Windows 10 Upgrades Cannot Be Stopped

Oh hech yes. Home users are notorious for not installing updates. Of course we as IT people deserve some of the blame ourselves. Our employees, customers, family members, etc. are taught (by us) to never click on anything they don't understand or think they need. Instead of calling for help or guidance they just leave the notifications sitting in the system tray.

I *wish* they'd stop calling for help/guidance. Its usually well after the fact of "I downloaded..." or "i clicked on..." :cool:
 
Buy nothing gets the 'Americans' more upset then a suggestion that someone is making them do something or controlling them.

Not all of us are like that - the message I get from many is:

"I have my rights, I can stick my thumb up my ass anytime, anywhere and you cant stop me!"

OK go stick your thumb up your ass.

"You cant make me, no way I am going to do that. I'm never doing that again just to prove you cant make me"

All that said, I do want some control over WHEN the updates install. Having a reboot during a RAID or other event is awful and evil.

Yes, Yes, I know some -few- updates have been fucked up. We all know quite well that given the very large number of updates, these stinking piles are few and far between, like shark attacks they get a whole lot of news and seem more prevalent then they really are. (Of course if your the one who got your foot bit by a 9 foot grey and needed over 100 stitches kinda sucks - do we tell people to never ever go in the ocean again?)

Anyhow, My thoughts and opinions on the matter.
 
I *wish* they'd stop calling for help/guidance. Its usually well after the fact of "I downloaded..." or "i clicked on..." :cool:

Not so long ago I got a call at work from a little old lady type. She had received one of 'those' emails.

She read it to me, typical scare mail, full of 1/2 truths and BS followed by Pay us now and we will fix it.

I gave her the advise and information about such emails.

She responded, Oh dear, they are in my computer now what should I do.
 
LOL, anyone else wondering if by doing this will put demand for IT persons to fix windows computers out of work?
 
LOL, anyone else wondering if by doing this will put demand for IT persons to fix windows computers out of work?

I don't get paid now from friends/family! :D Personally, a lot less work for me that I don't get paid for!
 
Don't worry boys, "The Scene" will remedy this.

Just legally get you a copy, and set it aside. You can then use a scene release that has all this crap cut it out.
 
Is there a way to come up with a law to ban corporate stupidity? I'm kidding because you'd have to define it anyway.

Aren't they aware of their own mistakes with updates? This is beyond weird.
 
Resistance is futile, and my OS will be absorbed into the Windows 10 collective? Lol, had to say it. ;)
 
Hi All

This is another reason for me to wait & see what Windows 10 is going to be about. You have a year for the free upgrade, ample time to hear what people have to say. If it's anything like Windows 8/8.1 I'll pass & see what the next version of Windows offers.
 
Fuck everyone. I have Home and a rig that can shit on most.

But then again I don't care about updates because they have never broke anything for me and my pc boots in less than 25 second so.....
 
Lmao, much ado about nothing.

My home machines can run 10 and get updates, sounds good, cause that is what they do now.

My hundreds of work machines will get updates whe we say they do. Nothing changes. We will test/eval the release ent version of 10, and start the rollout as machines are replaced.
 
I really don't blame MS, I'm not crazy about it and I hope a "power user" can delay them till it's convenient or blacklist one that might be problematic, but overall for the masses I don't blame em.

Not that they are in any way perfect or not still screw-ups plenty often, but imagine if you wrote some software, a hole or bug or something was discovered (or a hundred), you came up with a fix, offered it for free, and people still didn't use it but rather continued to bitch about it. What would you do after a decade or two of this?
"Now create the problem in the first place" isn't a practical answer, forcing updates to fix them is.

Linux became a truly viable daily use OS several years ago, it even games halfway decent now, so I'm really not too concerned, especially since 10 is free. It'll either be OK and yay, or it'll annoy me and I'll use Linux again for a few years and see what happens. MS has a lot of incentive not to screw up and make people upset so I'm moderately confident there will be a way to deal with this for those that should be.
 
Well said. Plus when apple does it everyone rejoices.

Compatibility aside I upgrade my personal machines to new versions once drivers are good to go.
 
Well said. Plus when apple does it everyone rejoices.

Compatibility aside I upgrade my personal machines to new versions once drivers are good to go.
Hi All

Not the same. All Apple machines are more or less the same. Windows machines have a much larger variety of hardware.
 
Who thinks this shit up? Seriously!

I'm in Rarotonga for four months and the internet here costs a freaking fortune! We have 2 laptops, and an Intel NUC for media server, and all have updates disabled for this time. If all of those machines were on Windows 10 and updating then it would soon be impossible to afford internet access. Heaven forbid that microcrap push out a fat 4GB turd (*cough* win 8.1 *cough*) our finances would be in serious trouble.

