.
 
Nickbaldwin86 said:
I can't knock that option... it at least gets the download there so you don't have to wait once you do want to install the update.

But again it still gives you the ANNOYING messages that you need to install the updates.

maybe those can be turned off?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it can be turned off in totallity, but how would you know you had an update to install if it didn't inform you? :confused:
 
devil22 said:
I'm sure it can be turned off in totallity, but how would you know you had an update to install if it didn't inform you? :confused:
Click to expand...

I guess that is my problem... I don't like being told... I don't like pop ups... I would just check just like I check now if updates are needed for the system... key word... "needed"

You have have to update just because it is on the update list ;)

Another question would be... Who allows Windows to update their hardware?

Personally I block all hardware updates, if a new driver is "needed" then I go to the hardware website and download directly from them. (again shying away from Beta/prerelease drivers/software)
 
Probably not a huge amount of people that want "download updates and don't tell me, I'll just check if they downloaded and install them once in a while" so it'd be a waste of resources to put that in.

As for driver updates, I install those as well [except I seem to remember getting old vid card drivers in windows update, older than what I had installed, I wouldn't install those but I haven't seen that in a long time either.]
 
I set it to auto update everyone else's computer that I deal with...work, family, friends, etc. On mine, I have it prompt me when downloades are available.
 
Desktop - Auto install, virus scans, backup, whatever else needs doing at 10am. By then I'm either at work or passed out.
Netbook - Manual everything. I'll get to it eventually.
 
Menelmarar said:
I see no reason not to.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I trust that Microsoft has done adequate QA on the patches it releases and assume they won't cause unrecoverable issues. The only annoyance is that with some updates, Windows wants me to restart my machine and will nag me every 10 minutes until I do it (until I tell it to not nag me for 4 hours). If I were installing manually, I'd be able to choose when to install to prevent being pestered while I'm working.
 
the best you can do about the naggy "Windows needs to restart" is to modify local GP to get it so it only prompts you every 24 hrs, instead of every 10 minutes ;)

gpedit.msc -> Computer Config -> Admin Templates -> Windows Components -> Windows Update -> "Re-prompt for restart with scheduled installations" Enable and set to the max of 1440.
 
I leave mine to automatically download and nag me, but I don't automatically install them - not because I don't trust MS, because I don't want my computer randomly rebooting without me realizing it. For the most part, the second I see the update bubble I install the updates.
 
I like to choose when the updates get applied. Though rare it's nice to have an idea what was being done when a problem arises.
 
Another thing I might add...

I didn't want the downloads taking bandwidth. Say I am in the middle of a game and Windows decides to start downloading new updates. not only does it tax your machines bandwidth but it also taxes the internet connect you are on.

Any more it isn't as big of deal being on a 12Mb line with a i7, but nevertheless it is still taxing
 
For any system I configure for someone, I enable auto updating. For my own, I have it set to notify but let me choose to download.
 
I generally update manually come patch Tuesday but just in case I'm busy and forget I let the auto-update do it's thing.
 
I have two 2003 Servers that have had autoupdate turned on for the last 6 years. Never had an issue.
 
I do all updates rather right away but I care about what it is interrupting or when it is downloading something so I have it set to notify only for everything.
 
Nickbaldwin86 said:
I guess that is my problem... I don't like being told... I don't like pop ups... I would just check just like I check now if updates are needed for the system... key word... "needed"
Click to expand...
I prefer preventive maintenance. I want the update installed ASAP before my system is compromised by some exploit or hack. If the update wasn't *needed* Microsoft wouldn't waste the man power on creating the patch/update.

I think of in comparison to my car. I change my oil before the engine blows up... It's just too much a pita after it's gone boom.
 
I hate auto update because most the updates force you to restart your PC. I want to have full control over when and how often I restart.
 
When Windows 7 tells me it needs to install the updates (I have it set to download them but not install them automatically), I generally look over them just so I know what they do. As much as I want to uncheck the IE8 updates, I just let them get installed even though I never use IE.
 
As I rarely restart my systems I will download & install when I reboot or shut down the system. Haven't had any issues with this since I started using Windows :p
 
Nickbaldwin86 said:
Another thing I might add...

I didn't want the downloads taking bandwidth. Say I am in the middle of a game and Windows decides to start downloading new updates. not only does it tax your machines bandwidth but it also taxes the internet connect you are on.

Any more it isn't as big of deal being on a 12Mb line with a i7, but nevertheless it is still taxing
Click to expand...

You might want to read up on how MS patches download, its called BITS and came into play with Windows XP. It was one of the main features touted to make it easier on remote corporate users...

It only uses available bandwidth already not in use, even on dial-up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_Intelligent_Transfer_Service

Only when you as the user tell Windows Updates to download patches right then, does it use foreground priority for the downloads.
 
haven't noticed anything, but haven't used my home PC too much either so...
 
j-sta said:
so has anybody had problems yet since Tuesday?

Microsoft halts Windows Update distribution of security fix after blue-screen reports

MS10-015 (KB977165) is the culprit :p
Click to expand...

I've had one machine fall victim to it, out of several hundred machines. It's quick and easy to fix if you have recovery console or a windows cd available, it just requires going to the machine. I was going to pull the approval out of wsus, but since it's showing 98% installed, I haven't bothered.
 
Cax6ton said:
I've had one machine fall victim to it, out of several hundred machines. It's quick and easy to fix if you have recovery console or a windows cd available, it just requires going to the machine. I was going to pull the approval out of wsus, but since it's showing 98% installed, I haven't bothered.
Click to expand...

yeah... it was installed on my 2 boxes at work with no issues. But it was pulled from WSUS for the time being.

although they do offer a fix for the original issue that's just an MSI file.
 
I think this comment from the original link is closer to the truth - it's not the update, it's the machine. In our case, this was a machine that already had a lot of virus detections, and was far and away the heaviest internet user on the last few cymphonix reports. Once I replaced the sys file, I was able to apply the update, but only out of curiosity - I pulled the machine and threw it into the reformat pile.

*edit/update*
and on that note, after reading the article in Barnes' blog, not only did I leave it in WSUS, but I threw a deadline on it - it's a canary that will point out any other machines that need a brain wipe.
 
Last edited:
ameoba said:
I really hate walking up to my computer in the morning to find that it has rebooted.
Click to expand...

You hate it but you don't do anything about it? :eek:

Code: 
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU]
"NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers"=dword:00000001
 
At work, disabled in domain policy and the server. I'll push the updates when I think it's safe.

At home, they're all on automatic. The only minor annoyance with automatic updates is sleep would sometimes be replaced with shut down so Windows can update itself. But ah well, what's 30 seconds of start up?
 
Like some others who have already posted, I too have Windows automatically download updates, but then I pick when to actually install them. I like to go through the list and see what is being offered up to me, so when I click to install I click the Custom Install button so I can view all the updates first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top