I hate to think what is going to happen to people who live in places like this their entire lives, their wealth (they are pretty poor to begin with) being sucked away by microcrap updates.

i understand where your coming from. and i agree there should be an option especially for paying customers to disable automatic updates, and to freely choose which updates they want to install and when ..... either due to internet costs .... or inconvenient time to be using up all your limited bandwidth when your doing something else atm ......

on the otherhand of the argument, lots of people don't manage their pcs by updating, and eventually they become a botnet after visiting some fishy site, open an email attachment or some stupid shit without having any security patch update to prevent them falling prey to some of the stuff that could have been preventable. so automatic updates by default would solve some of this.

and lastly another argument against, is how some of microsofts updates aren't that great when their fresh. because sometimes there were bugs and problems. so not everyone wants to be a guinea pig to test a buggy update. Some prefer to wait and see before installing ..... so this forced updates isn't great for that :[

if anything that is preventing people from adopting windows 10, this would probably be it. especially considering now even paid users are also susceptible to this apparently :eek:
 
Eventually, Windows is gonna have remote desktop enabled for MS "support" by default ...
 
Mircosoft just shot their feet big time.

I'm staying on Win 7.

My HTPC was already staying on Windows 7 anyways, since they eliminated media center.

But, even if Microsoft was still including Media center, the forced updates would be enough to keep me on Windows 7.
My HTPC needs to be up & running and ready to record shows for my family 24x7 (Sadly it's the most mission critical system in the house, as we rarely watch show live). I don't need some update causing the system to hang and not record one of the wife's favorite shows, or causing the system to not work all day until I come home and fix it. I run updates on MY schedule, when I have time to check and make sure everything is still working.
 
This is only applicable to Windows 10 Home users. Most of which are average consumers with very little PC Knowledge, so forcing updates upon them, is much safer than letting them skip all security updates. This doesn't apply to any other version of Windows 10.
 
This is only applicable to Windows 10 Home users. Most of which are average consumers with very little PC Knowledge, so forcing updates upon them, is much safer than letting them skip all security updates. This doesn't apply to any other version of Windows 10.

I run Windows home on most my home systems including my HTPC. Why should I have to pay extra just so I can disable automatic updates?

I have a laptop I bring with me when I travel (runs windows 7 home since that's what it shipped with). I always make sure it's up to date before I go, but I also turn off automatic updates, because I'm usually connecting over slow or expensive connections. The last thing I want is for the laptop to try and download a huge update while I'm checking my email while on a cruise ship, or use up all the data on my cell plan.

I'm sure there will be a way to block updates, just edit the host file, or add some entries to the firewall. The problem is that these solution will end up being worse than just setting Windows to notify you when there are updates, as people will likely just block the checking for updates and leave it.
So basically you end up with only 2 choices, forced automatic updates, or complete blocking of all updates.
 
... think they know more than Microsoft and never update, and then complain ...
Boom!

Cherry picking your comment here, but how many bad, machine crashing patches did Microsoft put out in the past 18 months? I remember three that affected about 15% of their install base (in its entirety)

;)
 
I run Windows home on most my home systems including my HTPC. Why should I have to pay extra just so I can disable automatic updates?

I have a laptop I bring with me when I travel (runs windows 7 home since that's what it shipped with). I always make sure it's up to date before I go, but I also turn off automatic updates, because I'm usually connecting over slow or expensive connections. The last thing I want is for the laptop to try and download a huge update while I'm checking my email while on a cruise ship, or use up all the data on my cell plan.

I'm sure there will be a way to block updates, just edit the host file, or add some entries to the firewall. The problem is that these solution will end up being worse than just setting Windows to notify you when there are updates, as people will likely just block the checking for updates and leave it.
So basically you end up with only 2 choices, forced automatic updates, or complete blocking of all updates.

Or buy the license commensurate with your usage.
 
I'm okay with this as long for my personal machine as long as it doesn't force automatic driver installs. Windows driver install system on 7 is a complete pain in the ass sometimes whether it's disabled or not.
 
Having a choice of when, and what updates to install is always a good thing.
 
Good, I can only hope this means less calls to fix my family's/family friends/ co-workers computers because they downloaded God knows what.

If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you and you aren't entitled to it. Windows 7 home support goes until 2020 last I checked.

If you have bandwidth issues by 2020, you will be in the small minority. In which case, sucks to be you.

The main thing that makes me cringe with this news, is the idea of having the MS curated set of drivers for my machine repeatedly overwriting the newest and or most reliable versions of drivers I have gotten installed after beating everything into submission.

The article makes it sound like you get everything or nothing. I'm really hoping that is just the author engaging in a bit of hyperbole/clickbaiting.
 
Good and it is about time they did this (at least the forced security update thing).
 
In a universe where MS never drops a windows update patch that wrecks a system, and windows update never crashes and force alt-tabs you from whatever you were doing, this is really great, this is perfect.
 
This should work well with the reduced security disclosures policy change from a few months ago!

lol W10 is looking like the NSA's wet dream.

That's the first thing that came to my mind. Does the NSA have there own workers in MS now?
 
What a lot of you are missing is the fact that there is going to be a fast ring and a slow ring, selectable by users. The fast ring will get updates faster. They're going to roll out an update to X amount of users on home version, make sure that update doesn't cause issues, then roll it out to X more users until home version has it, then they will move to professional version, do the same thing, ETC.

I honestly don't know why this is news. I'm thrilled, now when I'm fixing Joe Schmoe's computer I won't have to wait 2 hours for Windows to catch up on updates. 99.9 percent of updates have never caused issues on any of my home PC's. At work we will be on enterprise/school version and our updates will be managed by WSUS.
 
How is this new to anyone? This has been known for a while now. Overall this is a great thing has the majority of Windows users never install updates when they are suppose to. This leads to a higher percentage of infected machines. I for one welcome this. Why would not take any windows updates? Unless you are preventing the Windows Activation Tools patches for some "certain" reason.
 
Cherry picking your comment here, but how many bad, machine crashing patches did Microsoft put out in the past 18 months? I remember three that affected about 15% of their install base (in its entirety)

;)

Context..how many machines were turned into botnet machines completely loaded with malware because they weren't updated? Given we know that historically an unpatched machine has a 100% chance of being infected when connected to the internet, we can assume a Far higher percentage than what MS screwed up.

I run Windows home on most my home systems including my HTPC. Why should I have to pay extra just so I can disable automatic updates?

I have a laptop I bring with me when I travel (runs windows 7 home since that's what it shipped with). I always make sure it's up to date before I go, but I also turn off automatic updates, because I'm usually connecting over slow or expensive connections. The last thing I want is for the laptop to try and download a huge update while I'm checking my email while on a cruise ship, or use up all the data on my cell plan.

I'm sure there will be a way to block updates, just edit the host file, or add some entries to the firewall. The problem is that these solution will end up being worse than just setting Windows to notify you when there are updates, as people will likely just block the checking for updates and leave it.
So basically you end up with only 2 choices, forced automatic updates, or complete blocking of all updates.

It's simple. The overwhelming majority of people using home edition are idiots. As such because you want to save a few bucks, you are going to get treated like the majority. If you don't want to, then you pay for the decent version that gives you choice. I'm sorry that it inconveniences you to have to pay extra, but reality is this is going to be a major step to stamping out a huge chunk of botnets and malware moving forward. As a tech that to me absolutely trumps your trivial complaint of "It's going to cost me a small amount of extra money".
 
1. I cannot tell you how many people in the past 5 years that I have had to support who are running Windows XP SP1. Yes, years after Windows 7 has been released and had a service pack released, and Windows 8 has had it's service pack released, I still get people with Window XP SERVICE PACK 1!!!!.

2. Think back over the major Windows exploits that have been released. Yes, some are "new, unpatched" holes, but the majority were exploiting bugs and holes that Microsoft had already released a patch for, fixed, but there were many, many computers that had not ran the update to fix it.

3. How many regular home users (non IT workplace, etc) now simply use the recommended setting to download and install updates automatically anyway?
 
If Windows update causes a bug and you need to Format because of it people will be pissed....
 
I'll still get it because of Direct X12 not sure how many games will utilize it.
 
I think it's funny that anyone is making a big deal about this, it's exactly the same thing all their competitors do. Android, Mac OS, OS X, they all update using a rolling version update like this.
 
I think it's funny that anyone is making a big deal about this, it's exactly the same thing all their competitors do. Android, Mac OS, OS X, they all update using a rolling version update like this.

Up through OS X Mavericks, I have had the option to install the updates at a time of my choosing. I'm not sure about Yosemite because I haven't upgraded to it yet (I dislike the UI and I'm not really worried about the couple of malware variants that can potentially cripple my Mac). My Linux boxes (Mint, Debian, Ubuntu, Sabayon, etc.) also let me choose when to install their updates, but this could also be related to running a release or two behind current.

Microsoft is trying to balance security and convenience for their end users, but deciding what is the most convenient for everyone is the hang-up. There haven't been that many system-crippling update bugs in recent memory, so that is only a minor concern. The bigger concern will be for people that are on limited-bandwidth Internet connections or have data caps as part of their service. They have legitimate concerns, in my opinion.

While it is possible that some of them may actually become more educated on the subject by researching how to postpone their updates or block the connections to the update server, I think the majority will simply not have a clue about what is going on, just like we have right now. The benefit to them will be that they get updated to a more secure platform automatically, but it may come at the expense of data overages or bandwidth throttling, depending on the rest of their or their household's Internet usage habits.
 
Back
Top